[Note: because of the ongoing discussion of Women’s Ordination brought about by ACNA’s “dual integrities, ” I thought it might be helpful to consider some of the earlier comments on the issue from various sources.  I think this letter from Fr. Alexander Schmemann is particularly interesting because the next round of the international Anglican-Orthodox dialogue is, as I understand it, going to address the issue of Women’s Ordination.  I will attempt to find more current resources leading up to this dialogue so that the position of the Anglican Communion as a whole as well as the Orthodox, might be something we can delve into here on Covenant.  Please be respectful in comments, and approach this topic with the seriousness it deserves, particularly considering the heat that it can generate.]

Dear Friend:

When you asked me to outline the Orthodox reaction to the idea of women’s ordination to the priesthood, I thought at first that to do so would not be too difficult. It is not difficult, indeed, simply to state that the Orthodox Church is against women’s priesthood and to enumerate as fully as possible the dogmatical, canonical, and spiritual reasons for that opposition.

On second thought, however, I became convinced that such an answer would be not only useless, but even harmful. Useless, because all such “formal reasons” - scriptural, traditional, canonical - are well known to the advocates of women’s ordination, as is also well known our general ecclesiological stand which, depending on their mood and current priorities, our Western Brothers either hail as Orthodoxy’s “main” ecumenical contribution or dismiss as archaic, narrow-minded, and irrelevant. Harmful, because true formally, this answer would still vitiate the real Orthodox position by reducing it to a theological context and perspective, alien to the Orthodox mind. For the Orthodox Church has never faced this question, it is for us totally extrinsic, a casus irrealis for which we find no basis, no terms of reference in our Tradition, in the very experience of the Church, and for the discussion of which we are therefore simply not prepared.

Such is then my difficulty. I cannot discuss the problem itself because to do so would necessitate the elucidation of our approach - not to women and to priesthood only - but, above all to God in his Triune Life, to Creation, Fall and Redemption, to the Church and the mystery of her life, to the deification of man and the consummation of all things in Christ. Short of all this it would remain incomprehensible, I am sure, why the ordination of women to priesthood is tantamount for us to a radical and irreparable mutilation of the entire faith, the rejection of the whole Scripture, and, needless to say, the end of all “dialogues.” Short of all this my answer will sound like another “conservative” and “traditional” defense of the status quo, of precisely that which many Christians today, having heard it too many times, reject as hypocrisy, lack of openness to God’s will, blindness to the world, etc. Obviously enough those who reject Tradition would not listen once more to an argument ex traditione….

But to what will they listen? Our amazement - and the Orthodox reaction is above all that of amazement - is precisely about the change and, to us, incomprehensible hastiness with which the question of women’s ordination was, first, accepted as an issue, then quickly reduced to the level of a disciplinary “matter” and finally identified as an issue of policy to be dealt with by a vote! In this strange situation all I can do is to try to convey to you this amazement by briefly enumerating its main “components” as I see and understand them.

The first dimension of our amazement can be termed “ecumenical.” The debate on women’s ordination reveals something which we have suspected for a long time but which now is confirmed beyond any doubt: the total truly built-in indifference of the Christian West to anything beyond the sphere of its own problematics, of its own experience. I can only repeat here what I have said before: even the so-called “ecumenical movement,” notwithstanding its claims to the contrary, has always been, and still is, a purely Western phenomenon, based on Western presuppositions and determined by a specifically Western agenda. This is not “pride” or “arrogance.” On the contrary, the Christian West is almost obsessed with a guilt complex and enjoys nothing better than self-criticism and self condemnation. It is rather a total inability to transcend itself, to accept the simple idea that its own experience, problems, thought forms and priorities may not be universal, that they themselves may need to be evaluated and judged in the light of a truly universal, truly “Catholic” experience. Western Christians would almost enthusiastically judge and condemn themselves, but on their own terms, within their own hopelessly “Western” perspective. Thus when they decide—on the basis of their own possibly limited and fragmented, specifically Western, “cultural situation”—that they must “repair” injustices made to women, they plan to do it immediately without even asking what the “others” may think about it, and are sincerely amazed and even saddened by lack, on the part of these “others” of ecumenical spirit, sympathy and comprehension.
View the original post

I cannot discuss the problem itself because to do so would necessitate the elucidation of our approach - not to women and to priesthood only - but, above all to God in his Triune Life, to Creation, Fall and Redemption, to the Church and the mystery of her life, to the deification of man and the consummation of all things in Christ. Short of all this it would remain incomprehensible, I am sure, why the ordination of women to priesthood is tantamount for us to a radical and irreparable mutilation of the entire faith, the rejection of the whole Scripture, and, needless to say, the end of all “dialogues.” Short of all this my answer will sound like another “conservative” and “traditional” defense of the status quo, of precisely that which many Christians today, having heard it too many times, reject as hypocrisy, lack of openness to God’s will, blindness to the world, etc. Obviously enough those who reject Tradition would not listen once more to an argument ex traditione….

Go for it, share the entire line of thought, I’d be happy to read through it.

Michael,

Since Fr. Schmemann passed away in the 1980’s, I doubt he will write it out for you.  We’ll have to do with this letter and possibly some of his other writings to get his view.  That said, the discussion of WO that takes place toward the end of the latest Anglican-Orthodox statement, Church of the Triune God is quite interesting as it has forced Anglicans to put into a coherent form the argument for WO, while at the same time putting a finer point on Orthodox criticisms.  We also have whatever comes out of the next dialogue to look forward to, as one of the things it is meant to focus on is the question of whether or not WO is a heresy from the perspective of the Orthodox (that is, was it condemned along with the rest of Montanism as a heresy).

I posted this as an interesting text from the background of the WO debates as they’ve taken place over the past several decades—this one being particularly interesting because it was evidently written to an “Episcopalian Friend.”

For me, the most interesting bit of this was the following criticism of the ecumenical movement:

The debate on women’s ordination reveals something which we have suspected for a long time but which now is confirmed beyond any doubt: the total truly built-in indifference of the Christian West to anything beyond the sphere of its own problematics, of its own experience. I can only repeat here what I have said before: even the so-called “ecumenical movement,” notwithstanding its claims to the contrary, has always been, and still is, a purely Western phenomenon, based on Western presuppositions and determined by a specifically Western agenda.

I think that Schmemann may be on to something important.  Indeed, I think the criticism could be broadened: Christianity became so wedded to imperial politics that those Christians within the Empire came to see themselves (whether in the Greek east or Latin West) as the only legitimate Christians—while those Christians outside the empire didn’t want much to do with those within it for fear of being cast as a fifth column in whatever political entity they lived in at the time, from the Persian Sassanid empire to through the rise of Islam.  The focal points of identity seem to have shifted Westward into Europe and eventually to the US as Eastern Europe and the original heartland of Eastern Orthodoxy existed first under Muslim domination and then under Communism (one could get into the intricacies of Russian relations with the west, but suffice it to say, the strained relationship that has existed between the Western European nations and Russia have their root in a history that is dramatically different and gives Russia a particularity that affects the way Russian Christians have thought of themselves, and the way they have been perceived by the west).

All this is to say, Western Christians (specifically inheritors of the Latin West) have a tendency to a greater or lesser extent, to see the boundaries of the faith as coterminous with their tradition and those it has defined itself against through the years, i.e. basically Protestant and Roman Catholic.

Hi Fthr. Jody,

Yes, I have noticed that same prejudice in the West that really all things Christian mean either Roman Catholic or Protestant.  Very little attention is given to Eastern Orthodoxy.  I sometimes suspect that some Christians think Eastern Orthodoxy is similar to Buddhism or Hinduism in some way.  They see it as “exotic” and “foreign”. 

Even in the scholarly circles, there seems to be a lack of interest in the East after the patristic period.  We delve right into St. Augustine and St. Anselm, etc.  There is no real regard for how the EO has continued the Tradition.

I also want to say that I have a great deal of respect for the Eastern Orthodox Church.  In many ways, I count my theology to be most closely akin to it.  I also have HUGE respect for Fthr. Schememann.  His “For the Life of the World” radically transformed my understanding and experience of the Eucharist. 

However, in the end, I found his argument regarding women’s ordination to really be no different than that of Rome or other traditionalist arguments.  The priest is the icon of Christ.  Because Christ was male, therefore the priest needs to be male.  I appreciate that he stresses that the ontology is in Christ not the priest.  I would be curious if Roman Catholic theologians would make that point or not.

Where I have difficulty is that if in the eschaton there is no difference between male and female, why is there now?  Understanding how Fthr. Schememann emphasizes the trans-temporal and trans-spatial aspects of the Eucharist, why does this matter?

In Christ,
Shawn

The “wedding” of the church to the empire was indeed unfortunate. But what was most unfortunate was having the church adopt the trappings of power and wealth in order to “advance” the Gospel.  The Roman centered church made its home in the corridors of power and wealth.  The disenfranchisement of the eastern church at least kept it somewhat more genuine; at least until it found its own corridors of power in Russia.

It would be interesting to contemplate what shape Christianity might have taken had not Constantine seen that sword.  Would it have survived as a marginalized group?  Might it have lived only in ghettos like the Jews?  What if the theological battles had not been significant to the peace of the empire?  Could we have made believers of all nations had the sword not been there; had we not converted royalty first in order to “convert” nations?

Given our accommodation to the cultures of power and privilege for centuries, it is hard, for me, to see the “tradition” argument as holding much water.  There is no “tradition” that exists independent of a freely and enthusiastically given accommodation to the culture of wealth and power down through the centuries. So I find the critique of TEC progressives just a bit myopic, when in fact the traditionalists’ ancestors simply sold their souls to other cultures that rewarded them with brocades and cash.

But Michael, Fr Schmemann agrees that we cannot extricate ourselves from culture, hence his criticism:

what is truly amazing is that while absolutely convinced that they understand past “cultures,” the advocates of women’s ordination seem to be totally unaware of their own cultural “conditioning” of their own surrender to culture.

I suspect that Schmemann’s trouble with both Roman traditional arguments and progressive Protestant arguments is the assumption that these can be questions of nature and of reason, abstracted from the Church which is life in the Holy Spirit.  That is what “Tradition” means. 

Schmemann’s strongest point is, I believe, that the theology of women’s ordination is one of a subtle clericalism:  the underlying assumption is that the clergy are the only ones who are important, therefore if women cannot be clergy they cannot be important.  But the whole logic of that is false, as TEC’s prophets of lay (i.e. baptismal) dignity surely ought to know.

Hi Sam,

It’s a good critique on Fthr. Schmemann’s part and we have to be sure to heed it.  However, I don’t think it has to be an either/or situation.  EITHER we accept that the laity are a part of the ministry of Christ and therefore women need not be ordained OR we accept that women are called to ordained ministry and thus the only important order of ministry is the clergy.  We absolutely can affirm BOTH that all orders of ministry are valid and important AND that women are called to ordained ministry by God.

I had hoped that we (being the Covenant community) might continue our discussion on Communing the Unbaptized when I posted the HoB’s Theology Committee’s report.  The report suggested that there appears to be no real desire to move forward with formulating this doctrine in the Church at this time.  Apparently there are no resolutions (at least at the time of the report’s release) at GC regarding it.

From my view, that issue is much more likely to undermine our baptismal ecclesiology than does the idea that women’s ordination leads to clericalism.  I know proponents claim it is an evangelistic tool.  I used to think that myself.  However, more and more, I’m becoming convinced that it will work to soften the regenerative/redemptive power of baptism rather than lead people to it.  I’m afraid it will only increase the smorgasbord idea of spirituality in America.  Come to Christ’s Table this Sunday.  If you want to dine at Allah’s table next Sunday, feel free.  The Buddha is having a good special down the road (and that can be quite literally taken here in DC…Sixteenth street has nearly every denomination and faith running up and down it).  And so forth.  And again, I have experience with the smorgasbord of spirituality.

And again, I think Fthr. Schmemann’s explication of the Orthodox understanding of the Eucharist as being trans-temporal (meaning it stretches from Creation to the Cross to the Resurrection/Ascension to our moment to the eschaton [understanding that this is not linear as we experience it]) and trans-spatial (from Chaos to Calvary to St. So and So’s to Heaven [understanding that this is not spatially distinct]) renders the idea that when we are in Christ we are “neither male nor female” as operative here and now…as much as “here and now” are even operative in the celebration of the Eucharist.  In other words, if we are truly “lifted up” into the full Presence of the Holy Trinity during the Eucharist, how can the distinction of gender matter?

(I can only imagine what our evangelical friends must be thinking about this! )

In Christ,
Shawn

Shawn, of course the problematic clericalism doesn’t prove anything; I say that by way of deconstructing what a lot of people think about women’s ordination, not to formulate any argument as to why the ordained priesthood is only male.

Either gender matters or it doesn’t, and I think it does, “in Christ there is neither male nor female” aside, because of course the fact that “in Christ there is neither male nor female” does not mean that baptized Christians lose their gender/sex.  If Paul meant there is literally no male and female, why would he spend so much time addressing particular concerns of men and women?  No:  the equality entailed in that Biblical phrase is not a functional or interchangeable equality, for that would destroy the God-given difference which is one of the first parts of creation; it is rather equality in terms of dignity and participation in the divine life.  Although even that is, in a sense, mitigated by the fact that woman is, in the large scale, much higher than man, because it was by woman that all humanity was given its redeemer.

Sam,

I don’t know if you’ve read it, but James Kushiner over at Touchstone’s Mere Comments recently republished some of his comments from 1992 re: women’s ordination, in which he presents an argument similar to the one you’ve just outlines, i.e. that there is a sort of clericalism—but not clericalism only, rather a sort of utilitarianism at work that sees people’s worth only in relation to what they *do*.  Here’s the link:

http://merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2009/07/the-ongoing-divisiveness-of-womens-ordination.html

Hi Sam,

I’m heading into an area that I have not studied too much, so I reserve the right to reverse or change what I am about to say if that’s okay.    I do my best thinking WITH other people rather than on my own, which is probably why I post too much. 

You said,

Either gender matters or it doesn’t, and I think it does, “in Christ there is neither male nor female” aside, because of course the fact that “in Christ there is neither male nor female” does not mean that baptized Christians lose their gender/sex.  If Paul meant there is literally no male and female, why would he spend so much time addressing particular concerns of men and women?  No:  the equality entailed in that Biblical phrase is not a functional or interchangeable equality, for that would destroy the God-given difference which is one of the first parts of creation; it is rather equality in terms of dignity and participation in the divine life.  Although even that is, in a sense, mitigated by the fact that woman is, in the large scale, much higher than man, because it was by woman that all humanity was given its redeemer.

Maybe it matters for our current sojourn* only.  Let’s take a look at the beginning and the end.  In Genesis 1 and 2, the Hebrew word for “man” is “adam”, where we get Adam.  While many translations use the English word “man” for this Hebrew word, really “humanity” or “humankind” would be better.  We see this in the text in Genesis 2 when different Hebrew words are used when God forms Woman (“ishshah”) from Man (“iysh”).  Notice the change in Hebrew word.  These Hebrew words are meant to stand in contrast to each other, while “adam” is to represent the wholeness of humanity.

Then we turn to the fulfillment of time.  Matthew records a conversation Christ had with the Sadducees who did not believe in the resurrection.  They try to trick Him by asking Him who would be the husband of a widow who had married and widowed seven times in the resurrection.  Christ responds

But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God.  For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven…”

(Matt 22:29-30)

I will readily admit that I have not studied this passage in detail, but it seems to be indicating that at least marriage will not continue in the Presence of the Holy Trinity.  When we take the dividing of “adam” into “iysh” and “ishshah” into account, is it possible that the distinction of gender is not actually God’s fulfillment for humanity?  Perhaps a return to “adam” is what God plans for us in the eschaton.

Thus, since the Eucharist lifts us up into the eschaton (among so very much more), gender distinctions are no longer operative.

(Again, I suggest this all tentatively as I would have to study it in much more detail to be more assertive.  Maybe this can be a project for me in my upcoming Hebrew class!)

In Christ,
Shawn

*Here I refer to our temporary sojourn in this life.  The idea that we are in a tabernacle (2 Cor. 5:1-8 and 2 Pet 1:12-15).

I think it might be interesting now, to look at some of the issues raised in Church of the Triune God.  The Anglican support for women’s ordination is presented first, so I include it below and look forward to your responses.  If I had to guess, I’d suspect that the criticisms that some Anglo-Catholics would voice (some of which Sam has already articulated) will echo the sentiments expressed by the Orthodox in the next section.  I want to commend the tenor of the discussion this far.  Let’s stick with the theological questions as they are quite interesting.  I think it is important for Anglicans to wrestle with these issues, as it is for the Orthodox, since we are both in the position of having groups within our communions who agree with the other’s position.

I want to present this section because I think it is one of the better brief explications of a theology in favor of Women’s ordination that I have seen:

27. In section VI, ‘Priesthood, Christ and the Church’, we recorded our agreement on the fundamental nature of priesthood, and on the relationship between the ordained priesthood and the priesthood of Christ and of the Church. Against that background we examine now the arguments for the inclusion of women in the ordained priesthood. The argument of those in favour of the ordination of both women and men to the presbyterate and episcopate begins with the affirmation that the priest is a guarantor of the Church’s identity in Christ, in whom there is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male nor female.

28. We have earlier affirmed that the language of ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ in Christian theology is not gendered: it refers only to the relations of these two Persons of the Trinity and to the derivation according to existence of the one from the other. It does not refer to their likeness to a male parent and his offspring. To confess Jesus as ‘Son of the Father’ is to confess that the Son is distinct from the Father; and yet, as the term homoousion was intended to signify, he is Son by nature.

29. Christ’s priesthood, in which baptised women and men, as well as presbyters and bishops, participate, is integral to his humanity, which was male. Yet we have agreed (IV.5) that while Christ is the perfect male person, and no androgyne, his saving work extends equally to male and female. To use the maleness of the incarnate Logos as an argument against the ordination of women to the priesthood, however, would run counter to the ways in which the Bible and the Fathers speak of the Incarnation. St John speaks of the Word becoming ‘flesh’ (John 1.14); St Paul speaks of Christ Jesus ‘taking the form of a slave’ (Philippians 2.7) and of being ‘born of a woman’ (Galatians 4.4). The stress is on his assumption of our common humanity, rather than male humanity in particular, in order to share and overcome the fate of all human persons, and so inaugurate the new humanity.

30. We have earlier noted that when the early Fathers referred to the Word of God becoming man they used the Greek word anthropos, signifying ‘human being’ rather than ‘male’, and the abstract term anthropotes meaning humanity, not maleness (IV.11). Christ is the new, life-giving Adam, contrasted not with Eve, but with the old Adam who brought death (cf. Romans 5.12ff; 1 Corinthians 15.20ff). He bears our fate in the sense that he both lives out the new life of obedience to God, and makes it available to all, women and men alike. We share in the life of the new Adam through baptism, and it is sustained in us through eucharistic communion. The Letter to the Hebrews affirms that Christ has ‘in every respect been tested as we are, yet without sin’ (Hebrews 4.14); he became like us so that ‘by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone’ (Hebrews 2.9). In St John’s Gospel, Jesus’ flesh is given ‘for the life of the world’ (John 6.51).

31. The Church’s Tradition strongly upholds this view. St Athanasius writes, ‘The Logos who in himself could not die, assumed the body which could die, in order to sacrifice his body as his own for all.’ Hippolytus of Rome writes, ‘In order to be considered equal to us, he took hardship upon himself, he was willing to hunger, to thirst, to sleep, not to resist suffering, to be obedient to death, to rise visibly’. The same idea is found in the Latin theology of Leo the Great: ‘He descended among us to assume not only the substance, but also the condition of our sinful nature’. St Gregory of Nazianzus says, ‘Christ saves both (women and men) by his passion. Was he made flesh for the man? So he was also for the woman. Did he die for the man? The woman also is saved by his death. He is called ‘seed of David’: and so perhaps you think the man is honoured. But he is also born of a virgin, and this is on the woman’s side’ (Oratio 37.7). All patristic teaching on this question may be summed it up in Gregory of Nazianzus’ simple phrase: ‘For that which he has not assumed he has not healed; but that which is united to his Godhead is also saved’ (Epistle 101, PG 37, 181D).

32. For Gregory of Nazianzus and virtually all the Fathers there is no contradiction in affirming that Jesus Christ as a male was truly and completely human. Although he was born as a particular man at a particular time, Scripture and Tradition are clear that he stands for all and assumes the fate of all, so that all may be saved. There is no suggestion that his maleness, as contrasted with femaleness, is of particular significance. What is significant in Christ’s humanity, and what is symbolised by the humanity of the ordained priest, is the human condition which the Son assumes in order to save.

33. The resurrected body of Jesus is wholly continuous with his historical body. His risen body is already eschatologically transformed, transfigured and glorified, as our bodies will be, for Christ’s humanity overcomes death (cf. II.29). By his resurrection humanity is restored to wholeness: ‘it is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body’ (1 Corinthians 15.44). Some of the Fathers, in particular St Gregory of Nyssa and St Maximus the Confessor affirm that, in the risen life in Christ, the distinction between male and female is radically transformed. St Maximus writes: ‘Christ brought unity to human existence, mystically removing at the spiritual level the differences of male and female; the true nature of humanity (ton logon tis physeos) is set free in both male and female from those characteristics that have to do with the passions (Maximus Conf., Quaestiones ad Thalassum 48, PG 90, 436A).

34. This equality of women and men is eschatological. In the Niceno-Constantinopolitan and Apostles’ creeds confession of faith in the resurrection of the dead, or the body, follows confession of faith in the Holy Spirit. This new humanity is associated with Baptism and Eucharist because there the Spirit is at work, opening humanity to the future and to a new quality of human relationship. In this new relationship human persons are not identified on the basis of their past or present: they are granted a future in spite of their past or present (cf. II.35).

35. In the Eucharist the community of the baptised, the eschatological people of God, isrenewed in its identity as the community of the reign of God, which participates in the mission of Christ to the world (cf. IV.21). Anglican members of the Commission acknowledge that the eschatological understanding of the Eucharist is particularly strong in Orthodox theology and spirituality. The Eucharist is not simply the memorial (anamnesis) of the cross and resurrection, but also anticipates the future reign of God, in which it enables us to participate. We make the memorial of Christ who has died, is risen, and will come again. Paradoxically, we remember in the Eucharist the coming reign of God, and behold what we shall be.

36. In the light of what has been said above about the transformation of gender in the new life of the kingdom, many Anglicans hold that there are compelling theological grounds for ordaining women as well as men to the priestly and presidential ministries of presbyter and bishop, or at the very least that there are no compelling theological reasons against doing so.

So this is the heart of the Anglican case for the ordination of women as presented in the most recent Anglican-Orthodox dialogue.  What do you think?  Is it convincing or not?  Are there portions that could be stronger?  Something to look out for in the Orthodox response is how much Schmemann’s comments seem to presage their criticisms.

Michael,

The Eastern Church wasn’t disenfranchised for a long time.  They had plenty of time to develop a theology in support of their empire (which was then transferred to Russia).  But, my point was that the criticism that Schmemann levels at the “west” is easily leveled at the WHOLE west, i.e. both the Greek and Latin inheritors of Christian Rome in the way they looked at those Christians who lived beyond the borders of the empire, i.e. the Oriental Orthodox—Armenians, Copts, etc… The idea that Eastern Orthodoxy isn’t Western in the broad sense is, I think, incorrect.  I find it very interesting that issues of religious difference often follow political and ethnic fault lines.  I do not think that is mere coincidence.

Hi Fthr. Jody,

My above reply speaks to Mr. Kushiner’s comments on “unisex”. 

However, his critique of modern society being utilitarian is an apt one.  I do believe that we, especially here in America, tend to value people’s worth by what they do.  I spent two years working with people with serious mental illness, most of whom are on federal and state disability programs.  A great deal of money is spent on “Back to Work” programs for the disabled.  In many cases, this is very therapeutic for these folk.  But in some cases, the societal pressure to work and “be productive”  is more damaging to their mental health.  I think we also see this with parents, both women and men, who feel pressured to get a job after the birth or adoption of a child.  We are beginning to see a real deterioration of the value of relationships in favor of the value of productivity in American culture.  If we truly advocate for “family values”, we should be doing more to allow for parental leave, health insurance for all people, disability and unemployment benefits, etc.  These are the stressors that are destroying our families.

But back on topic…. 

If the Church buys into this paradigm of productivity, then the critique is valid.  But productivity is not the reason one becomes a priest.  It is vocation.  I am very encouraged by the increase in talk about vocation…for ALL orders of ministry….within our Church.  If a person within community is responding to God’s vocation that is not a matter of productivity but obedience.

In Christ,
Shawn

Sam Keyes - 04 July 2009 11:24 AM

But Michael, Fr Schmemann agrees that we can extricate ourselves from culture, hence his criticism:

what is truly amazing is that while absolutely convinced that they understand past “cultures,” the advocates of women’s ordination seem to be totally unaware of their own cultural “conditioning” of their own surrender to culture.

I suspect that Schmemann’s trouble with both Roman traditional arguments and progressive Protestant arguments is the assumption that these can be questions of nature and of reason, abstracted from the Church which is life in the Holy Spirit.  That is what “Tradition” means. 

Schmemann’s strongest point is, I believe, that the theology of women’s ordination is one of a subtle clericalism:  the underlying assumption is that the clergy are the only ones who are important, therefore if women cannot be clergy they cannot be important.  But the whole logic of that is false, as TEC’s prophets of lay (i.e. baptismal) dignity surely ought to know.

Ahhh, but Sam the whole point here IS to extricate ourselves from culture!  From the culture that connects power with the church, or better church with power.  By including within Holy Orders those who the cultures keep powerless and marginalized: women, indigenous peoples, glbt folk we make witness to the centrality of the Gospel and Paul which have the church opposing or transforming Culture (good old H. Richard is still paradigmatic here, eh?)

If Schmemann’s strongest point is about subtle clericalism, then whatever it conjures about the nature of the Trinity, Godhead, Creation, etc. as the original quote suggests could hardly have much gravitas by comparison to the weakness of his strongest point.

But it is also about power, of course. Men, now including indigenous Men, see the church as a place of power and have exercised it like the Gentiles Jesus critiques. Men, who could not inherit or go to war became clerics and fought for power there.  For anyone to suggest that it only becomes about clerical power when the dispossessed are included and make THAT the critique of including them are just self serving.  It is a flawed reading of Scripture to suggest that women and even slaves were not important in early communities, likely even presidents of the Lord’s Supper.

A further sign that power is an issue is the subtle attack on TEC’s polity which includes a dismissive attitude towards the capacity of the laity to contribute anything of value to the councils of the church because they are ill educated.  Graze over to the thread on Justice and read Benjamine Guyer and my exchange.  Now we have the clericalism as tradition being touted by the ++ABC and the Primates.  Bishops are the only people who should be making decisions, they assert, how can you Americans be so stupid as to allow the unwashed clergy and laity to have part?  I suspect at this general convention we will see some movement in the House of Bishops, based in the warm fuzzy leftovers of Indaba, to assert some greater primacy of their role and to become as a House the “brakes” that hold the two moratoria in place.  Or we might look at the assault by conservatives on the lay woman rep from Uganda who it was said, in the absence of Orombi, was terribly unprepared for all the politics of the ACC.

These attacks have nothing to do with the Holy Spirit, since there is little evidence she has been compelled to operate ever exclusively among clerics.  Nor do they have anything to do with culture, since the leadership of these groups simply accommodates to the culture of the elites wherever they are planted.  It does have to do with power and the maintenance of that power by elites. 

The attack strategy is this; first to diminish the role of the laity by declaring them uninformed of the complex matters of theology; then to put women back in their proper place and keep other marginalized groups marginalized.  I suspect that the indigenous church leaders of the global south will ultimately find themselves dumped once the white western male church of ACNA no longer has use for them.  Witness the attempt to have an American represent a global south jurisdiction at the ACC meeting.  So stay tuned.

But all of this is ancillary to the heart of the matter: what IS the purpose of Holy Orders and who is fit to do it.  Jesus makes us servants and servant leaders at the Last Supper.  It is difficult to see the present structures among our Holy Orders as incarnating the Last Supper.  Indeed we have made even walking last in line a symbol of station rather than servanthood.  The actual on the ground leaders of the church were not clergy, were not all men and had no place in the power elites of the day.  The shepherd was a marginal, dirty and suspect class, but that is the metaphor for leadership.  Station, gender, and orientation are irrelevant considerations for who might best be a servant leader.  They emerge in the process of doing ministry by the power of the Spirit and we set them apart to support them in that ministry.  Not to have power, but to empower others by gathering and forming them in the likeness of the Good Shepherd.

So we ordain those who show the charism of gathering people and serving them regardless of who they are: male or female, greek or jew, slave or free.

Hi Fthr. Jody,

Thanks for the quotation on the dialogue.  I must admit that it creeps me out sometimes when I find my own personal thoughts on an issue almost exactly replicated by other, earlier thinkers without my having ever been exposed to their thinking.  Its truly humbling for sure!  I don’t ever think of myself having an original idea anymore! 

In Christ,
Shawn

Sam Keyes - 04 July 2009 12:06 PM

Shawn, of course the problematic clericalism doesn’t prove anything; I say that by way of deconstructing what a lot of people think about women’s ordination, not to formulate any argument as to why the ordained priesthood is only male.

Either gender matters or it doesn’t, and I think it does, “in Christ there is neither male nor female” aside, because of course the fact that “in Christ there is neither male nor female” does not mean that baptized Christians lose their gender/sex.  If Paul meant there is literally no male and female, why would he spend so much time addressing particular concerns of men and women?  No:  the equality entailed in that Biblical phrase is not a functional or interchangeable equality, for that would destroy the God-given difference which is one of the first parts of creation; it is rather equality in terms of dignity and participation in the divine life.  Although even that is, in a sense, mitigated by the fact that woman is, in the large scale, much higher than man, because it was by woman that all humanity was given its redeemer.

This has been the Papacy’s line for years and frankly not much different from some of the mullahs’ explanation of why women are kept from participating in any aspect of public life. It is just that, a shallow excuse made by elite men to exclude women and this limit the power of the Spirit.

I do think Paul means that with respect to participation in the life of the kindom (yes we are kin of God now) all those normal categories do not matter.