@Ruth I agree: "not an argument in favour of a male-only priesthood", but having found a church that offers "right worship", and has done for almost 2000 years, I am happy to accept that it is right in this and other matters.
So you decided what "right worship" is by your own lights and joined a church that had it, then accepted whatever else they told you. Much as I prefer some forms of worship over others, my priorities are different. I think a church's views of and treatment of human beings is more important than how it does worship.
There needs to be some term for that unrelenting judgemental scrutiny that attends every female until she reaches the age of invisibility - assuming, that is, she dwindles into an unthreatening old woman. If she persists in being learned or outspoken or otherwise challenging - eg Mary Beard - she still gets it, with added ageism.
@Ruth I agree: "not an argument in favour of a male-only priesthood", but having found a church that offers "right worship", and has done for almost 2000 years, I am happy to accept that it is right in this and other matters.
So you decided what "right worship" is by your own lights and joined a church that had it, then accepted whatever else they told you. Much as I prefer some forms of worship over others, my priorities are different. I think a church's views of and treatment of human beings is more important than how it does worship.
I think a very strong argument can be made from the prophets that how God views our “right worship” is inextricably bound up with how we treat other human beings.
Isn’t lording over just wrong? For if we agree on that then we are open to discuss why the long term established churches do not see their restrictions on the roles of women within the church as lording over women. One step at a time.
On that, I'd agree. I think some kind of power has to be exercised in any organization to prevent the abuse of power - and I'll cheerfully acknowledge that paradox - but tying that power to an assigned gender is directly an abuse against bodied of the gender that is denied access to seats of power. Full stop. It's very simple.
I'm a man and I'm happy that my local church is led by women. It shows a commitment to equity in principle and practice, and it should be common sense.
There is an issue with "flaunting sexuality" in that that the definition of "flaunting sexuality" is defined by the male gaze. Women cannot win in this.
There was a scene in the recent The Other Bennet Sister in which Mary felt flustered when she saw Tom roll his shirt sleeves up to the elbow. I'm sure I was not the only women to "get" why Mary felt flustered! But Tom was entirely oblivious to the fact that he was "flaunting his sexuality."
Women are supposed to police their clothing and take responsibility for male sexual response. Men are expected to neither take responsibility for their own responses, nor police their own clothing.
All sorts of female clothing is sexualised by men. School uniforms? Nurses' uniforms? What was she wearing? Was she "asking for it?" Random bits of the female body are deemed sexual, and we have to police our clothing accordingly.
How tight is "too tight" and therefore sexualised? How baggy do our clothes have to be to be "not sexual".
This week there were some happy photos of Zohran Mamdani in a swimming pool splashing around with his wet shirt clinging to him. Do you think a female mayor of New York could have done that? Of course not! She'd have been "flaunting her sexuality"!
"The male gaze" is a film theory term and specifically refers to the camera's gaze (within a film) assuming that the viewer is male. It cannot apply to real-life people, because it's vey specifically about interacting with the camera within the context of a film. I do agree with your comment in general.
I think you could turn that to "The Gaze," which is a philosophical idea about how the one who has the power to gaze at another carries the power in a situation. Seeing and being seen. Be seeing someone you exercise a certain power over them, and this is definitely something I've observed as a guy in social settings, to my sometimes-embarrassment. It's a thing.
I think I qualify as an "own voice" here - I joined the Orthodox Church almost 40 years ago. I'm still there, and can't see myself anywhere else. I'm Orthodox all the way to my bones.
That said, for the last decade or so, in the US anyway, changes in the broader culture have had a significant impact on the life of the Church, and it hasn't been good. We've suffered from an influx of converts, almost all single, young, white men, who might be described as white nationalists of the Byzantine rite. I have a problem with them.
I don't have a problem with the fact that, at this time, all our priests are men. I do have a problem with the fact that, at this time, all our deacons are men. We need deaconesses desperately.
In the Orthodox Church, "we've always done it this way" is a sufficient reason for doing something a particular way. It seems that we've always had an all-male priesthood (although the evidence is not as clear as I once thought it was). We have not always had an all-male diaconate. Including women in the diaconate is, I think, the only faithful and responsible thing we can do. 20 years ago, I would have said it was inevitable, and probably in my lifetime. (I would have also said that a rite for same-sex marriage was inevitable, but more likely in my children's lifetime than mine.)
There was a time when a woman was not permitted to enter the sanctuary or to go beyond the communion-rail - at least, according to Ritual Notes, a manual for Catholic-minded Anglicans.
That was my life-long experience (I was 70 at that time) and had been the practice of that particular Anglican church.
My perhaps unfortunate choice of words about her clothing reflects my shock at the customary norm there being flouted, without any prior consultation with the congregation.
Re women deacons. Something happened between the much respected and trusted “Phoebe diakonon” of Romans 16 and the solidifying of the current Tradition. Whatever it was I really don’t like it.
On the 'solidifying' of the 'current Tradition', the Orthodox would claim that Tradition does 'move' and isn't cast in concrete. Although that isn't always how it looks of course, either from within or from the outside.
The current Ecumenical Patriarch has called for a review of the current position on the ordination of female deacons, but that was only 5 years ago. A microsecond in Orthodox terms.
Do you think that the influx of young male enquirers/converts is having an influence on attitudes and policy in a causal way, or do you think it's a symptom of a growing conservatism within the Orthosphere?
We've had an influx of enquirers and converts in our parish, a pattern repeated across the UK and indeed Australia (which I visited recently) and elsewhere.
Not all of them are young men and not all of them are coming out with the kind of views you describe. Indeed, some are very much against the kind of 'Orthobro' thing that's going on in the US.
That doesn't mean we don't have home-grown guff to contend with.
Nor does it mean that some of these lads don't hold positions I wouldn't share.
@Ruth made a point on the Hell thread from which this one originated that if we don’t want Nazis in our bar then we shouldn't stock the things that might attract them in the first place.
That's an interesting point and challenge. To use an example for a moment that is unrelated to the sexism and misogyny debate...
The Orthodox here, as one would expect, venerate pre-Schism British and Irish Saints. We aren't the only ones to do so of course.
Should we stop doing so lest it attract people who want to hijack the veneration of indigenous Saints to bolster some kind of nationalistic or xenophobic cause?
Should the Orthodox ordain women to the priesthood just in case our not doing so attracts misogynists who'd want to restrict women's voting rights and other civil rights and liberties?
Or should we do so to keep in step with other churches which have done so or for other reasons?
Should we abandon notions of 'ordination' entirely, irrespective of gender, because other Christian churches have done so or don't share the concept of ordination in Orthodox terms?
Those are the kind of questions this issue raises and they are biggies that aren't going to be resolved overnight.
But these and other questions are going through my mind. I'm sure there are plenty of others.
Within Catholicism, I know, Holy Orders are a sacrament given divinely by God and confirmed by the laying on of human hands belonging to men who have previously received the sacrament. And the diaconate is one of the Holy Orders.
Within Catholicism, Holy Orders are confined to baptised men. That idea seems to flow from the understanding that Jesus only selected male followers to be apostles. Apostle means “one who is sent on mission”.
I am not sure of the extent to which Orthodox Tradition is on all fours with Catholicism on Holy Orders and Sacraments and the related restriction on women. Others can answer that.
Within my “priesthood of all believers” tradition, this entire package does not apply. Indeed, it is not really understood by many of those of us who live within our tradition. We have a very different understanding of sacraments as well. And not all Protestants see these things in the same way as my subset of Protestantism does.
These differing backgrounds and understandings need to be weighed when considering whether the earlier Tradition is sexist.
I feel personally that denying women a place in Holy Orders or their Protestant equivalent is, intentionally or not, a support of the wider sin of sexism. The clear implication is that women are not trusted with these sacred responsibilities. The restriction was understandable in the prevailing, culturally sexist, world view when it was codified. But I find it very strange, given Jesus’s recorded attitudes to women in particular and trustworthiness in general. It seems to me to be based on unwarrantable assumptions about the mind of Jesus.
As chrisstyles put it in the Hell thread, ideas are not bounded. It is an unfortunate extension of the Traditional restriction that it can be seen to support a wider critical understanding about women. Are they to be trusted with authority and responsibility?
So far as cultural, historical, sexism is concerned, the wider historical background is that until relatively recently women were seen as property. The legal principle of coverture, for example, supported this ancient notion (as for example does the 10th commandment in Exodus 20). Coverture has, correctly, been progressively dismantled in English law. And there have been many other legal and political reforms following the justifiable grievances of suffragettes. The western world at least has generally moved away from the ancient understandings about women.
Yet sexism remains embedded in the minds of far too many . And it has poisonous effects.
If Catholicism and Orthodoxy can show me how they can both retain Traditional restrictions, yet join in the necessary continuing battle against the demonstrable evils of sexism, I shall be delighted to see the active mechanisms they choose to use. Of course it’s easier for me. My tradition was less burdened, open to listen to reforming ideas.
Very briefly. The Orthodox have a 'priesthood of all believers' position too.
A belief in an ordained priesthood - whether male-only or of whatever gender - doesn't obviate a belief that all Christian believers have a wider priestly role.
I'd rather defer to 'own voices' - not as a 'wriggle' but because I think it's more appropriate and we have been asked to prioritise those on this thread.
There are differences between Orthodox and RC concepts of ordination. Others are more qualified than I am to explore those. Essentially though, as I understand it, we don't see ordination as an 'indelible' thing I'm the way I understand the RCC to do. It can be removed as it were.
I sometimes find myself saying, 'RCs believe such-and-such' only to be told by @Alan29 and other RCs here that many of them don't. So I'll defer to them on how they understand ordination in their setting.
An observation, and not a 'wriggle' nor an attempt at 'whataboutery' that I might make is that although the Baptists, for instance, were among the first to appoint female ministers, the proportion of women in full-time ministry roles in Baptist Union churches here in the UK and Ireland is still very low. The more sacramentally inclined Anglicans have a far higher proportion of female clergy. I would imagine the proportion to be quite high for both the Methodists and URCs. So a less sacramental and less sacerdotal approach to Christian ministry in the 'ordained' sense is in and of itself no guarantee that gender inequality is going to be achieved.
Yes, of course it can be argued that at least the Baptists and others have made that initial step away from male-only clergy and I'm not denying that.
If I were a Baptist, Methodist, URC or a member of another Protestant church that had women clergy then we wouldn't be having this discussion - or at least, not the Hell thread that led to the formation of this one.
I would say that thinking about how to avoid attracting Nazis is worthy of deep thought in fact. For instance, I could say that I go to a church with a (queer) female rector and a (queer) female vicar. Our associate rector and priest affiliate are men, but one is queer and one is Black, so even there we might not appeal to such people.
But that's not nearly deep enough. What are we doing policy-wise to be antifascist? And I could answer that, but if you ask me/us that question, I will always also hear echoes of a man I knew, DT, who was part of the Freedom Rides. We asked him what he did during the civil rights movement. "Not enough."
Sure. I think deep thought and application is required.
Fascists don't appear to be attracted to the Quakers. So perhaps that's our answer.
Ok, I'm being flippant there but I do believe there is much the rest of us can learn from the Quaker witness to peace and of valuing that of God in everyone.
Quite right about continuing sexism in the low candle churches. I don’t absolve or deny the continuing problems there. Paradoxically we have less faith-related excuses and I guess that shows the extent in which folks have been tainted by the attitudes in the wider community.
I will always also hear echoes of a man I knew, DT, who was part of the Freedom Rides. We asked him what he did during the civil rights movement. "Not enough."
The Orthodox here, as one would expect, venerate pre-Schism British and Irish Saints. We aren't the only ones to do so of course.
Should we stop doing so lest it attract people who want to hijack the veneration of indigenous Saints to bolster some kind of nationalistic or xenophobic cause?
I don't think the argument is that one shouldn't do anything that a Nazi might like. I think the argument is that, if you do things that Nazis like, and you attract Nazis, you need to take the initiative to explain to the Nazis that their repugnant ideology isn't welcome, and that you need to be explicitly saying that it's quite reasonable and normal for a Nazi and a normal person to agree that punctual trains are a good thing, but that doesn't mean that the Nazi's other opinions are in any way acceptable, and the fact that you agree about trains doesn't provide any sort of validation for their other positions.
It gets a bit more complicated when you're considering a divisive social issue rather than something obviously noncontroversial like "punctual trains are good", and you find yourself standing on the same side of the discussion as the hateful bigots. That's the point where you really need to take a long hard look at your position. If the people on your side of the argument are all hatemongers, how sure are you that you are on the right side?
I suppose you are comparing the veneration of pre-Schism saints here with things like reconstructed Odinism which is basically explicit white supremacist nonsense putting on a religious coat. (Not all forms of Norse-derived paganism are racist, but some absolutely are.) Should some harmless, decent Asatru practitioner change their religion because Odinists exist? No, I'd say not.
If the people on your side of the argument are all hatemongers, how sure are you that you are on the right side?
It gets even more complicated if it's just a lot of them or just some of them that are hatemongers. And I've known (and even loved) thoroughgoing sexists I wouldn't call hatemongers. The sexism was still damaging.
When GG tells us that RCs believe such and such and then finds out that a good number of them don't he should remember two separate sentence beginnings
1. The Church teaches..............
2. Catholics believe...............................
These two statements can pan out in different ways
This will be the same for the Orthodox Church
The Church teaches........................................
The faithful believe........................................................................
To my mind it is the same for all of the 'historical churches.
How many people who are married in or buried with the rites of the Church of England know about the 39 Articles ?
In Scotland there are many who would call themselves Presbyterian who will never have heard of the Westminster Confession of Faith.
How many people who are married in or buried with the rites of the Church of England know about the 39 Articles ?
In Scotland there are many who would call themselves Presbyterian who will never have heard of the Westminster Confession of Faith.
The difference is that it's entirely acceptable for priests in the CofE and Ministers of the Kirk to disagree with elements of the 39 Articles or the Westminster Confession respectively, whereas any Roman Catholic priest or theologian asserting something contrary to what the RCC teaches is liable to be reprimanded.
@Ruth I agree: "not an argument in favour of a male-only priesthood", but having found a church that offers "right worship", and has done for almost 2000 years, I am happy to accept that it is right in this and other matters.
I'm fascinated to know everything that makes worship "right," and hope you'll share here in more detail, or at least via bullet pointed list.
ETA that I already know the "in spirit and in truth" part.
How many people who are married in or buried with the rites of the Church of England know about the 39 Articles ?
In Scotland there are many who would call themselves Presbyterian who will never have heard of the Westminster Confession of Faith.
The difference is that it's entirely acceptable for priests in the CofE and Ministers of the Kirk to disagree with elements of the 39 Articles or the Westminster Confession respectively, whereas any Roman Catholic priest or theologian asserting something contrary to what the RCC teaches is liable to be reprimanded.
Playing RC's (or Devil's) Advocate 😉, that could be turned around to ask what, if anything, CofE clergy or Kirk ministers can be reprimanded for ...
More seriously, @Forthview yes, there will be things that neither RC or Orthodox faithful will hold that are part of their Church's teaching.
Contraception would be the obvious issue that springs to mind in an RC context.
I'd imagine it varies across the Orthosphere. I roll my eyes at some of the mythos elements. We often say that the only thing we are dogmatic about are the Creeds, but in practice we go further than that. We don't dogmatise as much as the RCC does, at least at an official level.
Before I receive a reprimand myself, no, I'm not saying the RCC is devilish or anything of the kind.
Can we be careful to keep women’s experience and voices centred please and not go off on tangents about other subjects where flocks are at odds with the leadership?
And also can people be careful to check what board they are on before they hit post so Hell don't get Epiphanies posts and we dont get posts that would be better suited to Hell?
Re women deacons. Something happened between the much respected and trusted “Phoebe diakonon” of Romans 16 and the solidifying of the current Tradition. Whatever it was I really don’t like it.
I don't like it, either. And by all the rules of Orthodox Tradition, it's all wrong. The fact that we have had saints from the beginning is clear - not just St. Phoebe, but so many others. So having deaconesses is not an innovation, not a novelty. It exists in the Scriptures, in the prayers of the Church, in the lives of the saints. And from their lives, it is clear that they did far more than just assist with the baptism of women.
My hypothesis is that as the diaconate came to be seen as a stepping stone to the priesthood, and women can't be priests, it didn't make sense to ordain women to the diaconate. So what we need is a deeper understanding of the diaconate, of its historical and theological role, and we need a full restoration of that, including for women. IMNSHO.
Do you think that the influx of young male enquirers/converts is having an influence on attitudes and policy in a causal way, or do you think it's a symptom of a growing conservatism within the Orthosphere?
I think there are two significant influences on the Church right now. One is the dramatic rightward lurch of the overall culture in this country. I think it's impossible for such an extreme change in the surrounding culture not to have an impact on the Church, unless the bishops were to fight it in a consistent, coordinated fashion - and that might not even be enough. This change in American culture has had a larger effect on parishes and jurisdictions in the Russian tradition, and a smaller effect on Greek parishes, but it's happening everywhere.
This culture shift seems to be concentrated among young white men, many of whom have been consuming a steady diet of online content from far-right inflluencers (both Orthodox and otherwise). They are looking for an imagined past, and some of them think they can find it in the Orthodox Church. Because having loads of converts is something of a success metric among priests and bishops, there isn't enough vetting of these converts, and they are not being catechized effectively. Once they join the church, they share the far-right views they've picked up online with people in their parish. Some of the current parishioners follow them down the rabbit hole. Some of the current parishioners (especially women) leave.
We've had an influx of enquirers and converts in our parish, a pattern repeated across the UK and indeed Australia (which I visited recently) and elsewhere.
We certainly have ordinary inquirers and converts - but when a parish of 200 people has a current class of 25 catechumens, and they post a photo of their catechumens online, the majority of them will be young white men.
Should the Orthodox ordain women to the priesthood just in case our not doing so attracts misogynists who'd want to restrict women's voting rights and other civil rights and liberties?
No, I don't think so. But I think we should be very much aware that our not doing so may attract misogynists, and we should make it very clear why the misogynists are mistaken about women, and mistaken about what the Orthodox Church believes about women.
For example, the fact that only men are made priests must not ever be understood to mean that men are better than women. Grapes are not inherently superior to blueberries or raspberries or cherries. Wheat is not inherently superior to rice or barley. Even to suggest it is obviously silly. We use wine made from grapes, and bread made from wheat, simply because that's what our Lord did, and it's what we've always done. We can imagine that, if he had been made incarnate in a different place and time, he might have used something else. But Christianity is, in many ways, very particular, if you see what I mean. So we consecrate bread and wine for the Eucharist, and we ordain men for the priesthood. But not because they are more valuable.
At the parish where I was chrismated, some boys realized that they could take a shortcut through the altar area to get to some place they wanted to go, and of course, they were delighted that the girls couldn't. One of our deacons caught them at it, and read them the riot act. The boys defended themselves by saying they were boys. The deacon made it absolutely clear to them that people are blessed to enter the altar area, not based on anatomy, but only to perform the works of service that had been assigned to them. If there were an emergency in the altar, then anyone who was capable of managing the emergency could enter to deal with that emergency, and anyone not capable - even the clergy - would need to stay out.
That was 30 - 40 years ago. Putting that kind of message on repeat would help, I think. Ensuring that priests are equipped with the knowledge and interpersonal skills required to respond to and correct the young men who sit at a table at coffee hour and explain that women exist only to serve men, or that feminism is a form of witchcraft, or whatnot. If we were doing that, the neo-Nazis of the Byzantine rite might find us less appealing.
Re the diaconate. And to use your own words “very particular”, which I like, I’m being particular and hopefully not picky!
The Greek word for deacon is I understand gender free. As well as a specific use as a church office or role, more colloquially it means helper. Now helping is a God ordained spiritual gift, listed as such in 1 Corinthians 12 v 28. But a different Greek word (antilempseis) is used there. In general it means an unobtrusive helping. more behind the scenes. And therefore when Paul describes Phoebe as diakonon in Romans 16 he means more than a spiritually gifted helper, which Phoebe undoubtedly was. He means a recognised holder of a specific church role or office. A person of distinction. And Paul uses the same word (diakonos) for Phoebe in Romans 16 as he does in the later use in 1 Timothy 3 for the role or office of a deacon.
Paul therefore would seem to see Phoebe as not just a spiritually gifted helper but someone who is fit to hold a specific role or office. On this, you and I seem to be in complete agreement and I am glad to see it.
Now I fully understand why you see the exclusive male priesthood as a matter of difference, not superiority and that you are not in any way sexist in holding that Traditional view. That is you being very particular! And also that you see it as a clear responsibility of Orthodox priests to catechise and correct anyone new or old in the church that Orthodoxy does not see women as inferior to men. I’m very glad to see that too.
Where we differ, I think, is that from my reformed background, the concept of priesthood of all believers as a principle cannot be taken to justify any exclusion of women from a priestly office. It should be a matter of gifting and character, not gender.
Personally I can live with and respect that difference. I would prefer to see more open emphasis within your Tradition that different does not mean inferior. It seems possible to have a united, publicly united, voice on the correction of sexism and its related evils. That would be a good thing.
What I've been thinking about is the very old and deeply entrenched connection between church and society when it comes to sexism and misogyny, along with interrelated structural and attitudinal phobias and prejudices around racism, homophobia, transphobia, fascism, ageism etc etc.
In my lived experience there has been very little real difference between what I've had to deal with at school, in doctor's surgeries, in family circles, in social situations and in the church. Nowhere felt safe enough as a child. All the institutions were compromised and often indifferent to what was going on in the lives of women and children. At church, as at school or walking down the street, we as female were policed around what to wear, how to behave, how to be 'ladylike', how to avoid dangerous men, how to defuse aggression, how to keep smiling and putting up with mansplaining, offensive jokes and inappropriate touching.
When I was studying post-grad theology at my own expense (economic support is often just not there for women training for the ministry or just wanting higher education), a lecturer suggested I do a paper on sexism in right-wing religions, look critically at conservative evangelicals or toxic masculinity in mainstream churches veering towards the right. I doubted there was any substantive difference between the overt or masked prejudices across liberal vs conservative churches. And I could have started as easily by tackling entrenched sexism in academia or the corporate workplace or law courts.
Whether as a woman I protest in place or leave the church, the struggle carries on in every single corner of my life. Piecemeal changes and token gestures keep happening, the anger and desperation gets fiercer but so much stays unchanged.
For example, the fact that only men are made priests must not ever be understood to mean that men are better than women. Grapes are not inherently superior to blueberries or raspberries or cherries. Wheat is not inherently superior to rice or barley. Even to suggest it is obviously silly. We use wine made from grapes, and bread made from wheat, simply because that's what our Lord did, and it's what we've always done. We can imagine that, if he had been made incarnate in a different place and time, he might have used something else. But Christianity is, in many ways, very particular, if you see what I mean. So we consecrate bread and wine for the Eucharist, and we ordain men for the priesthood. But not because they are more valuable.
You could use this exact same argument to justify not ordaining blondes, or rich people. Jesus could have chosen a blond man or a rich man as a disciple, and didn't. What makes them ordain-able, but not women?
As far as my own experience of growing up in church... I was lucky. I grew up in an Episcopal parish which had women clergy, without comment, from the early 80s onward. Women were also well represented as lectors, eucharistic ministers, acolytes etc... but there were no men on the Altar Guild, ever. I can't remember any overt expressions of sexism in the preaching, although as a kid I might not have picked it up.
I've worked admin jobs in Lutheran and UCC churches for the past ten years, exclusively under female clergy. It's fine. There's not any huge difference, I've done the same job as a volunteer at my own parish when we had male clergy. Each boss has had their own quirks and flaws. Their personality and habits make a lot more difference to me, as an employee, than what they have in their pants.
I am not going to try to claim that any of the three denominations named above are an egalitarian paradise. Every female clergyperson I know as an adult has had inappropriate comments, harassment, or even stalkers. But we're at least not lagging far behind Walmart or McDonald's in our treatment of women and LGBTQ+ people.
For example, the fact that only men are made priests must not ever be understood to mean that men are better than women. Grapes are not inherently superior to blueberries or raspberries or cherries. Wheat is not inherently superior to rice or barley. Even to suggest it is obviously silly. We use wine made from grapes, and bread made from wheat, simply because that's what our Lord did, and it's what we've always done. We can imagine that, if he had been made incarnate in a different place and time, he might have used something else. But Christianity is, in many ways, very particular, if you see what I mean. So we consecrate bread and wine for the Eucharist, and we ordain men for the priesthood. But not because they are more valuable.
You could use this exact same argument to justify not ordaining blondes, or rich people. Jesus could have chosen a blond man or a rich man as a disciple, and didn't. What makes them ordain-able, but not women?
To use a less frivolous example, Jesus also didn't choose any disciples with mobility difficulties - at least, they were all able to walk from town to town, and no canes, crutches etc are mentioned. If a church today officially* refused to ordain physically disabled people on those grounds, I hope none of us here would defend that decision.
*(I say "officially" since, obviously, there are a lot of unofficial barriers in the way still.)
Can we distinguish between disciples and apostles, the latter being a subset of the former? There may have been no women apostles but there were women disciples whose names we know (mostly called Mary).
For me, the 'different not inferior' argument falls down due to there not being any roles that are denied to men (viewing monks and nuns as both being part of the monastic tradition and therefore equivalent roles). If women aren't treated in an inferior way, how come only they are excluded from things and men are not?
Arguably Mary Magdalene was the first - apostle to the apostles.
There was also Junia, of course, although sometime in the early second millennium, some folks (probably men) decided that she must have been a man.
I have not studied the changes in the status and roles of women in the Church, but I have wondered sometimes whether the Crusades led to a devaluing of women. (But, of course, you have Pope Gregory I much earlier, so ... I don't know.)
We use wine made from grapes, and bread made from wheat, simply because that's what our Lord did, and it's what we've always done.
You could use this exact same argument to justify not ordaining blondes, or rich people. Jesus could have chosen a blond man or a rich man as a disciple, and didn't. What makes them ordain-able, but not women?
I think you're looking at only the first half of that - "that's what our Lord did." You missed the "it's what we've always done" part, and for us, that part matters very much. Our answer to, "Why don't you consider hair color as well as, or instead of, gender?" is "we don't do that, and we never have." Same with "Why don't you consider the personal wealth of the candidate for priesthood?" It's not what we do. (Although, as an irrelevant aside, I think that Matthew was likely quite wealthy - he was, after all, a tax collector.)
For me, the 'different not inferior' argument falls down due to there not being any roles that are denied to men (viewing monks and nuns as both being part of the monastic tradition and therefore equivalent roles). If women aren't treated in an inferior way, how come only they are excluded from things and men are not?
One possibility is that we have Very Strict Rules about blood in the altar area. If a priest, cutting the bread, cuts his had, the Liturgy has to go on pause and he has to leave the altar and deal with the blood, and can't return until the bleeding has stopped.
Given that, it seems quite possible that one of the things that caused women to be excluded from the altar has to do with women's menstrual bleeding. I doubt it would have been the only reason, but it likely played into it.
Both Catholicism and Orthodoxy teach equal in value and worth, complementary in role.
Modern Catholic Marriage vows, like Anglican Marriage Vows, no longer contain “submit”. And in Orthodox marriages, the couple do not make vows, they declare intentions to marry.
But I’m not convinced that things were so clear historically. The relationship between Catholicism and the suffragette movement was complex and I think the same could be said for Orthodoxy.
There’s certainly historical baggage to reckon with.
Of course so far as suffragettes are concerned, Protestantism is hardly free from criticism, with the honourable exceptions of Quakers and the Salvation Army.
It’s not unreasonable to argue that in general the Churches supported traditional male/female roles. Which were anything but free from sexism.
But as others have argued, similar criticism can be made, justifiably, about secular institutions. Historically. the world was sexist.
As I observed to josephine, I believe the Orthodox Church priests should actively catechise and correct those who believe in unequal worth. Same goes for Catholic (and Protestant priests and pastors) who still support complementary roles.
Else it looks like lip service. There are both historical and present reasons behind Leaf’s “never works” view.
As is clear, I don’t agree with the complementary roles view. But I don’t rule out more active declarations and actions in favour of equal worth and against sexism by those in church leadership who do.
When an adult says "Because I said so" to a child asking "why?" they're just exerting authority, not giving a reason. "It's not what we do" doesn't sound far off from that to me.
For me, the 'different not inferior' argument falls down due to there not being any roles that are denied to men (viewing monks and nuns as both being part of the monastic tradition and therefore equivalent roles). If women aren't treated in an inferior way, how come only they are excluded from things and men are not?
One possibility is that we have Very Strict Rules about blood in the altar area. If a priest, cutting the bread, cuts his had, the Liturgy has to go on pause and he has to leave the altar and deal with the blood, and can't return until the bleeding has stopped.
Given that, it seems quite possible that one of the things that caused women to be excluded from the altar has to do with women's menstrual bleeding. I doubt it would have been the only reason, but it likely played into it.
But plenty of women don't menstruate, so why not allow non-menstruating women?
Regardless of whether or not a woman menstruates, I think it's pretty impossible to ignore the misogynistic background to viewing menstruation as somehow inherently unclean. I'm aware that this is in no way unique to the Orthodox Church though. Menstrual blood is extremely unlikely to get near Eucharistic elements, unlike a cut on the hand. It's not like menstruating people are excluded from working in kitchens for example.
When an adult says "Because I said so" to a child asking "why?" they're just exerting authority, not giving a reason. "It's not what we do" doesn't sound far off from that to me.
It seems to me that, when you're talking about customs and traditions, religious or otherwise, "it's what we do" or "it's how we do it" is often the answer - not as an assertion of authority, but as the only answer there is. I mean, if you asked why we put candles on birthday cakes and have the birthday person blow out the candles - we do it because it's what we do. It's our customary way of celebrating birthdays. When I was growing up, my family did not decorate with red and green for Christmas. We decorated with blue. There's no answer for "why" beyond, "that's what my father's family did, so it's what our family did, and it's what I've always done."
The point about wine made from grapes is tenuous. You can use other beverages, can't you?
No, we can't.
Well, that's true enough in broadly Western and Mediterranean traditions and regions. When Portuguese Jesuits, sent out to Africa in the 1600s by Francis Xavier in Goa, reach what is now Zimbabwe (then Monomatapa), there is no wine or bread available. What they use in the consecration is a fermented sorghum drink and a crushed millet porridge.
For me, the 'different not inferior' argument falls down due to there not being any roles that are denied to men (viewing monks and nuns as both being part of the monastic tradition and therefore equivalent roles). If women aren't treated in an inferior way, how come only they are excluded from things and men are not?
One possibility is that we have Very Strict Rules about blood in the altar area. If a priest, cutting the bread, cuts his had, the Liturgy has to go on pause and he has to leave the altar and deal with the blood, and can't return until the bleeding has stopped.
Given that, it seems quite possible that one of the things that caused women to be excluded from the altar has to do with women's menstrual bleeding. I doubt it would have been the only reason, but it likely played into it.
To me this just shows the power of a worldview and the tendancy to make things that do not make sense somehow make sense.
A menstruating woman is obviously no dirtier than a man with dust in his beard or a dirt under his fingernails, and yet the one is ignored and the other is a problem.
To me it is all an elaborate dance where none of the pieces stand up to scrutiny.
If women aren't treated in an inferior way, how come only they are excluded from things and men are not?
One possibility is that we have Very Strict Rules about blood in the altar area. ... Given that, it seems quite possible that one of the things that caused women to be excluded from the altar has to do with women's menstrual bleeding. I doubt it would have been the only reason, but it likely played into it.
,,,,,,
A menstruating woman is obviously no dirtier than a man with dust in his beard or a dirt under his fingernails, and yet the one is ignored and the other is a problem.
I'm not sure why you and Pomona jumped to the idea of uncleanness. The ban on blood in the altar is not about uncleanness. It is about blood. The ban is intended to ensure that no one can ever accuse us of using blood sacrifice in our service. Ours is an unbloody sacrifice.
As I said, it seems likely to me that this is one of the reasons that women were excluded from the altar, but likely not the only reason. Roman beliefs about women and men likely had as much to do with it, if not more. Again, though, I do want to be clear that I have not made any kind of special study of this aspect of history or theology. I'm speculating.
Arguably Mary Magdalene was the first - apostle to the apostles.
There was also Junia, of course, although sometime in the early second millennium, some folks (probably men) decided that she must have been a man.
I have not studied the changes in the status and roles of women in the Church, but I have wondered sometimes whether the Crusades led to a devaluing of women. (But, of course, you have Pope Gregory I much earlier, so ... I don't know.)
Although the Crusades also led directly to the cult of Mary and the Marian devotions (in the Western Church), according to Karen Carpenter.
Comments
So you decided what "right worship" is by your own lights and joined a church that had it, then accepted whatever else they told you. Much as I prefer some forms of worship over others, my priorities are different. I think a church's views of and treatment of human beings is more important than how it does worship.
On that, I'd agree. I think some kind of power has to be exercised in any organization to prevent the abuse of power - and I'll cheerfully acknowledge that paradox - but tying that power to an assigned gender is directly an abuse against bodied of the gender that is denied access to seats of power. Full stop. It's very simple.
I'm a man and I'm happy that my local church is led by women. It shows a commitment to equity in principle and practice, and it should be common sense.
I think you could turn that to "The Gaze," which is a philosophical idea about how the one who has the power to gaze at another carries the power in a situation. Seeing and being seen. Be seeing someone you exercise a certain power over them, and this is definitely something I've observed as a guy in social settings, to my sometimes-embarrassment. It's a thing.
Indeed it is a thing!
I want to wait to hear from vulnerable voices before posting too much more.
That said, for the last decade or so, in the US anyway, changes in the broader culture have had a significant impact on the life of the Church, and it hasn't been good. We've suffered from an influx of converts, almost all single, young, white men, who might be described as white nationalists of the Byzantine rite. I have a problem with them.
I don't have a problem with the fact that, at this time, all our priests are men. I do have a problem with the fact that, at this time, all our deacons are men. We need deaconesses desperately.
In the Orthodox Church, "we've always done it this way" is a sufficient reason for doing something a particular way. It seems that we've always had an all-male priesthood (although the evidence is not as clear as I once thought it was). We have not always had an all-male diaconate. Including women in the diaconate is, I think, the only faithful and responsible thing we can do. 20 years ago, I would have said it was inevitable, and probably in my lifetime. (I would have also said that a rite for same-sex marriage was inevitable, but more likely in my children's lifetime than mine.)
My perhaps unfortunate choice of words about her clothing reflects my shock at the customary norm there being flouted, without any prior consultation with the congregation.
Good to 'meet' you @josephine
Re women deacons. Something happened between the much respected and trusted “Phoebe diakonon” of Romans 16 and the solidifying of the current Tradition. Whatever it was I really don’t like it.
On the 'solidifying' of the 'current Tradition', the Orthodox would claim that Tradition does 'move' and isn't cast in concrete. Although that isn't always how it looks of course, either from within or from the outside.
The current Ecumenical Patriarch has called for a review of the current position on the ordination of female deacons, but that was only 5 years ago. A microsecond in Orthodox terms.
A question for @josephine.
Do you think that the influx of young male enquirers/converts is having an influence on attitudes and policy in a causal way, or do you think it's a symptom of a growing conservatism within the Orthosphere?
We've had an influx of enquirers and converts in our parish, a pattern repeated across the UK and indeed Australia (which I visited recently) and elsewhere.
Not all of them are young men and not all of them are coming out with the kind of views you describe. Indeed, some are very much against the kind of 'Orthobro' thing that's going on in the US.
That doesn't mean we don't have home-grown guff to contend with.
Nor does it mean that some of these lads don't hold positions I wouldn't share.
@Ruth made a point on the Hell thread from which this one originated that if we don’t want Nazis in our bar then we shouldn't stock the things that might attract them in the first place.
That's an interesting point and challenge. To use an example for a moment that is unrelated to the sexism and misogyny debate...
The Orthodox here, as one would expect, venerate pre-Schism British and Irish Saints. We aren't the only ones to do so of course.
Should we stop doing so lest it attract people who want to hijack the veneration of indigenous Saints to bolster some kind of nationalistic or xenophobic cause?
Should the Orthodox ordain women to the priesthood just in case our not doing so attracts misogynists who'd want to restrict women's voting rights and other civil rights and liberties?
Or should we do so to keep in step with other churches which have done so or for other reasons?
Should we abandon notions of 'ordination' entirely, irrespective of gender, because other Christian churches have done so or don't share the concept of ordination in Orthodox terms?
Those are the kind of questions this issue raises and they are biggies that aren't going to be resolved overnight.
But these and other questions are going through my mind. I'm sure there are plenty of others.
Within Catholicism, Holy Orders are confined to baptised men. That idea seems to flow from the understanding that Jesus only selected male followers to be apostles. Apostle means “one who is sent on mission”.
I am not sure of the extent to which Orthodox Tradition is on all fours with Catholicism on Holy Orders and Sacraments and the related restriction on women. Others can answer that.
Within my “priesthood of all believers” tradition, this entire package does not apply. Indeed, it is not really understood by many of those of us who live within our tradition. We have a very different understanding of sacraments as well. And not all Protestants see these things in the same way as my subset of Protestantism does.
These differing backgrounds and understandings need to be weighed when considering whether the earlier Tradition is sexist.
I feel personally that denying women a place in Holy Orders or their Protestant equivalent is, intentionally or not, a support of the wider sin of sexism. The clear implication is that women are not trusted with these sacred responsibilities. The restriction was understandable in the prevailing, culturally sexist, world view when it was codified. But I find it very strange, given Jesus’s recorded attitudes to women in particular and trustworthiness in general. It seems to me to be based on unwarrantable assumptions about the mind of Jesus.
As chrisstyles put it in the Hell thread, ideas are not bounded. It is an unfortunate extension of the Traditional restriction that it can be seen to support a wider critical understanding about women. Are they to be trusted with authority and responsibility?
So far as cultural, historical, sexism is concerned, the wider historical background is that until relatively recently women were seen as property. The legal principle of coverture, for example, supported this ancient notion (as for example does the 10th commandment in Exodus 20). Coverture has, correctly, been progressively dismantled in English law. And there have been many other legal and political reforms following the justifiable grievances of suffragettes. The western world at least has generally moved away from the ancient understandings about women.
Yet sexism remains embedded in the minds of far too many . And it has poisonous effects.
If Catholicism and Orthodoxy can show me how they can both retain Traditional restrictions, yet join in the necessary continuing battle against the demonstrable evils of sexism, I shall be delighted to see the active mechanisms they choose to use. Of course it’s easier for me. My tradition was less burdened, open to listen to reforming ideas.
A belief in an ordained priesthood - whether male-only or of whatever gender - doesn't obviate a belief that all Christian believers have a wider priestly role.
I'd rather defer to 'own voices' - not as a 'wriggle' but because I think it's more appropriate and we have been asked to prioritise those on this thread.
There are differences between Orthodox and RC concepts of ordination. Others are more qualified than I am to explore those. Essentially though, as I understand it, we don't see ordination as an 'indelible' thing I'm the way I understand the RCC to do. It can be removed as it were.
I sometimes find myself saying, 'RCs believe such-and-such' only to be told by @Alan29 and other RCs here that many of them don't. So I'll defer to them on how they understand ordination in their setting.
An observation, and not a 'wriggle' nor an attempt at 'whataboutery' that I might make is that although the Baptists, for instance, were among the first to appoint female ministers, the proportion of women in full-time ministry roles in Baptist Union churches here in the UK and Ireland is still very low. The more sacramentally inclined Anglicans have a far higher proportion of female clergy. I would imagine the proportion to be quite high for both the Methodists and URCs. So a less sacramental and less sacerdotal approach to Christian ministry in the 'ordained' sense is in and of itself no guarantee that gender inequality is going to be achieved.
Yes, of course it can be argued that at least the Baptists and others have made that initial step away from male-only clergy and I'm not denying that.
If I were a Baptist, Methodist, URC or a member of another Protestant church that had women clergy then we wouldn't be having this discussion - or at least, not the Hell thread that led to the formation of this one.
But that's not nearly deep enough. What are we doing policy-wise to be antifascist? And I could answer that, but if you ask me/us that question, I will always also hear echoes of a man I knew, DT, who was part of the Freedom Rides. We asked him what he did during the civil rights movement. "Not enough."
Fascists don't appear to be attracted to the Quakers. So perhaps that's our answer.
Ok, I'm being flippant there but I do believe there is much the rest of us can learn from the Quaker witness to peace and of valuing that of God in everyone.
Wow - that's challenging
I don't think the argument is that one shouldn't do anything that a Nazi might like. I think the argument is that, if you do things that Nazis like, and you attract Nazis, you need to take the initiative to explain to the Nazis that their repugnant ideology isn't welcome, and that you need to be explicitly saying that it's quite reasonable and normal for a Nazi and a normal person to agree that punctual trains are a good thing, but that doesn't mean that the Nazi's other opinions are in any way acceptable, and the fact that you agree about trains doesn't provide any sort of validation for their other positions.
It gets a bit more complicated when you're considering a divisive social issue rather than something obviously noncontroversial like "punctual trains are good", and you find yourself standing on the same side of the discussion as the hateful bigots. That's the point where you really need to take a long hard look at your position. If the people on your side of the argument are all hatemongers, how sure are you that you are on the right side?
I suppose you are comparing the veneration of pre-Schism saints here with things like reconstructed Odinism which is basically explicit white supremacist nonsense putting on a religious coat. (Not all forms of Norse-derived paganism are racist, but some absolutely are.) Should some harmless, decent Asatru practitioner change their religion because Odinists exist? No, I'd say not.
It gets even more complicated if it's just a lot of them or just some of them that are hatemongers. And I've known (and even loved) thoroughgoing sexists I wouldn't call hatemongers. The sexism was still damaging.
1. The Church teaches..............
2. Catholics believe...............................
These two statements can pan out in different ways
This will be the same for the Orthodox Church
The Church teaches........................................
The faithful believe........................................................................
To my mind it is the same for all of the 'historical churches.
How many people who are married in or buried with the rites of the Church of England know about the 39 Articles ?
In Scotland there are many who would call themselves Presbyterian who will never have heard of the Westminster Confession of Faith.
The difference is that it's entirely acceptable for priests in the CofE and Ministers of the Kirk to disagree with elements of the 39 Articles or the Westminster Confession respectively, whereas any Roman Catholic priest or theologian asserting something contrary to what the RCC teaches is liable to be reprimanded.
I'm fascinated to know everything that makes worship "right," and hope you'll share here in more detail, or at least via bullet pointed list.
ETA that I already know the "in spirit and in truth" part.
Playing RC's (or Devil's) Advocate 😉, that could be turned around to ask what, if anything, CofE clergy or Kirk ministers can be reprimanded for ...
More seriously, @Forthview yes, there will be things that neither RC or Orthodox faithful will hold that are part of their Church's teaching.
Contraception would be the obvious issue that springs to mind in an RC context.
I'd imagine it varies across the Orthosphere. I roll my eyes at some of the mythos elements. We often say that the only thing we are dogmatic about are the Creeds, but in practice we go further than that. We don't dogmatise as much as the RCC does, at least at an official level.
Before I receive a reprimand myself, no, I'm not saying the RCC is devilish or anything of the kind.
And also can people be careful to check what board they are on before they hit post so Hell don't get Epiphanies posts and we dont get posts that would be better suited to Hell?
Thanks very much!
Louise
Epiphanies Host
And there's lots to respond to! I'll start here.
I don't like it, either. And by all the rules of Orthodox Tradition, it's all wrong. The fact that we have had saints from the beginning is clear - not just St. Phoebe, but so many others. So having deaconesses is not an innovation, not a novelty. It exists in the Scriptures, in the prayers of the Church, in the lives of the saints. And from their lives, it is clear that they did far more than just assist with the baptism of women.
My hypothesis is that as the diaconate came to be seen as a stepping stone to the priesthood, and women can't be priests, it didn't make sense to ordain women to the diaconate. So what we need is a deeper understanding of the diaconate, of its historical and theological role, and we need a full restoration of that, including for women. IMNSHO.
I think there are two significant influences on the Church right now. One is the dramatic rightward lurch of the overall culture in this country. I think it's impossible for such an extreme change in the surrounding culture not to have an impact on the Church, unless the bishops were to fight it in a consistent, coordinated fashion - and that might not even be enough. This change in American culture has had a larger effect on parishes and jurisdictions in the Russian tradition, and a smaller effect on Greek parishes, but it's happening everywhere.
This culture shift seems to be concentrated among young white men, many of whom have been consuming a steady diet of online content from far-right inflluencers (both Orthodox and otherwise). They are looking for an imagined past, and some of them think they can find it in the Orthodox Church. Because having loads of converts is something of a success metric among priests and bishops, there isn't enough vetting of these converts, and they are not being catechized effectively. Once they join the church, they share the far-right views they've picked up online with people in their parish. Some of the current parishioners follow them down the rabbit hole. Some of the current parishioners (especially women) leave.
We certainly have ordinary inquirers and converts - but when a parish of 200 people has a current class of 25 catechumens, and they post a photo of their catechumens online, the majority of them will be young white men.
No, I don't think so. But I think we should be very much aware that our not doing so may attract misogynists, and we should make it very clear why the misogynists are mistaken about women, and mistaken about what the Orthodox Church believes about women.
For example, the fact that only men are made priests must not ever be understood to mean that men are better than women. Grapes are not inherently superior to blueberries or raspberries or cherries. Wheat is not inherently superior to rice or barley. Even to suggest it is obviously silly. We use wine made from grapes, and bread made from wheat, simply because that's what our Lord did, and it's what we've always done. We can imagine that, if he had been made incarnate in a different place and time, he might have used something else. But Christianity is, in many ways, very particular, if you see what I mean. So we consecrate bread and wine for the Eucharist, and we ordain men for the priesthood. But not because they are more valuable.
At the parish where I was chrismated, some boys realized that they could take a shortcut through the altar area to get to some place they wanted to go, and of course, they were delighted that the girls couldn't. One of our deacons caught them at it, and read them the riot act. The boys defended themselves by saying they were boys. The deacon made it absolutely clear to them that people are blessed to enter the altar area, not based on anatomy, but only to perform the works of service that had been assigned to them. If there were an emergency in the altar, then anyone who was capable of managing the emergency could enter to deal with that emergency, and anyone not capable - even the clergy - would need to stay out.
That was 30 - 40 years ago. Putting that kind of message on repeat would help, I think. Ensuring that priests are equipped with the knowledge and interpersonal skills required to respond to and correct the young men who sit at a table at coffee hour and explain that women exist only to serve men, or that feminism is a form of witchcraft, or whatnot. If we were doing that, the neo-Nazis of the Byzantine rite might find us less appealing.
Thanks you very much. Very illuminating.
Re the diaconate. And to use your own words “very particular”, which I like, I’m being particular and hopefully not picky!
The Greek word for deacon is I understand gender free. As well as a specific use as a church office or role, more colloquially it means helper. Now helping is a God ordained spiritual gift, listed as such in 1 Corinthians 12 v 28. But a different Greek word (antilempseis) is used there. In general it means an unobtrusive helping. more behind the scenes. And therefore when Paul describes Phoebe as diakonon in Romans 16 he means more than a spiritually gifted helper, which Phoebe undoubtedly was. He means a recognised holder of a specific church role or office. A person of distinction. And Paul uses the same word (diakonos) for Phoebe in Romans 16 as he does in the later use in 1 Timothy 3 for the role or office of a deacon.
Paul therefore would seem to see Phoebe as not just a spiritually gifted helper but someone who is fit to hold a specific role or office. On this, you and I seem to be in complete agreement and I am glad to see it.
Now I fully understand why you see the exclusive male priesthood as a matter of difference, not superiority and that you are not in any way sexist in holding that Traditional view. That is you being very particular! And also that you see it as a clear responsibility of Orthodox priests to catechise and correct anyone new or old in the church that Orthodoxy does not see women as inferior to men. I’m very glad to see that too.
Where we differ, I think, is that from my reformed background, the concept of priesthood of all believers as a principle cannot be taken to justify any exclusion of women from a priestly office. It should be a matter of gifting and character, not gender.
Personally I can live with and respect that difference. I would prefer to see more open emphasis within your Tradition that different does not mean inferior. It seems possible to have a united, publicly united, voice on the correction of sexism and its related evils. That would be a good thing.
In my lived experience there has been very little real difference between what I've had to deal with at school, in doctor's surgeries, in family circles, in social situations and in the church. Nowhere felt safe enough as a child. All the institutions were compromised and often indifferent to what was going on in the lives of women and children. At church, as at school or walking down the street, we as female were policed around what to wear, how to behave, how to be 'ladylike', how to avoid dangerous men, how to defuse aggression, how to keep smiling and putting up with mansplaining, offensive jokes and inappropriate touching.
When I was studying post-grad theology at my own expense (economic support is often just not there for women training for the ministry or just wanting higher education), a lecturer suggested I do a paper on sexism in right-wing religions, look critically at conservative evangelicals or toxic masculinity in mainstream churches veering towards the right. I doubted there was any substantive difference between the overt or masked prejudices across liberal vs conservative churches. And I could have started as easily by tackling entrenched sexism in academia or the corporate workplace or law courts.
Whether as a woman I protest in place or leave the church, the struggle carries on in every single corner of my life. Piecemeal changes and token gestures keep happening, the anger and desperation gets fiercer but so much stays unchanged.
You could use this exact same argument to justify not ordaining blondes, or rich people. Jesus could have chosen a blond man or a rich man as a disciple, and didn't. What makes them ordain-able, but not women?
I've worked admin jobs in Lutheran and UCC churches for the past ten years, exclusively under female clergy. It's fine. There's not any huge difference, I've done the same job as a volunteer at my own parish when we had male clergy. Each boss has had their own quirks and flaws. Their personality and habits make a lot more difference to me, as an employee, than what they have in their pants.
I am not going to try to claim that any of the three denominations named above are an egalitarian paradise. Every female clergyperson I know as an adult has had inappropriate comments, harassment, or even stalkers. But we're at least not lagging far behind Walmart or McDonald's in our treatment of women and LGBTQ+ people.
To use a less frivolous example, Jesus also didn't choose any disciples with mobility difficulties - at least, they were all able to walk from town to town, and no canes, crutches etc are mentioned. If a church today officially* refused to ordain physically disabled people on those grounds, I hope none of us here would defend that decision.
*(I say "officially" since, obviously, there are a lot of unofficial barriers in the way still.)
No, we can't.
There was also Junia, of course, although sometime in the early second millennium, some folks (probably men) decided that she must have been a man.
I have not studied the changes in the status and roles of women in the Church, but I have wondered sometimes whether the Crusades led to a devaluing of women. (But, of course, you have Pope Gregory I much earlier, so ... I don't know.)
I think you're looking at only the first half of that - "that's what our Lord did." You missed the "it's what we've always done" part, and for us, that part matters very much. Our answer to, "Why don't you consider hair color as well as, or instead of, gender?" is "we don't do that, and we never have." Same with "Why don't you consider the personal wealth of the candidate for priesthood?" It's not what we do. (Although, as an irrelevant aside, I think that Matthew was likely quite wealthy - he was, after all, a tax collector.)
One possibility is that we have Very Strict Rules about blood in the altar area. If a priest, cutting the bread, cuts his had, the Liturgy has to go on pause and he has to leave the altar and deal with the blood, and can't return until the bleeding has stopped.
Given that, it seems quite possible that one of the things that caused women to be excluded from the altar has to do with women's menstrual bleeding. I doubt it would have been the only reason, but it likely played into it.
That’s always the concern.
Both Catholicism and Orthodoxy teach equal in value and worth, complementary in role.
Modern Catholic Marriage vows, like Anglican Marriage Vows, no longer contain “submit”. And in Orthodox marriages, the couple do not make vows, they declare intentions to marry.
But I’m not convinced that things were so clear historically. The relationship between Catholicism and the suffragette movement was complex and I think the same could be said for Orthodoxy.
There’s certainly historical baggage to reckon with.
Of course so far as suffragettes are concerned, Protestantism is hardly free from criticism, with the honourable exceptions of Quakers and the Salvation Army.
It’s not unreasonable to argue that in general the Churches supported traditional male/female roles. Which were anything but free from sexism.
But as others have argued, similar criticism can be made, justifiably, about secular institutions. Historically. the world was sexist.
As I observed to josephine, I believe the Orthodox Church priests should actively catechise and correct those who believe in unequal worth. Same goes for Catholic (and Protestant priests and pastors) who still support complementary roles.
Else it looks like lip service. There are both historical and present reasons behind Leaf’s “never works” view.
As is clear, I don’t agree with the complementary roles view. But I don’t rule out more active declarations and actions in favour of equal worth and against sexism by those in church leadership who do.
When an adult says "Because I said so" to a child asking "why?" they're just exerting authority, not giving a reason. "It's not what we do" doesn't sound far off from that to me.
But plenty of women don't menstruate, so why not allow non-menstruating women?
Regardless of whether or not a woman menstruates, I think it's pretty impossible to ignore the misogynistic background to viewing menstruation as somehow inherently unclean. I'm aware that this is in no way unique to the Orthodox Church though. Menstrual blood is extremely unlikely to get near Eucharistic elements, unlike a cut on the hand. It's not like menstruating people are excluded from working in kitchens for example.
It seems to me that, when you're talking about customs and traditions, religious or otherwise, "it's what we do" or "it's how we do it" is often the answer - not as an assertion of authority, but as the only answer there is. I mean, if you asked why we put candles on birthday cakes and have the birthday person blow out the candles - we do it because it's what we do. It's our customary way of celebrating birthdays. When I was growing up, my family did not decorate with red and green for Christmas. We decorated with blue. There's no answer for "why" beyond, "that's what my father's family did, so it's what our family did, and it's what I've always done."
Well, that's true enough in broadly Western and Mediterranean traditions and regions. When Portuguese Jesuits, sent out to Africa in the 1600s by Francis Xavier in Goa, reach what is now Zimbabwe (then Monomatapa), there is no wine or bread available. What they use in the consecration is a fermented sorghum drink and a crushed millet porridge.
To me this just shows the power of a worldview and the tendancy to make things that do not make sense somehow make sense.
A menstruating woman is obviously no dirtier than a man with dust in his beard or a dirt under his fingernails, and yet the one is ignored and the other is a problem.
To me it is all an elaborate dance where none of the pieces stand up to scrutiny.
I'm not sure why you and Pomona jumped to the idea of uncleanness. The ban on blood in the altar is not about uncleanness. It is about blood. The ban is intended to ensure that no one can ever accuse us of using blood sacrifice in our service. Ours is an unbloody sacrifice.
As I said, it seems likely to me that this is one of the reasons that women were excluded from the altar, but likely not the only reason. Roman beliefs about women and men likely had as much to do with it, if not more. Again, though, I do want to be clear that I have not made any kind of special study of this aspect of history or theology. I'm speculating.
Although the Crusades also led directly to the cult of Mary and the Marian devotions (in the Western Church), according to Karen Carpenter.