I believe those warm relationships, despite not agreeing with all experiences, allow for learning, fellowship, understanding, solidarity. In some aspects we can influence and correct for each other, and also not follow certain mistakes of time.
I feel like an outcast in this thread. I should have stayed awake last night.
Despite that I was cracking up at 80% of this thread (especially when epchoice_nai_nan said: I get the same queasy vision of girls and guys bellowing into the microphone while exchanging romantic glances between each other, like some duet on American Idol), I'd like to add my own insights, even though I'm sure no one cares.
Godlovesme, it's hard for me to relate to your feminism issues, even though I am a girl. I have never sensed that the church is sexist. I don't attend hymn lessons (they are primarily for boys), but I do learn them on my own. I don't want to sound prideful, but truth be told, I know more hymns than 95% of the males in my church. They come to me with questions. My priest has assigned me to work the screens for every service, because I know the order of the rites, and the deacons do not. Another reason I am in charge is because I'm one of the few that can read in all three languages, and I'm a good clicker you can say.
The Church treats everyone equally according to his/her ability. The Church, as a Mother, a female, is caring for ALL her children. If Egyptians were truly Orthodox, we would have a perfect church, and you wouldn't feel out of place. It's the Egyptian mentality that is troubling you. There is nothing anyone can do to reverse or fix that.
Isn't there a Saint (Makarious I think) who was looking for anyone righteous in the world and was finally shown two mothers who were very poor and who took care of the other mother's child when it cried. Saint Makarious realized how blessed those two women were even compared to all the monks!
Men are not "better" or "higher up" than women for holding a position in the church. This is a service appointed by God. Even the Pope is considered a leader of equals. God appoints each person his or her own service - and even if the role may not be in the spotlight, those roles end up being equally vital to the body of Christ. God has blessed women with so many opportunities and services, and though the roles may not be the ones that are up front on the alter - they are not worth any less. In that light, the church and God is no way sexist. There is no favoritism for men or for women - it is just your heart and your effort to complete the mission God has appointed you - whether it is leading in the church, serving the elderly, teaching the young, etc.. - that count
I liked what Fr. Peter said about the church being turned into an organization - where women need to have equality in order for it to be right. Just like each person having a role in the body of Christ, each person has a role in the liturgy. How can a liturgy be celebrated without a congregation? Deacon, priest, congregation, whatever, we are all worshiping God as equals, each just has their own role that has been appointed by God. No one is "keeping women out of the liturgy" -- what is stopping women from praying with all their hearts in church? I actually feel that it is often blessed just to be in the congregation because you can worship God wholly without having to make sure you are saying all the alhan right in the microphone or you are doing all the correct duties.
If the most important part of the Church is singing the songs, leading the church, and lighting the candles, then that is missing the point entirely.
epchois, I appreciate the honesty with which you have shared your own thoughts on this issue, but if I have not misunderstood you I have to say that I think that you make several grave mistakes which are entirely culturally conditioned and have nothing to do with universal morality.
The key points you seem to be making are:
i. gender equality is a matter of morality
ii. equality based on pure logic
iii. the denial of female liturgical ministry is a moral evil
iv. the Church contradicts (and has always done so) fundamental moral truths
v. people should be chosen for positions based purely on ability
I have to say that I consider all of these points entirely non-Orthodox and even anti-Christian. I am not saying this in judgement of you, but I must judge what you say. These points are all entirely morally conditioned, and you are mistaken if you think that they reflect a universal and transcendental morality.
Much of the Western world has been infected with an anti-Christian secular spirit. Certainly in the UK this is promoted by a socialist movement which remains steeped in a marxist agenda. The aim of this movement is the overthrow of Christian morality, and of the institutions and cultural heritage which is rooted in Christianity. It is not surprising that some youth find themselves caught up in this spirit since it is allowed to dominate much of the media. It is the same spirit which insists on human rights without any human responsibilities.
It is the same spirit which forbids school sports days because all children are equal. It is the same spirit which dumbs down education and examinations because all students are equal and must be rewarded equally. It is the same spirit which denies Christianity any privilege in this Christian country, because all religions and all practices are equal - even honour killings, genital mutilation, forced marriage. It is the same spirit which prevents a Christian saying even in a private conversation that the Bible condemns homosexuality, because all life styles are equal (or rather minority ones are privileged).
All of the points you have raised have been part of the destructive process which has taken place in the Anglican/Episcopal communion in the West and has brought it to the edge of complete disintegration. When the three ex-Anglican bishops were ordained as Roman Catholic priests last week Westminster Cathedral was completely full and half of the enthusiastic congregation were women. They had left Anglicanism because they, like myself, reject all of the points you have made and believe them to undermine the spiritual culture of the Church.
It is undoubtedly the case that in the West there will be Coptic Orthodox youth who choose to leave the Church. They must be allowed to do so. Not without great care being taken over them. Not without much consideration of what motivates them. Not in any sense because the Church can consider itself to always be perfect. But because the Church exists to change people, and not to be changed by the personal opinions of her members. In Egypt and the other Mother Countries it is harder for someone to leave. So they stay and do not really participate. But in the West it is much easier to leave. A person who believes that women should be priests and bishops - and this is the pure logic of your opinions - is free to join any other community. But they are not free to subvert our Orthodox Tradition.
Men and Women are of equal worth. But you are not saying this. You are saying that Men and Women are of identical form, function and ability. Clearly this is not so.
Those who are married are well aware that men and women are very different. Not only is the physiology different, but there are different hormones rushing through the blood stream, different responses to stimuli, to threats, to anxiety. Men, for instance, generally understand and enjoy maps, women, generally, do not. This is not a matter of better or worse, it is a matter of gender difference.
This gender difference is rooted in the creation. God made us male and female. He provided different roles and responsibilities. Woman was created to be a helper to man, Man was charged with being carer and provider for the woman. This is not sexist. When we see a true married couple in which the husband and wife, the father and mother, are properly complimentary, then it is a wonderful thing. Nor is this to lay down a list of limits to activity. But it is to insist that as Orthodox Christians we believe that male and female are of equal worth but are not identical in being.
Much modern thought has denied this difference, but it seems to me, as with many things, that science slowly comes round to the truth, and much is now made of the real and measurable differences in most aspects of life between males and females. The idea that every one is equally the same is a socialist and marxist idea. In fact everyone is different and is created unique. One aspect of this intended difference is our gender.
How then is gender equality a matter of morality? It seems to me that gender equality dehumanises people, and is intended to do so. My wife delights in being herself, a woman with her own experiences and abilities. To insist that her gender makes no difference would be be diminish her - and all women. On the contrary, it is a fundamental aspect of her being, and it is an aspect she does not share with males. The marxist agenda was always to subvert traditional relationships and so it presented as a freedom the sense that women could and should do anything a man did or does. But this is not what human persons are. We ARE NOT to be reduced to what we do. This is what gender equality, as you present it insists.
She can wave an censer better than he can, so why can't she have the job.
There is nothing more DEHUMANISING than this philosophy. We are not what we do. We are WHO WE ARE IN RELATION TO GOD AND EACH OTHER. And in these relationships there is a difference between male and female. MALE AND FEMALE HE MADE THEM - AND IT WAS GOOD.
You speak about the vote, as if service in the Church was the same as a political system. No one has the right to vote. Democracy is not a God ordained method of government. It is always a matter of culture. Personally, I do not believe that those receiving state benefits or working for the state should receive full voting rights because they can be essentially bribed by payments from the state to vote for the Government. It does not matter to the Church whether my views are implemented or not. It does not matter to the Church if immigrants are not allowed to vote. The political system is entirely provisional and never represents transcendent truths. It only ever represents balance of power. Women vote because there are more votes to be won if women can vote. In the UK immigrants can vote because 80% will vote socialist. It is not morality, it is power.
Women received the vote in the 20th century, but so did most men. Before that it was a minority of men who voted. So in what way was this winning rights for women? It was merely the end of a process in which a wider electorate was established. But democracy is not a divine plan. It is just the imperfect way in which things are ordered in the UK at the moment. It could change. There could be a dictator, or we could return to an executive monarchy. None of that affects the Church. The Church does not change her structures to reproduce passing trends in society.
You say that equality must be based on pure logic and that the Church cannot deny logic. I have to say that the Orthodox Church never operates on 'pure logic', and nearly all of the heresies are rooted in the exercise of 'pure logic'. It is a sign of pridefulness. The life of the Holy Spirit in the Church is Mystery. We understand by participation. Nestorius could not understand how it could be said that God had been born - it offended his sense of pure logic - so he fell into heresy.
Why is it logical that men and women should have the same roles and responsibilities? Even a brief consideration shows that men and women are different in physiology and psychology, and that the physiological and psychological differences are all indicative of different roles and responsibilities. From a purely animal point of view, the female bearing the child in her womb requires protection from the male whose infant it is. From a purely mammalian point of view it is the mother who must suckle and nourish the new born infant. To suggest that these obvious differences do not have any implications seems to suggest that the 'pure logic' is actually driven by a social agenda.
You say that the denial of a female liturgical ministry is a moral evil, but who are you to set yourself up against the Church? Who are you to set yourself up against the vast majority of faithful Orthodox women? You have misunderstood or not read properly my last post. NONE OF US ARE TO SEEK A POSITION. We are all of us to seek to be the least of all. Yet you are saying that females must be allowed to seek a position. To seek a position is pride. It occurs in men and must be dealt with as sin.
We are all called to serve. Nothing more. None of us have the right to any position. I do believe that the choir should not be seen as part of the diaconate, and could have a female component. I do believe that its role is to support the participation of the whole congregation. But I do not say this as a sop to females. The participation of the whole congregation in the worship of the Church is a responsibility and duty of all. TO WANT TO BE OUT THE FRONT IS SIN - in whichever heart it is found.
Which fundamental moral truths does the Church deny? It does not deny the fundamental truth that men and women are different. It does not deny the fundamental truth that all are to be servants. It does deny the pseudo-truth that everyone has to get a shot at everything.
You are mistaken if you think that priestly order should be matched with ability. It has nothing to do with it - not in the sense you mean. A true priest is not one who can do a beautiful liturgy. A true priest is entirely a father to his spiritual children. This is the essence of his ministry. He celebrates the eucharist to feed his flock. He bears each child by name in his heart. He may chant badly, he may get lost, he may drop things. He may be a 'bad performer', but this does not matter if he is a true father. His children love him for his mistakes and delight in covering them.
There may be others who could serve the liturgy much more competently. They may have much more 'ability', but this would not make them a true priest. Nor need the priest be an IT guru, run the Church website, organise all the meetings and take care of all the practical matters. He just needs to be a spiritual father to his children. There are others who can take care of all the rest. There is no problem with a sister maintaining the website, editing the newsletter, organising meetings, being responsible for the fabric of the Church. Women are not excluded from any of these responsibilities, where some ability is useful. But liturgical service and ministry is not a matter of ability, certainly not a matter of ability before faithfulness, humility and holiness.
I think it has been said on this thread many times. NO-ONE DESERVES ANY POSITION IN THE CHURCH. Therefore how can you say that position must be based purely on ability? What we deserve is to never be allowed back in the Church. It is prideful of any of us to say, I should have that position because I have more ability than the one doing it.
I maintained the BOC website for many years, since 1996 in fact. But recently the responsibility has passed to another. In actual fact he is very gifted, but even before I saw the results of his redesign I had decided in my heart, thanks only to God's grace, that I would relinquish any and all sense of it being MY job. This is the attitude we must all adopt. Indeed in a monastery it has been traditional that jobs are often rotated so that people do not think, 'This is my job'.
GOD DOES NOT NEED OUR SERVICE. So how can you insist that we must adopt a meritocratic attitude. There is no one who is suited for any role in the Church. Everything we do is tainted by self-will, pride and jealousy. As soon as we say, 'I should be doing that job' we are falling into pride. The only time we should say, 'I should be doing that job' is when we can see that there is some hidden and humble service like cleaning the toilets which we might know we should do, but don't want to.
Are these the jobs that you are suggesting young women should be rushing to attend to? I don't get the sense they are. It seems rather that you are proposing that women should be insisting on their rights to become priests and deacons. Even the very thought exposes a false understanding of the Christian life.
Men and Women are different. Difference does not mean of less value and worth. But it does indicate different roles and responsibilities. There are parts of the world, especially in the US, where false philosophies wish to suggest that different roles must indicate different value. It does not. The woman who is not a father is not of less value because she is a mother. She is indeed of a greater value in being the best mother she can be, as exhibiting one aspect of the womanly nature she has been gifted by God.
The man who serves faithfully in the laity is not of less worth than the one who serves as a full Deacon. Indeed as soon as the full Deacon takes pride in his responsibility he is unworthy of it. And as soon as the man in the laity covets the title of Deacon he becomes unfaithful.
Who holds a position in the Church? It is the faithful one. He or She is recognised by those who are also faithful. The title does not matter. The title is to do with order, not authority. All authority in the Church derives from service. The one who serves is the one with true authority. To covet another's ministry is sin. There is a lifetime of service for us all.
I find no sense of service in anything you have written. Only a demand for position and title.
This is not Orthodoxy. Let each male discover what it means to be a true man, created in the image of God. Let every female discover what it means to be a true woman, created in the image of God.
We discover this ONLY through service, not through the desire to be known and important and bear a title.
Such desires are entirely of the world. They are not universal truths, they are the same lie that the Devil has always whispered. In that sense they are universal untruths.
I could do that better! So what? Almost anyone could be a better priest than I am. I consider myself holding this ministry in stewardship for my own genuine priest who is too ill to serve, and for the next genuine priest whom God will send. In the meantime I am a caretaker, even an imposter. I do not deserve this ministry, I did not deserve this ministry, I will never deserve this ministry.
BUT WE CAN ALL SERVE,
Therefore let us serve and not be concerned with titles, or what the world around us thinks. The world and all its desires for advancement and names and titles is passing away.
I spoke with the women in Church this evening about this subject.
In a Church where there are prideful, hypocritical men who are serving without care then there is a natural sense of unhappiness. But this is not to do with gender it is to do with the fact that a particular congregation is not properly living the Christian life.
But they said to me that in a spiritual Church they felt no sense of exclusion at all, and that issues of male and female entirely faded into the background as each person present stands in worship before the presence of God.
I have to say that none of them reported the sense of exclusion you identify as a problem.
It is surely a fallacy to say that because in some places a lack of respect for women leads to evil this means that women must be allowed to do everything. It would be like saying that because we live in a socially inclusive world we should allow any man to be a bishop if he wants. Surely most MEN are excluded from the priesthood and many of them are more capable in practical matters than the priests we have? It is only YOU who is using the word 'exclusion'. In my own congregation I don't see that the women are excluded from anything. There is an order in the our worship but that does not exclude, on the contrary it includes all who gather.
You ask why women should not participate liturgically, but with respect I think this illustrates where you have made your mistake.
ALL THOSE WORSHIPPING IN THE CHURCH ARE PARTICIPATING LITURGICALLY.
The Liturgy is the 'Work of the People'. In Orthodoxy we do not speak of the Church as meaning the priests and bishops. We understand the Church as meaning ALL OF US. When we worship ALL are participating.
Therefore it is not clear in what sense anyone is excluded? Once again we are back to the point of wanting to be out the front. That is pride. It is not something I find in any of the women in my Church. Neither is there a cringing and false humility. I find that each one seeks to serve in the order in which they are called. SERVICE IS NOT A MATTER OF GRASPING A TITLE.
Must you understand everything the Church requires of you? Will you say that the Trinity is not a matter of pure logic and so should be abandoned because it is not understood by the secular world around us?
It is a fact that from the beginning it has only been males who have been called to acts as bishops, priests and deacons. This is not because women have not always been spiritually important, but because this is the order that the Holy Spirit inspired in the Church.
You may deny this, but the Church is not a matter of logic, it is a matter of participation in that same Holy Spirit. There are many things that we only learn by obedience.
I am sorry, but I disagree. The Christian faith is not a matter of logic.
Indeed St Paul teaches us that the content of the Gospel is foolishness to the so-called wise people of the world.
I have stated several times that God made humans male and female, and introduced difference at the creation. Adam and Eve were created with different roles and responsibilities. The Holy Spirit has guided the Church to reflect these different roles and responsibilities in the life of the Church.
There is nothing that I can say that will convince you that the Church is not perpetuating a great moral evil, as you suggested. If this is how you think then it is how you think. For myself, and apparently for all my congregation, there is an understanding that gender difference is of God and is to be reflected in the Church.
Which teachers have taught you to question everything? It is not an attitude I recognise from the Orthodox Tradition. Nor is obedience the same as 'blind obedience'. When I obey my bishop, and when I receive the teaching of the Church with humility, it is because I choose not to elevate my own understanding above that of the Church. I obey with my eyes wide open. The secular world around us would encourage us not to obey anyone but to decide everything for ourselves, using our own understanding. This is not Orthodox spirituality however.
Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
The great heretics were all devotees of pure logic. But it led them astray. Each of their systems was very logical, but God is not subject to logic, nor is the Church ordered by the latest thinking of sociologists. It is a divine-human organism in which humility rather than seeking after position is the only means of experiencing the transforming grace of God. Arianism was logical but wrong. Nestorianism was logical but wrong. All of the heresies are logical and begin with a person thinking that their own understanding is greater and of more worth than that of the Church.
Our Orthodox Christology is not logical. It is counter-logical. We insist that while Christ is fully two he is only one. Our Orthodox Trinitarianism is not logical. It is the laughing stock of atheists, Jews and Muslims. We insist that God is three persons who are one. This is not logical. It is a revealed truth. Revealed truth is a matter of experience not logic. The Orthodox life is not logical, we return good for evil. When we are struck, we turn the other cheek. This is not logical. When we are sinned against we forgive, over and over again. This is not logical.
I really do urge you to pray about this because it is not healthy for an Orthodox Christian to believe that the Church has always been perpetrating a moral evil. It may well be that the Lord will reveal the truth of this to you. It is not healthy to believe that any of us are right and the whole Church has always been wrong. There is really nothing that will logically convince you that the Church is right. You will always turn to the modern Western social models and say that they are universal truths. It is, in a sense, a matter of faith. All I can say is that I have found it safer and more reliable to begin with obedience and ask questions from a position of obedience, than to start from a position of rejection and condemnation and insist on justification.
In regard to the young woman you describe as losing her faith because she cannot become a priest. I would want to ask her what the essence of the Christian life is about. Is it about having a title, or about knowing God? Is it about having a public service, or a private service? Is it about recognising that none of us deserve any place in the Church or about insisting that we are better qualified than others. I have to say that a person who is considering abandoning faith in God because they cannot be a priest has many greater problems than the priesthood. Otherwise we would find that many men who also were not called to the priesthood would also be losing faith. Such a reason is essentially pride. I would ask every Christian, what CAN you do. Stop keep looking at other people's service.
I am sorry, but I disagree. The Christian faith is not a matter of logic.
Indeed St Paul teaches us that the content of the Gospel is foolishness to the so-called wise people of the world.
But I thought the Gospel would pass the logic test.. if there was such a test. Why is it foolishness to the wise people? It contains nothing but truth. I guess you are referring to the Divinity of Christ.. not so much the history and content of the Gospels, right?
i think he means, it makes sense, but it makes sense to someone who believes in God's love and seeks to serve Him. Christianity does not make sense to people who are selfish and proud or who laugh at poor people when they suffer and who want to be first in everything.
Our faith is reasonable, that is, we have many good reasons for having faith.
But it is not a matter of logic. The Christian faith is not a matter of clever arguments. No one was ever argued into faith.
If we look at the modern philosophers they are almost all deists or atheists. They have applied pure logic to the ultimate questions and have ended up believing at best that there is some force out there, certainly not the Christian God.
Consider the saints, it does not seem to be that Abouna Youstos acts in a logical way. His faith is counter-logical and radically counter-cultural. He invites us to thank God for all things and at all time. This is not logic, it is a radical faith. It is radical obedience to the Gospel. Faithful obedience is never blind, it is always reasonable and based on the spiritual vision of God. But obedience goes beyond logic and personal opinion or it is not obedience.
I will obey you if I think I agree that what you are asking is OK - this is not obedience. It is self will.
I will obey the teachings of the Gospel if they seem logical to me - this is not obedience either. Though many of us are guilty of this attitude.
We obey the Gospel in faith. This is reasonable. It is not based on logic, but on our experience of trust in the person of God. In the same way we obey the Church, we submit to the tradition of the Church, because we have trust in the Holy Spirit in the Church.
All of this is reasonable. But it is not a matter of pure logic.
Well, I am certainly in TITL's position here and have been sleeping for a while. On a personal not first, @ ebshois_nai_nan, I am really disappointed in you man. Sorry couldn't help myself making that statement here leaving it to a PM. @ AnnaSimone, I hope you won't take this amiss, but I would like to ask you to please please please not involve yourself into wrong practices, and not go to have a tunic blessed in order to wear it again. I get the impression you are a Coptic Orthodox, and this kind of mistaken misleading practice is occurring in one of the Coptic Orthodox churches.
OK, anba Raphael, a bishop in Egypt explained that point before (maybe Fr. Peter alluded to that) but I couldn't read every thing in detail having been away from this post.
GOD came to us in the form of a MAN. He didn't appear in the form of a woman, or a mixture of both. He came to us in the form of MAN. Man represents the human beings altogether, not only one gender. Therefore the priest, who acts as the picture of God at times, and as the sinful creation at other times cannot be a woman, as minagir, and ilovesaintmark gave examples. Deacons follow the same principle, simply because the deaconate is clergical order in teh church, with the exception of the oblation make (I think), and the psaltos. Lastly, I am not sure about the Nicene agreement for bishops, but maybe ilovesaintmark, or Fr. Peter can shed some light into that, but the reason why bishops come from the monastic ranks nowadays, is that there was a period, not only in Egypt I guess that Christians did things like getting married to more than one woman (islamisation of society ?) and having female slaves, and household workers, and couldn’t follow St. Paul’s teachings. Oujai khan ebshois
I have discussed this issue again with my congregation today after liturgy, both males and females speaking freely.
The intelligent and devout females said that they did not believe that women were suited to be priests because of the nature of the differences between the male and female experience of spiritual and psychological realities. We all agreed that the priesthood is not a matter of 'things that are done', but is a vocation and a calling in which the male is the proper agent. One female stated that even in her most feminist phase she never believed a woman should be a priest.
Some of the points made were:
i. God created male and female with intentional gender difference and intentional role difference.
ii. Men and women have a different mental and spiritual experience by virtue of physical, physiological and psychological differences.
iii. God has chosen to reveal Himself as male, to be incarnated as male, and to call to himself 12 male apostles.
iv. Christ clearly also had a very important female discipleship who were entirely more reliable than the males, but who had a different ministry.
The view which everyone seemed to have to your position was that what you are proposing is not Orthodox, has never been Orthodox, has never been a matter of controversy and is not now generally a matter of controversy. Others pointed to the fact that Anglicanism, making exactly the same arguments you have presented, has been led to entire collapse by adopting the moral values of the world.
For myself, I am most in disagreement with your opinion that you yourself must be the judge of what you will consider to be true. This is not an Orthodox mindset. It is irrelevant if it is the view of secular and athiest scientists and philosophers. When we obey and believe our fathers it is not because we have considered what they ask and have decided that it passes our own acceptablity test. We obey and believe because we trust them. When our fathers say, 'Don't do that, it will harm you', if we are obedient children we will obey with faith and trust. If we say, 'I'll decide for myself what I do', then we are not children of our fathers.
The examples you produce are irrelevant. No-one is suggesting that it is always necessary to believe that everything any Christian has done is correct. But that which has always been believed in all places by all Christians IS THE ORTHODOX FAITH, and to deny this is to cease to be Orthodox - irrespective of what any persons opinions might be.
There are aspects of theological and spiritual thought in which a degree of opinion is proper. These are things in which the Church has not produced a definitive answer. The whole thread about Enoch is such an area where humble and tolerant opinion is allowed. But when there is a consensus through time and space then there is NO ROOM FOR OPINION.
The doctrine of the Holy Trinity may not be doubted - whatever your own pure logic advises you. The doctrines of Christ may not be doubted - whatever your own pure logic advises you. The practice of baptism, and chrismation may not be denied. The sacrament of the eucharist may not be denied. AND THE MALE PRIESTHOOD MAY NOT BE DENIED.
These, and many other things in which there is no argument, are all of the essence of the Orthodox Faith and must be received with faithful obedience and not made subject to a prideful investigation.
But of course it is necessary to have a comprehensive understanding of the substance of the Orthodox Tradition, especially before daring to question the Faith. In regard to the reception of communion by those women who are on their periods for instance. There is the present Coptic Orthodox teaching, and there is the teachings of all the Fathers which have come down to us. It is possible to respectfully enquire into the present practice, and even to ask questions about it based on the wider context of the Orthodox Tradition. But you do not seem to be adopting that process. You seem to be only asking what seems logical to you, and then criticising the practice of the Church. To enquire so as to gain a greater understanding is one thing, to have an independent opinion rooted in modern society rather than in the Fathers is something altogether different and not Orthodox at all.
When we consider the issue of women acting as priests we find that the Church is united in all times and places in considering that this is not possible. When we engage with the Tradition we find that it is unanimous. And we believe, as Orthodox Christians, that what is universally held is the substance of our Faith. Therefore the idea that women may or should become priests is not Orthodox at all because it has never been held, and indeed has often been condemned. To say, 'What does Orthodoxy teach us about females and the priesthood?' is a respectful seeking after understanding. To say, as you have done, that it is reprehensible to deny women the priesthood is not the fruit of a seeking after understanding but is already your own conclusion in opposition to all Orthodox at all time and in all places. It is therefore NOT Orthodox, and even the methodology you adopt is not Orthodox, since, as you say, you must elevate your own thinking above that of the whole Church.
It was this attitude that people in Church this morning most disagreed with. The idea that we can ourselves properly determine what is true and what we will believe.
The issue of the Crusades is irrelevant. The Roman Catholic Church did not engage in these wars, and as far as I can see they were entirely justified to seek to free the Holy Land from the Islamic yoke. Such agreement with the general purpose does not require me to condone most of what took place. But the Crusades are a red herring. Not only are they not directly an aspect of Orthodox history, (except in the sense of being occupied by Western armies), but they are not a matter of Roman Catholic Church teaching and spiritual tradition.
Likewise it is irrelevant that I came to doubt the positions held by my evangelical community. In the first place Protestantism is not Orthodoxy. It does not demand for itself the recognition that it is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Orthodoxy does. Part of becoming and being Orthodox is adopting a relation of faithful trust towards the teachings of the Orthodox Church. To say otherwise is to adopt a Protestant attitude, which I am afraid is indeed what you appear to display, it is that which insists that the individual must be the arbiter of what is true. When I became Orthodox I rejected this way of thinking. It does not mean I have become a mere automaton. On the contrary I am more thoughtful, more engaged with theology and other aspects of our Faith than ever before.
There are many things I do not know. But I begin always by asking what the Church teaches and has always taught. If I do not understand then I ask again if I have properly understood what the Church teaches and has always taught. This is not always the same as every bishop and every priest. Bishops and Priests can lack understanding too. But the substance of the Orthodox Faith always preserves us in the truth if we submit to it with humility.
If we are adopting a personal opinion which is at variance with all Orthodox then it is not likely to be truth, and is much more likely to be a case of prelest.
Your last sentence, as previously critiqued by Fr. Peter, is still implicitly incorrect.
Simply put: there is nothing logical about the Holy Eucharist or the other Six Holy Sacraments. Yet, by faith, they are a manifestation and "incarnation" of the presence of the Holy Spirit in our lives.
There is nothing logical or scientific about bread and wine becoming the True Body and True Blood.
This forum truly saddens me to the idea that people in our church could be so closed minded. Is it impossible for some people to accept the idea that women can have some role in the liturgy? None of these girls are asking to become priests; it is evident why only men should become priests and that is completely fine. But why should women be pushed out of service in the liturgy entirely? Growing up, all the women in the church served mostly with one main services: preparing food for the congregation. Really? Is this what we value women for? Even St. Mary, the most humble of female servants, had a significant role in the affairs of the temple. So why is it that now, in modern times, we have regressed in our thinking of the role of women in the church? I know that we are an Orthodox church and we do not change our tradition to the times but this is not a matter of changing our tradition; deaconesses have been apart of the church since the beginning of the church. Unfortunately, the role faded for a couple centuries but that in no way says that it is something we cannot bring back. And if anyone has a problem with this role, feel free to talk to Pope Shenouda, who has supported, encouraged and blessed this endeavor from the very beginning.
Your assumption is incorrect: There was never a Liturgical Role for women in the Church....Not in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th,....,19th, 20th, 21st centuries.
The Role of the Deaconess, in the past, as well as their recent re-commissioning through the Holy Synod, is for Christian pastoral care and assisting the priest in matters relating to women. That's it.
First, it's good to have you on the forum.....have you known "Gay4XC" by any chance? :)
I am not gonna explain much in my response but i will just critisize [quote author=Phoebe4XC link=topic=10503.msg128999#msg128999 date=1296439488] This forum truly saddens me to the idea that people in our church could be so closed minded. you know you can fail an English Expository writing for using a term as broad as "closed-minded" or "open-minded"
Is it impossible for some people to accept the idea that women can have some role in the liturgy?
you stay in church.....you SEE them sitting next you (on the other side of church)....how is that not a role.
But why should women be pushed out of service in the liturgy entirely?
go learn the meaning of "liturgy" and you might just answer your question.
Even St. Mary, the most humble of female servants, had a significant role in the affairs of the temple.
annnnnnddddd.....go learn about what Saint Mary did in the temple and please do compare her to the rest of our race (humans in general--men and women).
I know that we are an Orthodox church and we do not change our tradition to the times but this is not a matter of changing our tradition; deaconesses have been apart of the church since the beginning of the church. Unfortunately, the role faded for a couple centuries but that in no way says that it is something we cannot bring back.
and also, go learn the role of those deaconesses in our Church.
And if anyone has a problem with this role, feel free to talk to Pope Shenouda, who has supported, encouraged and blessed this endeavor from the very beginning.
please read the FIRST post in this thread and you can find the Pope's answer.
Ilovest.mark- do you honestly think that St. Paul would take the time to write in his letters to the various cities about the detailed role of St. Phoebe, the DEACONESS of the first century? Honestly, do you think it she would do all the service she did for the church and then come to the most important ritual of the church -the liturgy- and take a passive role? Absolutely not! St. Paul doesn't have to explicitly mention each of her roles (singing or assisting the ladies in communion) in his letters to the regions because it was not the point of his messages and is already implied in the fact that she SERVED the church. Please don't try and act like you have been alive since the first century and know all the matters of the church since the very beginning. This is something i have put a great amount of time and effort into researching and have made sure that there is nothing "haram" about the role we are taking. Again, if you have a problem with this, talk to the Pope because apparently, you think you know more than the head of our church.
- no need to explain about the Gay4XC. But if you think that i am in any way related to that person just because i love Christ too, then you have some serious issues. And if you think that the idea of deaconesses is as unorthodox or as unchristian as being gay, maybe you should just stay quiet before you start embarrassing yourself.
St. Paul is very deliberate. He is very detailed. Your assumptions and extrapolations are unfounded. They do not have validity. In other words: your emotions are allowing you to stretch things. Or in other terms: you are making it up.
For the "umpteenth" time: His Holiness has not sanctioned most of the nonsense that is supposed or assumed. THE HOLY SYNOD HAS NO SYNODAL DECREE TO YOUR ASSUMED INTERPRETATIONS.
Where did the Gay thing come from? I think you need to back off of eating too much Fava beans. I think the methane is getting to your reasoning.
[quote author=Phoebe4XC link=topic=10503.msg129027#msg129027 date=1296441247] - no need to explain about the Gay4XC. But if you think that i am in any way related to that person just because i love Christ too, then you have some serious issues. And if you think that the idea of deaconesses is as unorthodox or as unchristian as being gay, i don't remember writing ANYTHING about "being gay"....i was just making a connection between similar names. that's it
maybe you should just stay quiet before you start embarrassing yourself.
oh....i don't think i am the one who will be embarrassed.....
Comments
Despite that I was cracking up at 80% of this thread (especially when epchoice_nai_nan said: I get the same queasy vision of girls and guys bellowing into the microphone while exchanging romantic glances between each other, like some duet on American Idol), I'd like to add my own insights, even though I'm sure no one cares.
Godlovesme, it's hard for me to relate to your feminism issues, even though I am a girl. I have never sensed that the church is sexist. I don't attend hymn lessons (they are primarily for boys), but I do learn them on my own. I don't want to sound prideful, but truth be told, I know more hymns than 95% of the males in my church. They come to me with questions.
My priest has assigned me to work the screens for every service, because I know the order of the rites, and the deacons do not. Another reason I am in charge is because I'm one of the few that can read in all three languages, and I'm a good clicker you can say.
The Church treats everyone equally according to his/her ability. The Church, as a Mother, a female, is caring for ALL her children. If Egyptians were truly Orthodox, we would have a perfect church, and you wouldn't feel out of place. It's the Egyptian mentality that is troubling you. There is nothing anyone can do to reverse or fix that.
Men are not "better" or "higher up" than women for holding a position in the church. This is a service appointed by God. Even the Pope is considered a leader of equals. God appoints each person his or her own service - and even if the role may not be in the spotlight, those roles end up being equally vital to the body of Christ. God has blessed women with so many opportunities and services, and though the roles may not be the ones that are up front on the alter - they are not worth any less. In that light, the church and God is no way sexist. There is no favoritism for men or for women - it is just your heart and your effort to complete the mission God has appointed you - whether it is leading in the church, serving the elderly, teaching the young, etc.. - that count
I liked what Fr. Peter said about the church being turned into an organization - where women need to have equality in order for it to be right. Just like each person having a role in the body of Christ, each person has a role in the liturgy. How can a liturgy be celebrated without a congregation? Deacon, priest, congregation, whatever, we are all worshiping God as equals, each just has their own role that has been appointed by God. No one is "keeping women out of the liturgy" -- what is stopping women from praying with all their hearts in church? I actually feel that it is often blessed just to be in the congregation because you can worship God wholly without having to make sure you are saying all the alhan right in the microphone or you are doing all the correct duties.
If the most important part of the Church is singing the songs, leading the church, and lighting the candles, then that is missing the point entirely.
The key points you seem to be making are:
i. gender equality is a matter of morality
ii. equality based on pure logic
iii. the denial of female liturgical ministry is a moral evil
iv. the Church contradicts (and has always done so) fundamental moral truths
v. people should be chosen for positions based purely on ability
I have to say that I consider all of these points entirely non-Orthodox and even anti-Christian. I am not saying this in judgement of you, but I must judge what you say. These points are all entirely morally conditioned, and you are mistaken if you think that they reflect a universal and transcendental morality.
Much of the Western world has been infected with an anti-Christian secular spirit. Certainly in the UK this is promoted by a socialist movement which remains steeped in a marxist agenda. The aim of this movement is the overthrow of Christian morality, and of the institutions and cultural heritage which is rooted in Christianity. It is not surprising that some youth find themselves caught up in this spirit since it is allowed to dominate much of the media. It is the same spirit which insists on human rights without any human responsibilities.
It is the same spirit which forbids school sports days because all children are equal. It is the same spirit which dumbs down education and examinations because all students are equal and must be rewarded equally. It is the same spirit which denies Christianity any privilege in this Christian country, because all religions and all practices are equal - even honour killings, genital mutilation, forced marriage. It is the same spirit which prevents a Christian saying even in a private conversation that the Bible condemns homosexuality, because all life styles are equal (or rather minority ones are privileged).
All of the points you have raised have been part of the destructive process which has taken place in the Anglican/Episcopal communion in the West and has brought it to the edge of complete disintegration. When the three ex-Anglican bishops were ordained as Roman Catholic priests last week Westminster Cathedral was completely full and half of the enthusiastic congregation were women. They had left Anglicanism because they, like myself, reject all of the points you have made and believe them to undermine the spiritual culture of the Church.
It is undoubtedly the case that in the West there will be Coptic Orthodox youth who choose to leave the Church. They must be allowed to do so. Not without great care being taken over them. Not without much consideration of what motivates them. Not in any sense because the Church can consider itself to always be perfect. But because the Church exists to change people, and not to be changed by the personal opinions of her members. In Egypt and the other Mother Countries it is harder for someone to leave. So they stay and do not really participate. But in the West it is much easier to leave. A person who believes that women should be priests and bishops - and this is the pure logic of your opinions - is free to join any other community. But they are not free to subvert our Orthodox Tradition.
Men and Women are of equal worth. But you are not saying this. You are saying that Men and Women are of identical form, function and ability. Clearly this is not so.
Those who are married are well aware that men and women are very different. Not only is the physiology different, but there are different hormones rushing through the blood stream, different responses to stimuli, to threats, to anxiety. Men, for instance, generally understand and enjoy maps, women, generally, do not. This is not a matter of better or worse, it is a matter of gender difference.
This gender difference is rooted in the creation. God made us male and female. He provided different roles and responsibilities. Woman was created to be a helper to man, Man was charged with being carer and provider for the woman. This is not sexist. When we see a true married couple in which the husband and wife, the father and mother, are properly complimentary, then it is a wonderful thing. Nor is this to lay down a list of limits to activity. But it is to insist that as Orthodox Christians we believe that male and female are of equal worth but are not identical in being.
Much modern thought has denied this difference, but it seems to me, as with many things, that science slowly comes round to the truth, and much is now made of the real and measurable differences in most aspects of life between males and females. The idea that every one is equally the same is a socialist and marxist idea. In fact everyone is different and is created unique. One aspect of this intended difference is our gender.
How then is gender equality a matter of morality? It seems to me that gender equality dehumanises people, and is intended to do so. My wife delights in being herself, a woman with her own experiences and abilities. To insist that her gender makes no difference would be be diminish her - and all women. On the contrary, it is a fundamental aspect of her being, and it is an aspect she does not share with males. The marxist agenda was always to subvert traditional relationships and so it presented as a freedom the sense that women could and should do anything a man did or does. But this is not what human persons are. We ARE NOT to be reduced to what we do. This is what gender equality, as you present it insists.
She can wave an censer better than he can, so why can't she have the job.
There is nothing more DEHUMANISING than this philosophy. We are not what we do. We are WHO WE ARE IN RELATION TO GOD AND EACH OTHER. And in these relationships there is a difference between male and female. MALE AND FEMALE HE MADE THEM - AND IT WAS GOOD.
You speak about the vote, as if service in the Church was the same as a political system. No one has the right to vote. Democracy is not a God ordained method of government. It is always a matter of culture. Personally, I do not believe that those receiving state benefits or working for the state should receive full voting rights because they can be essentially bribed by payments from the state to vote for the Government. It does not matter to the Church whether my views are implemented or not. It does not matter to the Church if immigrants are not allowed to vote. The political system is entirely provisional and never represents transcendent truths. It only ever represents balance of power. Women vote because there are more votes to be won if women can vote. In the UK immigrants can vote because 80% will vote socialist. It is not morality, it is power.
Women received the vote in the 20th century, but so did most men. Before that it was a minority of men who voted. So in what way was this winning rights for women? It was merely the end of a process in which a wider electorate was established. But democracy is not a divine plan. It is just the imperfect way in which things are ordered in the UK at the moment. It could change. There could be a dictator, or we could return to an executive monarchy. None of that affects the Church. The Church does not change her structures to reproduce passing trends in society.
You say that equality must be based on pure logic and that the Church cannot deny logic. I have to say that the Orthodox Church never operates on 'pure logic', and nearly all of the heresies are rooted in the exercise of 'pure logic'. It is a sign of pridefulness. The life of the Holy Spirit in the Church is Mystery. We understand by participation. Nestorius could not understand how it could be said that God had been born - it offended his sense of pure logic - so he fell into heresy.
Why is it logical that men and women should have the same roles and responsibilities? Even a brief consideration shows that men and women are different in physiology and psychology, and that the physiological and psychological differences are all indicative of different roles and responsibilities. From a purely animal point of view, the female bearing the child in her womb requires protection from the male whose infant it is. From a purely mammalian point of view it is the mother who must suckle and nourish the new born infant. To suggest that these obvious differences do not have any implications seems to suggest that the 'pure logic' is actually driven by a social agenda.
You say that the denial of a female liturgical ministry is a moral evil, but who are you to set yourself up against the Church? Who are you to set yourself up against the vast majority of faithful Orthodox women? You have misunderstood or not read properly my last post. NONE OF US ARE TO SEEK A POSITION. We are all of us to seek to be the least of all. Yet you are saying that females must be allowed to seek a position. To seek a position is pride. It occurs in men and must be dealt with as sin.
We are all called to serve. Nothing more. None of us have the right to any position. I do believe that the choir should not be seen as part of the diaconate, and could have a female component. I do believe that its role is to support the participation of the whole congregation. But I do not say this as a sop to females. The participation of the whole congregation in the worship of the Church is a responsibility and duty of all. TO WANT TO BE OUT THE FRONT IS SIN - in whichever heart it is found.
Which fundamental moral truths does the Church deny? It does not deny the fundamental truth that men and women are different. It does not deny the fundamental truth that all are to be servants. It does deny the pseudo-truth that everyone has to get a shot at everything.
You are mistaken if you think that priestly order should be matched with ability. It has nothing to do with it - not in the sense you mean. A true priest is not one who can do a beautiful liturgy. A true priest is entirely a father to his spiritual children. This is the essence of his ministry. He celebrates the eucharist to feed his flock. He bears each child by name in his heart. He may chant badly, he may get lost, he may drop things. He may be a 'bad performer', but this does not matter if he is a true father. His children love him for his mistakes and delight in covering them.
There may be others who could serve the liturgy much more competently. They may have much more 'ability', but this would not make them a true priest. Nor need the priest be an IT guru, run the Church website, organise all the meetings and take care of all the practical matters. He just needs to be a spiritual father to his children. There are others who can take care of all the rest. There is no problem with a sister maintaining the website, editing the newsletter, organising meetings, being responsible for the fabric of the Church. Women are not excluded from any of these responsibilities, where some ability is useful. But liturgical service and ministry is not a matter of ability, certainly not a matter of ability before faithfulness, humility and holiness.
I think it has been said on this thread many times. NO-ONE DESERVES ANY POSITION IN THE CHURCH. Therefore how can you say that position must be based purely on ability? What we deserve is to never be allowed back in the Church. It is prideful of any of us to say, I should have that position because I have more ability than the one doing it.
I maintained the BOC website for many years, since 1996 in fact. But recently the responsibility has passed to another. In actual fact he is very gifted, but even before I saw the results of his redesign I had decided in my heart, thanks only to God's grace, that I would relinquish any and all sense of it being MY job. This is the attitude we must all adopt. Indeed in a monastery it has been traditional that jobs are often rotated so that people do not think, 'This is my job'.
GOD DOES NOT NEED OUR SERVICE. So how can you insist that we must adopt a meritocratic attitude. There is no one who is suited for any role in the Church. Everything we do is tainted by self-will, pride and jealousy. As soon as we say, 'I should be doing that job' we are falling into pride. The only time we should say, 'I should be doing that job' is when we can see that there is some hidden and humble service like cleaning the toilets which we might know we should do, but don't want to.
Are these the jobs that you are suggesting young women should be rushing to attend to? I don't get the sense they are. It seems rather that you are proposing that women should be insisting on their rights to become priests and deacons. Even the very thought exposes a false understanding of the Christian life.
Men and Women are different. Difference does not mean of less value and worth. But it does indicate different roles and responsibilities. There are parts of the world, especially in the US, where false philosophies wish to suggest that different roles must indicate different value. It does not. The woman who is not a father is not of less value because she is a mother. She is indeed of a greater value in being the best mother she can be, as exhibiting one aspect of the womanly nature she has been gifted by God.
The man who serves faithfully in the laity is not of less worth than the one who serves as a full Deacon. Indeed as soon as the full Deacon takes pride in his responsibility he is unworthy of it. And as soon as the man in the laity covets the title of Deacon he becomes unfaithful.
Who holds a position in the Church? It is the faithful one. He or She is recognised by those who are also faithful. The title does not matter. The title is to do with order, not authority. All authority in the Church derives from service. The one who serves is the one with true authority. To covet another's ministry is sin. There is a lifetime of service for us all.
I find no sense of service in anything you have written. Only a demand for position and title.
This is not Orthodoxy. Let each male discover what it means to be a true man, created in the image of God. Let every female discover what it means to be a true woman, created in the image of God.
We discover this ONLY through service, not through the desire to be known and important and bear a title.
Such desires are entirely of the world. They are not universal truths, they are the same lie that the Devil has always whispered. In that sense they are universal untruths.
I could do that better! So what? Almost anyone could be a better priest than I am. I consider myself holding this ministry in stewardship for my own genuine priest who is too ill to serve, and for the next genuine priest whom God will send. In the meantime I am a caretaker, even an imposter. I do not deserve this ministry, I did not deserve this ministry, I will never deserve this ministry.
BUT WE CAN ALL SERVE,
Therefore let us serve and not be concerned with titles, or what the world around us thinks. The world and all its desires for advancement and names and titles is passing away.
Father Peter
I was just about to encourage you to write books, but I just remembered that you already do. It's still morning time; I'm not really awake yet.
In a Church where there are prideful, hypocritical men who are serving without care then there is a natural sense of unhappiness. But this is not to do with gender it is to do with the fact that a particular congregation is not properly living the Christian life.
But they said to me that in a spiritual Church they felt no sense of exclusion at all, and that issues of male and female entirely faded into the background as each person present stands in worship before the presence of God.
I have to say that none of them reported the sense of exclusion you identify as a problem.
It is surely a fallacy to say that because in some places a lack of respect for women leads to evil this means that women must be allowed to do everything. It would be like saying that because we live in a socially inclusive world we should allow any man to be a bishop if he wants. Surely most MEN are excluded from the priesthood and many of them are more capable in practical matters than the priests we have? It is only YOU who is using the word 'exclusion'. In my own congregation I don't see that the women are excluded from anything. There is an order in the our worship but that does not exclude, on the contrary it includes all who gather.
You ask why women should not participate liturgically, but with respect I think this illustrates where you have made your mistake.
ALL THOSE WORSHIPPING IN THE CHURCH ARE PARTICIPATING LITURGICALLY.
The Liturgy is the 'Work of the People'. In Orthodoxy we do not speak of the Church as meaning the priests and bishops. We understand the Church as meaning ALL OF US. When we worship ALL are participating.
Therefore it is not clear in what sense anyone is excluded? Once again we are back to the point of wanting to be out the front. That is pride. It is not something I find in any of the women in my Church. Neither is there a cringing and false humility. I find that each one seeks to serve in the order in which they are called. SERVICE IS NOT A MATTER OF GRASPING A TITLE.
Must you understand everything the Church requires of you? Will you say that the Trinity is not a matter of pure logic and so should be abandoned because it is not understood by the secular world around us?
It is a fact that from the beginning it has only been males who have been called to acts as bishops, priests and deacons. This is not because women have not always been spiritually important, but because this is the order that the Holy Spirit inspired in the Church.
You may deny this, but the Church is not a matter of logic, it is a matter of participation in that same Holy Spirit. There are many things that we only learn by obedience.
Father Peter
Indeed St Paul teaches us that the content of the Gospel is foolishness to the so-called wise people of the world.
I have stated several times that God made humans male and female, and introduced difference at the creation. Adam and Eve were created with different roles and responsibilities. The Holy Spirit has guided the Church to reflect these different roles and responsibilities in the life of the Church.
There is nothing that I can say that will convince you that the Church is not perpetuating a great moral evil, as you suggested. If this is how you think then it is how you think. For myself, and apparently for all my congregation, there is an understanding that gender difference is of God and is to be reflected in the Church.
Which teachers have taught you to question everything? It is not an attitude I recognise from the Orthodox Tradition. Nor is obedience the same as 'blind obedience'. When I obey my bishop, and when I receive the teaching of the Church with humility, it is because I choose not to elevate my own understanding above that of the Church. I obey with my eyes wide open. The secular world around us would encourage us not to obey anyone but to decide everything for ourselves, using our own understanding. This is not Orthodox spirituality however.
Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
The great heretics were all devotees of pure logic. But it led them astray. Each of their systems was very logical, but God is not subject to logic, nor is the Church ordered by the latest thinking of sociologists. It is a divine-human organism in which humility rather than seeking after position is the only means of experiencing the transforming grace of God. Arianism was logical but wrong. Nestorianism was logical but wrong. All of the heresies are logical and begin with a person thinking that their own understanding is greater and of more worth than that of the Church.
Our Orthodox Christology is not logical. It is counter-logical. We insist that while Christ is fully two he is only one. Our Orthodox Trinitarianism is not logical. It is the laughing stock of atheists, Jews and Muslims. We insist that God is three persons who are one. This is not logical. It is a revealed truth. Revealed truth is a matter of experience not logic. The Orthodox life is not logical, we return good for evil. When we are struck, we turn the other cheek. This is not logical. When we are sinned against we forgive, over and over again. This is not logical.
I really do urge you to pray about this because it is not healthy for an Orthodox Christian to believe that the Church has always been perpetrating a moral evil. It may well be that the Lord will reveal the truth of this to you. It is not healthy to believe that any of us are right and the whole Church has always been wrong. There is really nothing that will logically convince you that the Church is right. You will always turn to the modern Western social models and say that they are universal truths. It is, in a sense, a matter of faith. All I can say is that I have found it safer and more reliable to begin with obedience and ask questions from a position of obedience, than to start from a position of rejection and condemnation and insist on justification.
In regard to the young woman you describe as losing her faith because she cannot become a priest. I would want to ask her what the essence of the Christian life is about. Is it about having a title, or about knowing God? Is it about having a public service, or a private service? Is it about recognising that none of us deserve any place in the Church or about insisting that we are better qualified than others. I have to say that a person who is considering abandoning faith in God because they cannot be a priest has many greater problems than the priesthood. Otherwise we would find that many men who also were not called to the priesthood would also be losing faith. Such a reason is essentially pride. I would ask every Christian, what CAN you do. Stop keep looking at other people's service.
Father Peter
Christianity does not make sense to people who are selfish and proud or who laugh at poor people when they suffer and who want to be first in everything.
But it is not a matter of logic. The Christian faith is not a matter of clever arguments. No one was ever argued into faith.
If we look at the modern philosophers they are almost all deists or atheists. They have applied pure logic to the ultimate questions and have ended up believing at best that there is some force out there, certainly not the Christian God.
Consider the saints, it does not seem to be that Abouna Youstos acts in a logical way. His faith is counter-logical and radically counter-cultural. He invites us to thank God for all things and at all time. This is not logic, it is a radical faith. It is radical obedience to the Gospel. Faithful obedience is never blind, it is always reasonable and based on the spiritual vision of God. But obedience goes beyond logic and personal opinion or it is not obedience.
I will obey you if I think I agree that what you are asking is OK - this is not obedience. It is self will.
I will obey the teachings of the Gospel if they seem logical to me - this is not obedience either. Though many of us are guilty of this attitude.
We obey the Gospel in faith. This is reasonable. It is not based on logic, but on our experience of trust in the person of God. In the same way we obey the Church, we submit to the tradition of the Church, because we have trust in the Holy Spirit in the Church.
All of this is reasonable. But it is not a matter of pure logic.
Father Peter
On a personal not first,
@ ebshois_nai_nan, I am really disappointed in you man. Sorry couldn't help myself making that statement here leaving it to a PM.
@ AnnaSimone, I hope you won't take this amiss, but I would like to ask you to please please please not involve yourself into wrong practices, and not go to have a tunic blessed in order to wear it again. I get the impression you are a Coptic Orthodox, and this kind of mistaken misleading practice is occurring in one of the Coptic Orthodox churches.
OK, anba Raphael, a bishop in Egypt explained that point before (maybe Fr. Peter alluded to that) but I couldn't read every thing in detail having been away from this post.
GOD came to us in the form of a MAN. He didn't appear in the form of a woman, or a mixture of both. He came to us in the form of MAN. Man represents the human beings altogether, not only one gender. Therefore the priest, who acts as the picture of God at times, and as the sinful creation at other times cannot be a woman, as minagir, and ilovesaintmark gave examples.
Deacons follow the same principle, simply because the deaconate is clergical order in teh church, with the exception of the oblation make (I think), and the psaltos.
Lastly, I am not sure about the Nicene agreement for bishops, but maybe ilovesaintmark, or Fr. Peter can shed some light into that, but the reason why bishops come from the monastic ranks nowadays, is that there was a period, not only in Egypt I guess that Christians did things like getting married to more than one woman (islamisation of society ?) and having female slaves, and household workers, and couldn’t follow St. Paul’s teachings.
Oujai khan ebshois
The intelligent and devout females said that they did not believe that women were suited to be priests because of the nature of the differences between the male and female experience of spiritual and psychological realities. We all agreed that the priesthood is not a matter of 'things that are done', but is a vocation and a calling in which the male is the proper agent. One female stated that even in her most feminist phase she never believed a woman should be a priest.
Some of the points made were:
i. God created male and female with intentional gender difference and intentional role difference.
ii. Men and women have a different mental and spiritual experience by virtue of physical, physiological and psychological differences.
iii. God has chosen to reveal Himself as male, to be incarnated as male, and to call to himself 12 male apostles.
iv. Christ clearly also had a very important female discipleship who were entirely more reliable than the males, but who had a different ministry.
The view which everyone seemed to have to your position was that what you are proposing is not Orthodox, has never been Orthodox, has never been a matter of controversy and is not now generally a matter of controversy. Others pointed to the fact that Anglicanism, making exactly the same arguments you have presented, has been led to entire collapse by adopting the moral values of the world.
For myself, I am most in disagreement with your opinion that you yourself must be the judge of what you will consider to be true. This is not an Orthodox mindset. It is irrelevant if it is the view of secular and athiest scientists and philosophers. When we obey and believe our fathers it is not because we have considered what they ask and have decided that it passes our own acceptablity test. We obey and believe because we trust them. When our fathers say, 'Don't do that, it will harm you', if we are obedient children we will obey with faith and trust. If we say, 'I'll decide for myself what I do', then we are not children of our fathers.
The examples you produce are irrelevant. No-one is suggesting that it is always necessary to believe that everything any Christian has done is correct. But that which has always been believed in all places by all Christians IS THE ORTHODOX FAITH, and to deny this is to cease to be Orthodox - irrespective of what any persons opinions might be.
There are aspects of theological and spiritual thought in which a degree of opinion is proper. These are things in which the Church has not produced a definitive answer. The whole thread about Enoch is such an area where humble and tolerant opinion is allowed. But when there is a consensus through time and space then there is NO ROOM FOR OPINION.
The doctrine of the Holy Trinity may not be doubted - whatever your own pure logic advises you. The doctrines of Christ may not be doubted - whatever your own pure logic advises you. The practice of baptism, and chrismation may not be denied. The sacrament of the eucharist may not be denied. AND THE MALE PRIESTHOOD MAY NOT BE DENIED.
These, and many other things in which there is no argument, are all of the essence of the Orthodox Faith and must be received with faithful obedience and not made subject to a prideful investigation.
But of course it is necessary to have a comprehensive understanding of the substance of the Orthodox Tradition, especially before daring to question the Faith. In regard to the reception of communion by those women who are on their periods for instance. There is the present Coptic Orthodox teaching, and there is the teachings of all the Fathers which have come down to us. It is possible to respectfully enquire into the present practice, and even to ask questions about it based on the wider context of the Orthodox Tradition. But you do not seem to be adopting that process. You seem to be only asking what seems logical to you, and then criticising the practice of the Church. To enquire so as to gain a greater understanding is one thing, to have an independent opinion rooted in modern society rather than in the Fathers is something altogether different and not Orthodox at all.
When we consider the issue of women acting as priests we find that the Church is united in all times and places in considering that this is not possible. When we engage with the Tradition we find that it is unanimous. And we believe, as Orthodox Christians, that what is universally held is the substance of our Faith. Therefore the idea that women may or should become priests is not Orthodox at all because it has never been held, and indeed has often been condemned. To say, 'What does Orthodoxy teach us about females and the priesthood?' is a respectful seeking after understanding. To say, as you have done, that it is reprehensible to deny women the priesthood is not the fruit of a seeking after understanding but is already your own conclusion in opposition to all Orthodox at all time and in all places. It is therefore NOT Orthodox, and even the methodology you adopt is not Orthodox, since, as you say, you must elevate your own thinking above that of the whole Church.
It was this attitude that people in Church this morning most disagreed with. The idea that we can ourselves properly determine what is true and what we will believe.
The issue of the Crusades is irrelevant. The Roman Catholic Church did not engage in these wars, and as far as I can see they were entirely justified to seek to free the Holy Land from the Islamic yoke. Such agreement with the general purpose does not require me to condone most of what took place. But the Crusades are a red herring. Not only are they not directly an aspect of Orthodox history, (except in the sense of being occupied by Western armies), but they are not a matter of Roman Catholic Church teaching and spiritual tradition.
Likewise it is irrelevant that I came to doubt the positions held by my evangelical community. In the first place Protestantism is not Orthodoxy. It does not demand for itself the recognition that it is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Orthodoxy does. Part of becoming and being Orthodox is adopting a relation of faithful trust towards the teachings of the Orthodox Church. To say otherwise is to adopt a Protestant attitude, which I am afraid is indeed what you appear to display, it is that which insists that the individual must be the arbiter of what is true. When I became Orthodox I rejected this way of thinking. It does not mean I have become a mere automaton. On the contrary I am more thoughtful, more engaged with theology and other aspects of our Faith than ever before.
There are many things I do not know. But I begin always by asking what the Church teaches and has always taught. If I do not understand then I ask again if I have properly understood what the Church teaches and has always taught. This is not always the same as every bishop and every priest. Bishops and Priests can lack understanding too. But the substance of the Orthodox Faith always preserves us in the truth if we submit to it with humility.
If we are adopting a personal opinion which is at variance with all Orthodox then it is not likely to be truth, and is much more likely to be a case of prelest.
Father Peter
Your last sentence, as previously critiqued by Fr. Peter, is still implicitly incorrect.
Simply put: there is nothing logical about the Holy Eucharist or the other Six Holy Sacraments. Yet, by faith, they are a manifestation and "incarnation" of the presence of the Holy Spirit in our lives.
There is nothing logical or scientific about bread and wine becoming the True Body and True Blood.
I know that we are an Orthodox church and we do not change our tradition to the times but this is not a matter of changing our tradition; deaconesses have been apart of the church since the beginning of the church. Unfortunately, the role faded for a couple centuries but that in no way says that it is something we cannot bring back.
And if anyone has a problem with this role, feel free to talk to Pope Shenouda, who has supported, encouraged and blessed this endeavor from the very beginning.
Your assumption is incorrect: There was never a Liturgical Role for women in the Church....Not in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th,....,19th, 20th, 21st centuries.
The Role of the Deaconess, in the past, as well as their recent re-commissioning through the Holy Synod, is for Christian pastoral care and assisting the priest in matters relating to women. That's it.
I am not gonna explain much in my response but i will just critisize
[quote author=Phoebe4XC link=topic=10503.msg128999#msg128999 date=1296439488]
This forum truly saddens me to the idea that people in our church could be so closed minded.
you know you can fail an English Expository writing for using a term as broad as "closed-minded" or "open-minded"
you stay in church.....you SEE them sitting next you (on the other side of church)....how is that not a role. go learn the meaning of "liturgy" and you might just answer your question.
annnnnnddddd.....go learn about what Saint Mary did in the temple and please do compare her to the rest of our race (humans in general--men and women). and also, go learn the role of those deaconesses in our Church. please read the FIRST post in this thread and you can find the Pope's answer.
Again, if you have a problem with this, talk to the Pope because apparently, you think you know more than the head of our church.
Your research is incorrect.
St. Paul is very deliberate. He is very detailed. Your assumptions and extrapolations are unfounded. They do not have validity.
In other words: your emotions are allowing you to stretch things. Or in other terms: you are making it up.
For the "umpteenth" time: His Holiness has not sanctioned most of the nonsense that is supposed or assumed. THE HOLY SYNOD HAS NO SYNODAL DECREE TO YOUR ASSUMED INTERPRETATIONS.
Where did the Gay thing come from? I think you need to back off of eating too much Fava beans. I think the methane is getting to your reasoning.
- no need to explain about the Gay4XC. But if you think that i am in any way related to that person just because i love Christ too, then you have some serious issues. And if you think that the idea of deaconesses is as unorthodox or as unchristian as being gay,
i don't remember writing ANYTHING about "being gay"....i was just making a connection between similar names. that's it oh....i don't think i am the one who will be embarrassed.....
I have been around since the first century.