--The church needs to abandon the old testament (as in pre-new covenant) traditions regarding women approaching the Bosom of the Father, the Holy of Holies.
I am sorry, but the priesthood that we have now is not "made up" from the old testament but it's established by Christ Himself with His Disciples in the New Testament. He didn't give the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" to Saint Mary His Mother, the greatest among the humans, nor to any of the Mary's of His female followers, nor any of the many other male followers and believers he had that were "greater" in faith than his disciples....NO. He gave that grace to specific individuals to do specific things within the Church He established. If you have a problem with that, mentioned it to Him when you meet Him in heaven after a long life on earth i hope.
--We need to remember that while we were tainted by the sin of Adam, we are also cleansed in the Precious Blood of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ. I urge you to remember that whoever society labeled "unclean" whether scriptural or not, Our Lord made it a point to embrace them, touch them, and invite them into His kingdom.
You are now mixing the issue of women getting ranks in priesthood with the issue of why women are told to not take communion or even enter church when they are going through the menstrual cycle (even though you didn't say it but i think that's what you are hinting to since you mentioned the label "unclean"). The latter i can't speak about here, but the former has nothing to do with it. we keep cycling to this topic so I'll try to find a good source for this.
--It's OK to have different roles, but when those roles allow for one gender to be completely left out of the Liturgy, and everything still be able to run normally, that's where the problem lies.
Please go to a convent and spent a couple of days there and I am sure you'll come back and see how incorrect your statement here is. If you are in the states, i recommend St. Mary and St. Demiana Atlanta Georgia. The Synod, just acknowledge it today as a legit coptic orthodox convent (the last formality in declaring it a convent)
--There is a good reason to allow women to play a larger role in the liturgy.
It's not about having a good or a bad reason from doing something. It's about what was established by Christ Himself and what we have received and continued doing.
--In addition to Jesus Christ first calling a woman to evangelism, it was actually His female followers who were most loyal to Him. 10 of His 11 remaining chosen disciples fled and did not go with him to the cross. While the 10 fled, St. John the Beloved and the women stayed with Him until His burial.
Again, i don't see how this example can be used to justify anything. please look at my comment above when you mentioned St. Mary Magdalene.
--It's not a whiny feminist "I want to be a man" situation. It's a, "I would like to be able contribute to the Liturgy and serve in the church the way that the women in the Gospels were allowed to serve our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."
For you to limit service to just the liturgy is a big mistake. Liturgy is a very small part of our worship to God. Don't limit yourself to that service. There is much more to do outside the liturgy and this is what God is looking for. He doesn't look at the works of a person but he looks at what these works do to our hearts and how did they bring us closer to HIM--and only HIM can see what's in the hearts and minds. Deacons are not getting a straight ticket to heaven neither does their service to the Altar guarantee that. What you are suggesting is in no way biblical. None of the duties that you want to be applied to women were done by women in the Gospels. In fact, the current duties of deaconess in the church is very very biblical and detailed.
I know of a hegumen's funeral, and his daughter was one of those who spoke a eulogy for her father in the Coptic Church. I know of a widow who spoke about her husband (and her husband's sister spoke too). So that particular issue seems more like a local problem.
Yes Mary was the first to know Christs resurrection, but in the Jewish law you needed a man as a witness and so the first thing Mary did was go tell the other apostles who went to see for themselves.
Speaking as a deacon myself, I would find it harder to find the purity of mind or feel comfortable, if there was a female doing the liturgy or being a reader,in that I can't perform my tasks without distraction. I'm sorry, but this is my feelings about it.
In the modern world, the notion of women's rights has being an issue in what is perceived as inequality. However, should this notion of women's rights also reflect in spiritual practices? What should be determined is what is the women's role in the spiritual aspects of the church and not a reflection of the outside world concerning women's rights, especially since we aren't supposed to live for this world and to seek the Kingdom of God, in which there are no males/females.
The original question is why can't women be "deacons"? Actually, women can be deacons, but the role is still questioned. Two schools of thought exist:
1. A female deacon is a tonsure, not an ordination in the sense of "laying of hands". Only a male deacon is such.
2. A female deacon is an ordination equal to the male deacon. HOWEVER...their roles are different. They still do not enter the altar or chant the gospel.
Therefore, the two schools of thought at least agree that the female deacon is a different role. Just because only a male deacon is allowed in the altar does not mean they are above the female deacon. Furthermore, the deacon here is fully consecrated to the service of the Church, whether you're married or not. Before, there were virgins and widows that would become female deacons, and usually over the age of 60. Later on, in the fifth century, Chalcedon documented a canon that lowered the age to 40, which may indicate a general trend of allowing the deaconate for the women at a younger age. It is well known also the mother of St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Nonna, was a female deacon, the wife of a bishop, also named St. Gregory.
One other thing regarding the "priesthood". While it is generally understood to be deacons, presbyters, and bishops, in actuality, there is a lot of nuance in the word, and it needs further clarification. There is a general priesthood that is given at chrismation to all. There are then other roles and orders in the Church. There are some orders, known today as the "minor" orders, but they are certainly not the "least" orders. These include cantors, readers, doorkeepers, exorcists, virgins, widows, etc. Then you may also have subdeacons, and it is rather unknown still in what sense they are included in the orders, whether "minor" or "major". You then have the deacons, male and female, and those are the hands of bishop, and the presbyters become the fellow servants of the bishop in leading the Eucharistic service.
The only ones allowed in the altar are the ones the bishop allows. If the bishop gives the authority to the presbyter, the presbyter allows. In the ancient canons, only deacons, and if necessary subdeacons are allowed, and only those for that day. Those the presbyter or bishop has not called to enter the altar are not allowed inside, even if they are at the rank of deacon. Technically speaking, no reader or cantor or any other minor order is allowed in the sanctuary, whether male or female. A very high respect is required for the altar, and sadly, some men do think they are "entitled" to enter when they shouldn't.
In California, you have now female cantors alongside male ones. That's fine. They chant. Everyone must chant, male or female. There is no restriction on chanting. I will even add that it is obligatory that male and female chant, not merely voluntary.
Reading is a complicated issue. We have yet to understand the canon laws governing reading. In the convents, you tend to have female readers and subdeacons, and so thus far it has become only a female monastic order. There are other Orthodox churches that do let women read the epistles. But never the gospel. In fact, just as the bishop or presbyter are the only ones allowed to lead the Eucharist, so should a bishop or presbyter the only ones allowed to chant the gospel. The fact that we have allowed lower levels like deacons or even readers is ... I believe should be abolished, just as I believe the altar entrance should be EXTREMELY restricted. Only the one who will lead the Eucharist should be the one who will chant the gospel, unless there is some health reason that does not allow him to fully lead the service.
St. Paul teaches order in the liturgy. We should follow this order. There are no "rights" in the service. No one is entitled to a particular order. We are only called. Furthermore, we become shadows and symbols of the heavenly worship and the Trinitarian life. The Didascalia writes that the bishop represents the Father, the male deacon represents the Son, the female deacon represents the Holy Spirit, and the presbyters represent the council of the Apostles. This is reiterated by St. Ignatius as well. Every Christian must strive to be a good "deacon" in spirituality, and every presbyter and bishop must already be "deacons" by spiritual example. Christ Himself was called a deacon.The deacon is the goal in spiritual life. That does not mean you are entitled to be ordained a deacon. But it means you are to serve with humility, diligence, and love. The deaconate, male or female, is there to remind us of our Christian goal and duty, not as a way to wonder why I shouldn't fill his/her shoes.
1. I would like to sincerely apologize for starting to get aggressive yesterday. I hope you will forgive me.
2. I would like to elaborate a little more on what I was saying, because I don't think I was entirely clear.
In the Coptic Church where I grew up all men (deacons or not) were given Holy Communion in the main Alter, the young pre-pubescent girls were also given Holy Communion in the main Alter. Post-pubescent girls and women were not. This was to emulate the old covenant law regarding women in the Temple, (and the reason St. Mary had to be betrothed to St. Joseph). This is what I was referring to when I spoke of men entering the Holy of Holies, not necessarily service.
I also used the example of St. Mary Magdeline being the first to see the Risen Christ Himself because when she saw Him, He actually called her to evangelism. He called her to "Go and tell My disciples to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me." In this situation, God called a woman to go to a room of 11 men and tell them what to do to see Him. I used that example to show that women can and have been called to such roles by God Himself. When talking of "rights" in the liturgy I understand that there are callings rather than "rights", but as I elaborated on, women are not exempt from these "callings" especially since a woman was the first called (by God Himself) to evangelize the Holy Resurrection.
It is also very confusing to me in another sense. Because on one hand we say that women have no designated role in liturgy, and on another hand we say that liturgy is supposed to try to emulate the Kingdom of Heaven. (In which there is no male or female). In saying these 2 things, are we implying that it is also only men who have a role in Heaven?
I understand that the Holy Bible says that a woman is not to teach or usurp authority over a man, but I fail to understand how reading aloud from the Holy Bible without teaching meaning or interpretation usurps authority? Or does that tie into the "silence" factor?
When I said there can be no liturgy with only women and a priest, I was correct because I did not mention the deacon. If there is no deacon there is no liturgy, so you need at least 2 men (priest and deacon) to perform a liturgy. That's what I was referring to by saying that.
I also understand that there are more ways to serve than in the Liturgy, but at the same time believing that they should have the opportunity available for some for of service within the Liturgy, I believe, is not restrictive. Even when speaking of head coverings, St. Paul says that a womsn should cover her head when praying or prophesying. Does the fact that he included "or prophesying" signify that a woman can be called to liturgical roles, or is this referring to prophesying in other contexts?
I appreciate your responses, and again, I am very sorry for getting aggressive yesterday.
--In the Copic Church where I grew up all men (deacons or not) were given Holy Communion in the main Alter, the young pre-pubescent girls were also given Holy Communion in the main Alter. Post-pubescent girls and women were not. This was to emulate the old covenant law regarding women in the Temple, (and the reason St. Mary had to be betrothed to St. Joseph). This is what I was referring to when I spoke of men entering the Holy of Holies, not necessarily service.
Sadly to say, this is a not proper. no kids or anyone who doesn't serve the altar should enter it. The reasoning you just listed is an incorrect justification for the improper practice and we are slowly are learning more about the correct practice.
--I understand that the Holy Bible says that a woman is not to teach or usurp authority over a man, but I fail to understand how reading aloud from the Holy Bible without teaching meaning or interpretation usurps authority? Or does that tie into the "silence" factor?
Reading the bible is not an issue. It's in what manner and setting is that being done. If it is in a liturgical manner, then it should be done by those who are set apart (readers) to do so. In the liturgy, we use to let men without tonia read the epistles considering that weekdays liturgies have few deacons. But we have stopped that a couple of years ago with the increase of readers in church and learning and understanding the duties for each person in church. Some times copts in colleges do an on-campus pascha. Even though abouna leads the prayer, and you have many many guys that are deacon there, girls do read any of the prayers. WHY is that ok?! it's because they are not in church.
--When I said there can be no liturgy with only women and a priest, I was correct because I did not mention the deacon. If there is no deacon there is no liturgy, so you need at least 2 men (priest and deacon) to perform a liturgy. That's what I was referring to by saying that.
But this way, we fall into the same problem again, which is comparing genders rather than roles in church. All deacons are males, but not all males are deacons. deacons are set apart to do a specific duties and therefore, within the context of the liturgy, they are not of the same rank as a congregation member.
--I also understand that there are more ways to serve than in the Liturgy, but at the same time believing that they should have the opportunity available for some for of service within the Liturgy, I believe, is not restrictive. Even when speaking of head coverings, St. Paul says that a womsn should cover her head when praying or prophesying. Does the fact that he included "or prophesying" signify that a woman can be called to liturgical roles, or is this referring to prophesying in other contexts?
I think you are just picking out specific verses that show potential for women to serve....the issue is not that women can or cannot serve as a priest, as in having the ability to do, but it's about what each person is called for within the Church.
Also, this is the verse:
1 Corinthians 11:5
But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved.
Prophesying is a gift/grace that is separate from the grace that the priests gets to serve. In the Old Testaments prophets were different from priests.
I mean that first thing, I saw it for most of my life, so I guess I assumed that's how it was supposed to be. And the justification kind of made sense since that's how it was with women entering the Temple in the Holy Bible. Another thing I wonder, however, is how we know that women are not called to serve in the liturgy? Like how do we know that the reason they did not do that in the Bible was because they were not called rather than due to the culture surrounding common roles of men and women in those times?
Our church traditions and doctrines sometimes do come into conflict in were we are at in any given time of our own personal live i.e. feelings of independence when growing up and outside influences of cultural peer pressures and I feel you have respect for those traditions, and there is no harm in questioning them. Then even if there is a part of your own personal life where you are seeking fulfilment or been complete you might have to accept, hopefully, appropriate roles that are traditional. True happiness is contentment: that is big or small you humbly accept something and by being gratified you honour.
I pray you are not to troubled Lovejoypeace and remember our Lord Jesus when He says; Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.
I think you ask very good questions, and it's understandable from your vantage point in how these are perceived. One of the things you might need to realize is that the Coptic Church just came out of "survival mode", so there are a few things we do in liturgy that technically shouldn't be done.
The fact that there were women deacons in the ancient church is also important. That means that there are roles for women in the liturgy. But we have yet to fully understand the proper theological background in this role. There are books written about this subject and sometimes they conflict. We have rules about what a woman deacon is for now, but as more research comes, we could go back and consider whether we should do some changes to reflect our ancient Orthodox practices, not to accommodate for modern sociological trends (that's important to highlight; we don't want to submit to cultural standards, but we are the ones who are supposed to get the culture to raise their standards in a divine manner).
You should encourage yourself to read a lot of the Church fathers as well as see what sister Orthodox churches do and say about this as well.
One thing I take issue with what you said is that you seem to be not able to connect that idea that the liturgy is the moment when you are spending time in the Kingdom of God, and yet because you perceive that since you have no role in the liturgy, you have no role in the Kingdom. This can't be further from the truth.
First of all, the liturgy is EVERYTHING. You don't separate service in the liturgy with service of other things. The liturgy continues when you serve outside the parish. This is one of those examples where the Coptic Church needs to rediscover proper liturgical theology. The Eastern Orthodox have good books on this now, and a pioneer in this study is a man by the name of Fr. Alexander Schmemman.
Second of all, the liturgy is not an icon of the Kingdom. It IS the Kingdom present through icons of what we can see (except the Eucharist is not an icon, but the actual Body and Blood of Christ). So our maleness and femaleness become icons of something grander. When we say "icons" that means when that day of the second coming happens these "icons" turn into realities. But we also are partaking of that reality as well. We are in the second coming when we pray the liturgy. Male and female have been icons of mainly two things. First Christ and the Church. Second the Father and the Son. Notice there is a sense of submission, but not in inequality. When the second coming happens, we are all placed in that position when we, in communion with the Son as the Church, will be in the bosom of the Father as the Son is. There will no bishop, presbyter, deacon, altar table, saints icons, church vessels, male, or female (since these are all icons), but Christ Himself, giving us His own body and blood, and bringing us into His own dignity and honor into the Father. That is what we do in the liturgy, and eventually all these gifts (ordination and the deaconate) will go away, because we will have no greater joy than sitting side to side on a throne next to the divine Word Himself! All of this is a temporary icon to the reality of our glorification in Christ, which leads one to be humble and patient about these temporary tonsuring and ordination issues that we have, which, while important, are not as significant as what they LEAD TO in the second coming.
Third of all, let us pray that we read more, study more, understand more without jumping to conclusions. This is a subject that interests me, and I learn new things along the way. It is something that we need to help each other with. There are many female theologians today who love the church and seek these answers like you with the right mindset. One person I particularly like to listen to is Presbyteria (the Greek Orthodox equivalent of "Tasoni") Eugenia Constantinou, who does these Bible Study podcasts called "Search the Scriptures". When she discusses the chapters in Exodus on the ark and the Tabernacle and Holy of Holies, she talks also about the rules involving women and the altar. It's very enlightening and I think you will find that she removes certain misconceived notions regarding the topic while maintaining an important reverence to Orthodox tradition and praxis.
There are many ways to answer that question. Could there be sexism among Copts? Yes, Copts are humans with flaws like anyone else. Could there be some Coptic Church practices that favor men more unfairly? I think so, especially in the area of chanting and theological education, and that needs changing.
But are the Holy Orders a "right" for everyone to aspire to, like being a physician or a president of a country? NO! No one has a right to become a deacon, presbyter, of bishop, but is called, and the Church has a theological reason for some gender restriction in this area, and we need to respect that.
I understand. I didn't ask about that though. What I was wondering was how we know that women are not called to be deacons. Like is it possible that the reason they did not serve such roles in the Holy Bible was not because they weren't called, but rather because of the culture of the time and place?
To offer a quick answer, I honestly don't think so. Yes the culture was strongly patriarchal, but the Church has also surpassed those as well in certain areas. Has the Church eventually given less roles to women over time. Yes, and that could be due to culture, but also some argue due to less need for them as well.
My take on this is that even if your remove all the cultural influences, you still find the restrictions take an important theological understanding, which I outlined earlier.
I'll be honest, I don't believe that it was due to "less need". Culture, maybe, since Egypt is still a pretty patriarchal country. But if the early church had women serving as deacons then what changed that we no longer have this? And if it was an overflow of deacons, then why not put a restriction on the number of deacons instead of eliminating women? I don't know. I guess I've generally felt kind of discouraged from these things, but a few weeks ago (actually the weekend right after the bulk of this discussion happened) I was in Saturday morning Liturgy, and the Pauline Epistle, I felt like was God speaking directly to me. It was from 1 Corinthians Chapter 12:15-20
"If the foot should say, because I am not a hand I am not of the body, is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear should say, because I am not an eye I am not of the body, is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole we're hearing where would be the smelling? But now God has set the members each one of them, in the body just as he pleased. And if they were all one member, where would the body be? But now indeed there are many members but one body."
This reading really helped me a lot with my discouraged feelings. I thank God for this message (which sometimes I still have to remind myself of when I start to feel discouraged again), and I also want to thank you all for having patiently answered my questions. God bless you all. :)
--I'll be honest, I don't believe that it was due to "less need". Culture, maybe, since Egypt is still a pretty patriarchal country. But if the early church had women serving as deacons then what changed that we no longer have this?
I can't disagree about culture having an affect on women serving in the Church...but i still think that there is a misunderstanding among women/girls in general about what duties and requirements the rank of deaconess has in the Church when it was established. It's different from the deacons', and none of the deaconess duties include entering the Sanctuary (just one of the many examples). The readings you mentioned is perfect for justifying each one's role in the Church.
Just another side question I have as well, if you don't mind. Why is it that parents have their sons ordained as sub-deacons at such young ages-- in some cases before they are even old enough to begin school? Doesn't that seem a little young, and it also seems to put a damper on ordaining the called, since they are too young to willfully respond to God's call (without parental influence)? I'm not really sure. I may be mistaken.
We do have a problem in deaconship where ranks are given in a young age thinking that it will help the child grow into the rank and does its duties....but that rarely happens. Recently through, bishops have been more aware of this problem and give ranks with consideration of the age. Of course there are much more requirements that I would like to see, but atleast that's progress.
<A young oghnostos deacon's opinion below> 1- Deaconesses (female deacon equivalents, in any form) DO exist. They are the girls who usher the communion, who run the microphone and projector systems, etc. Whoever reads this, know that the word "deacon" meant "servant" or "helper" in old languages (I think... it's been a while.) A deaconess would be a female servant or helper. Deaconesses ARE: --Equal to deacons --100% needed in any church --Essential to any part of the church
Deaconesses ARE NOT: --Less than deacons --"Having less service" than deacons (Different doesn't mean less) -A deacon in the altar saying a response is no more important than the woman working the AV system to keep all the mics working :) --A product of sexism and patriarchism
The reason I've been told that female deacons aren't ordained like male deacons is that Jesus Christ did not call his female followers the same way he called his 12 13 disciples. Yet the women were 100% needed in the story of Jesus' life- they were, as has been said many times, the first ones at the tomb, and Mary Magdalene was the first one Jesus spoke to that Sunday morning.
++OFF TOPIC- ON THE TOPIC OF YOUNG DEACONS AND THE ALTAR++ I have been in the altar. I know how to. Yet, I am an oghnostos- shouldn't I be reading and chanting? Well, the problem is, my church has no subdeacons or deacons. We have 7 oghnostiis and a vast number of oghnostiis-in-training epsaltiis. St. Abanoub's Church (where I am from) is coming up on its third birthday in Kiahk; there hasn't been time to ordain a handful of subdeacons or deacons to serve inside. However, I'd rather bend the rules at the beginning of a church's lifespan than ordain a 9-year-old deacon.
I recommend this idea/system for any new churches, as it's worked (mostly) fine for us: Every week, 2 knowledgable oghnostiis and 2 learning epsaltiis or oghnostiis are in the altar. The rest of the epsaltiis chant and do the Agpeya readings to become accustomed to reading. The 3 Bible readings (Pauline, Catholic, Acts) are to be read either by adult epsaltiis or oghnostiis. The Gospel and Psalm are to be read by a knowledgeable oghnostos or by Abouna/Sayyedna. Predetermine all of these things, and some major responses that cannot be determined immediately (ex: khen pikhristos and tas ke-felas, Amen Ti-nahti/I believe, en-sofia, etc..) Saturday night via a meeting or group chat. Use this for all annual days, ie, no fast or feast days, as to not confuse the learning deacons.
^-Proof of why to do this: A young deacon once said the entire Offertory in the festive tune.... in Lent. He didn't know the difference between the fasting time period and the festive time period, and he had learned all his responses from practice on the altar during festive days and last year's Holy 50.
There's a lot I could write, but I'm going to leave it there. Please feel free to yell at correct me. Aripameui qen `pyi `m`P=o=c, Daniel.
@Daniel_Kyrillos...So there are some problems with whatever you said in the first section:
1-Deaconesses in the church are NOT the equivalent of deacons since their duties are totally different. You can't just say that a deacon or a deaconess is any servant in the Church since again, they are not the same. Any member of the church must be a servant/helper in the church but deacons or deaconesses are not just like any members in the Church but they are set apart and consecrated to do something specific in the church. Now, neither deacons or deaconesses have to do anything with mics and projectors but normally it's given to whoever knows how to do it. We don't have a rank for that job in Church. For helping communion, I would say it's part of organization in church in general, so the duty would fall on sub-deacons in general, and deaconesses (and their ranks) specifically for women when needed.
2- The word "Equal"--the word is overrated and it really doesn't help to use in this context. questions arise when you use it, what are you really comparing? if they are equal, then why are their duties not the same? why can't women also enter the alter like men do if they are also equal?!
3- "The reason I've been told ... is that Jesus Christ did not call his female followers the same way ..."
I am not sure if that answer is good enough. I think God called everyone in the same way--to receive His free salvation--but He called some for a specific grace--that's priesthood. In our coptic church, all the ranks of deacons are considered parts of the priesthood, and since the orthodox Church testified for priesthood to be a grace only available for men, then only mean in our church can become deacons for VERY SPECIFIC DUTIES.
To summarize whatever you said in the second part of your comment, we just make exceptions for specific reasons in service. So, canons say that only full deacons should enter the Sanctuary. Considering that not many are these days, the Church allowed the exception of subdeacons to enter. Then we changed that further to include readers and chanters. the bottom line is, as long as there is a reason, then an exception can be made. So in a church where there is a full deacon and 5 subdeacons...then those who enter the sanctuary should be always of those 6 and not readers and chanters.
@minatasgeel when I meant equal I meant that no deaconess is to be viewed as inferior to a deacon, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. And youre 100% right about everything you said, I'm sorry.
Comments
1. I would like to sincerely apologize for starting to get aggressive yesterday. I hope you will forgive me.
2. I would like to elaborate a little more on what I was saying, because I don't think I was entirely clear.
In the Coptic Church where I grew up all men (deacons or not) were given Holy Communion in the main Alter, the young pre-pubescent girls were also given Holy Communion in the main Alter. Post-pubescent girls and women were not. This was to emulate the old covenant law regarding women in the Temple, (and the reason St. Mary had to be betrothed to St. Joseph). This is what I was referring to when I spoke of men entering the Holy of Holies, not necessarily service.
I also used the example of St. Mary Magdeline being the first to see the Risen Christ Himself because when she saw Him, He actually called her to evangelism. He called her to "Go and tell My disciples to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me." In this situation, God called a woman to go to a room of 11 men and tell them what to do to see Him. I used that example to show that women can and have been called to such roles by God Himself. When talking of "rights" in the liturgy I understand that there are callings rather than "rights", but as I elaborated on, women are not exempt from these "callings" especially since a woman was the first called (by God Himself) to evangelize the Holy Resurrection.
It is also very confusing to me in another sense. Because on one hand we say that women have no designated role in liturgy, and on another hand we say that liturgy is supposed to try to emulate the Kingdom of Heaven. (In which there is no male or female). In saying these 2 things, are we implying that it is also only men who have a role in Heaven?
I understand that the Holy Bible says that a woman is not to teach or usurp authority over a man, but I fail to understand how reading aloud from the Holy Bible without teaching meaning or interpretation usurps authority? Or does that tie into the "silence" factor?
When I said there can be no liturgy with only women and a priest, I was correct because I did not mention the deacon. If there is no deacon there is no liturgy, so you need at least 2 men (priest and deacon) to perform a liturgy. That's what I was referring to by saying that.
I also understand that there are more ways to serve than in the Liturgy, but at the same time believing that they should have the opportunity available for some for of service within the Liturgy, I believe, is not restrictive. Even when speaking of head coverings, St. Paul says that a womsn should cover her head when praying or prophesying. Does the fact that he included "or prophesying" signify that a woman can be called to liturgical roles, or is this referring to prophesying in other contexts?
I appreciate your responses, and again, I am very sorry for getting aggressive yesterday.
The fact that there were women deacons in the ancient church is also important. That means that there are roles for women in the liturgy. But we have yet to fully understand the proper theological background in this role. There are books written about this subject and sometimes they conflict. We have rules about what a woman deacon is for now, but as more research comes, we could go back and consider whether we should do some changes to reflect our ancient Orthodox practices, not to accommodate for modern sociological trends (that's important to highlight; we don't want to submit to cultural standards, but we are the ones who are supposed to get the culture to raise their standards in a divine manner).
You should encourage yourself to read a lot of the Church fathers as well as see what sister Orthodox churches do and say about this as well.
One thing I take issue with what you said is that you seem to be not able to connect that idea that the liturgy is the moment when you are spending time in the Kingdom of God, and yet because you perceive that since you have no role in the liturgy, you have no role in the Kingdom. This can't be further from the truth.
First of all, the liturgy is EVERYTHING. You don't separate service in the liturgy with service of other things. The liturgy continues when you serve outside the parish. This is one of those examples where the Coptic Church needs to rediscover proper liturgical theology. The Eastern Orthodox have good books on this now, and a pioneer in this study is a man by the name of Fr. Alexander Schmemman.
Second of all, the liturgy is not an icon of the Kingdom. It IS the Kingdom present through icons of what we can see (except the Eucharist is not an icon, but the actual Body and Blood of Christ). So our maleness and femaleness become icons of something grander. When we say "icons" that means when that day of the second coming happens these "icons" turn into realities. But we also are partaking of that reality as well. We are in the second coming when we pray the liturgy. Male and female have been icons of mainly two things. First Christ and the Church. Second the Father and the Son. Notice there is a sense of submission, but not in inequality. When the second coming happens, we are all placed in that position when we, in communion with the Son as the Church, will be in the bosom of the Father as the Son is. There will no bishop, presbyter, deacon, altar table, saints icons, church vessels, male, or female (since these are all icons), but Christ Himself, giving us His own body and blood, and bringing us into His own dignity and honor into the Father. That is what we do in the liturgy, and eventually all these gifts (ordination and the deaconate) will go away, because we will have no greater joy than sitting side to side on a throne next to the divine Word Himself! All of this is a temporary icon to the reality of our glorification in Christ, which leads one to be humble and patient about these temporary tonsuring and ordination issues that we have, which, while important, are not as significant as what they LEAD TO in the second coming.
Third of all, let us pray that we read more, study more, understand more without jumping to conclusions. This is a subject that interests me, and I learn new things along the way. It is something that we need to help each other with. There are many female theologians today who love the church and seek these answers like you with the right mindset. One person I particularly like to listen to is Presbyteria (the Greek Orthodox equivalent of "Tasoni") Eugenia Constantinou, who does these Bible Study podcasts called "Search the Scriptures". When she discusses the chapters in Exodus on the ark and the Tabernacle and Holy of Holies, she talks also about the rules involving women and the altar. It's very enlightening and I think you will find that she removes certain misconceived notions regarding the topic while maintaining an important reverence to Orthodox tradition and praxis.
God bless! :)
http://egyptianstreets.com/2016/06/20/women-stand-up-to-inequality-and-harassment-in-new-campaign/
It may be good for what is happening outside, but is it a reflection of what we seek inside our church?
But are the Holy Orders a "right" for everyone to aspire to, like being a physician or a president of a country? NO! No one has a right to become a deacon, presbyter, of bishop, but is called, and the Church has a theological reason for some gender restriction in this area, and we need to respect that.
My take on this is that even if your remove all the cultural influences, you still find the restrictions take an important theological understanding, which I outlined earlier.
"If the foot should say, because I am not a hand I am not of the body, is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear should say, because I am not an eye I am not of the body, is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole we're hearing where would be the smelling? But now God has set the members each one of them, in the body just as he pleased. And if they were all one member, where would the body be? But now indeed there are many members but one body."
This reading really helped me a lot with my discouraged feelings. I thank God for this message (which sometimes I still have to remind myself of when I start to feel discouraged again), and I also want to thank you all for having patiently answered my questions. God bless you all. :)
1- Deaconesses (female deacon equivalents, in any form) DO exist. They are the girls who usher the communion, who run the microphone and projector systems, etc. Whoever reads this, know that the word "deacon" meant "servant" or "helper" in old languages (I think... it's been a while.) A deaconess would be a female servant or helper.
Deaconesses ARE:
--Equal to deacons
--100% needed in any church
--Essential to any part of the church
Deaconesses ARE NOT:
--Less than deacons
--"Having less service" than deacons (Different doesn't mean less)
-A deacon in the altar saying a response is no more important than the woman working the AV system to keep all the mics working :)
--A product of sexism and patriarchism
The reason I've been told that female deacons aren't ordained like male deacons is that Jesus Christ did not call his female followers the same way he called his 12 13 disciples. Yet the women were 100% needed in the story of Jesus' life- they were, as has been said many times, the first ones at the tomb, and Mary Magdalene was the first one Jesus spoke to that Sunday morning.
++OFF TOPIC- ON THE TOPIC OF YOUNG DEACONS AND THE ALTAR++
I have been in the altar. I know how to. Yet, I am an oghnostos- shouldn't I be reading and chanting?
Well, the problem is, my church has no subdeacons or deacons. We have 7 oghnostiis and a vast number of oghnostiis-in-training epsaltiis. St. Abanoub's Church (where I am from) is coming up on its third birthday in Kiahk; there hasn't been time to ordain a handful of subdeacons or deacons to serve inside. However, I'd rather bend the rules at the beginning of a church's lifespan than ordain a 9-year-old deacon.
I recommend this idea/system for any new churches, as it's worked (mostly) fine for us:
Every week, 2 knowledgable oghnostiis and 2 learning epsaltiis or oghnostiis are in the altar.
The rest of the epsaltiis chant and do the Agpeya readings to become accustomed to reading.
The 3 Bible readings (Pauline, Catholic, Acts) are to be read either by adult epsaltiis or oghnostiis.
The Gospel and Psalm are to be read by a knowledgeable oghnostos or by Abouna/Sayyedna.
Predetermine all of these things, and some major responses that cannot be determined immediately (ex: khen pikhristos and tas ke-felas, Amen Ti-nahti/I believe, en-sofia, etc..) Saturday night via a meeting or group chat.
Use this for all annual days, ie, no fast or feast days, as to not confuse the learning deacons.
^-Proof of why to do this: A young deacon once said the entire Offertory in the festive tune.... in Lent. He didn't know the difference between the fasting time period and the festive time period, and he had learned all his responses from practice on the altar during festive days and last year's Holy 50.
There's a lot I could write, but I'm going to leave it there. Please feel free to yell at correct me.
Aripameui qen `pyi `m`P=o=c,
Daniel.