Elaine Storkey’s book “Scars Across Humanity” is a well-researched and reliable guide re violence against women. It also contains an extensive critique of religious understandings, past and present.
(Elaine Storkey is a Christian feminist from an evangelical background)
I know her well; she’s my mother in law
Well, there’s a thing! I’ve met her a couple of times, chatted to her. Liked her and respected very much.
(If you haven’t read it, it’s a very good book and available on Kindle for less than £10.)
Elaine Storkey’s book “Scars Across Humanity” is a well-researched and reliable guide re violence against women. It also contains an extensive critique of religious understandings, past and present.
(Elaine Storkey is a Christian feminist from an evangelical background)
I know her well; she’s my mother in law
Well, there’s a thing! I’ve met her a couple of times, chatted to her. Liked her and respected very much.
(If you haven’t read it, it’s a very good book and available on Kindle for less than £10.)
I'd echo that. I met her years ago at a party at someone else's house and found her inspiring.
FWIW I don't think that @josephine was saying that women are 'unsuitable' for priestly ministry, nor would she consider an argument from Tradition to be an abdication of applying reason.
But she can answer for herself. I won't put words in her mouth.
That the 'iconic' reason for a male-only priesthood often deployed in discussions on this subject is being challenged by some voices in the Orthodox Church, as @Pease demonstrates with the links and quotes he's provided, shows that there is at least an ongoing debate.
You might not believe us Orthodox when we say so but there's more to Tradition than us simply saying, 'This is the Tradition. End of story.'
Yes, we tend to do theology in more 'mystical' way than tends to be the case in some 'Western' confessions, but that doesn't mean there isn't any 'mysticism' in 'Western' expressions of Christianity any more than there is no rationality or reasoning going on within Orthodoxy.
I used to be in a protestant church, where a married couple ( woman & man) were the leaders, And having a woman in leadership did not prevent misogyny or spiritual abuse. As an unmarried woman, the only appropriate role available for me was to make tea & look after children. There was an extra special layer of misogyny due to my marital status. It was like being a frog in water being slowly brought up to the boil
I'm so sorry to hear that you went through this.
I've been fortunate in that I don't think any church I've been part of has imposed those sort of limits. I am aware that even churches that are egalitarian in principle can tend to fall into old-fashioned habits of "women's work", particularly around cleaning and kitchen tasks. I don't know whether it's helpful or intrusive for men to try and make sure they take a turn at doing the washing up etc.
I'm really sorry that you had to endure that, @Cactus . Please don't be afraid to talk about your experiences in the way you find most helpful.
Speaking more generally (ie not to Cactus directly), many cases of abuse - including sexual abuse - in the Roman Catholic Church were perpetrated by nuns, so even in churches without female clergy there were women with a relative amount of power who abused others. Power is always relative, and abuse is about power first and foremost. I believe I am correct in stating that a large amount of child abuse (including csa [child sexual abuse]) is perpetrated by other children. So it's definitely not a simple case of cause and effect wrt lack of women clergy.
However, I do believe that churches that do not allow women clergy generally develop in socially conservative regions or cultures - the church and social culture inform each other. Just like any other church, the EOC [Eastern Orthodox Church] didn't develop in a vacuum and has flourished in regions which are particularly negative in terms of women's rights and the rights of gender minorities. Although many liberal European countries are historically Catholic, most religious Catholics live in more conservative places. Although my personal taste in worship leans towards Anglo-Catholicism, it can't be denied that the Protestant Reformation played a huge role in the development of feminism.
I also must note that mainstream charismatic evangelicalism generally endorses women clergy (a lot of Anglican ordinands are young char-evo women nowadays) and puts an obviously huge emphasis on the Holy Spirit. I am in no way charismatic-leaning, but the openness to women clergy in many charismatic churches is a good thing. I don't accept that if the Holy Spirit speaks, it's just conveniently agreeing with the opinions of a bunch of old men.
Not to take anything away from the main theme of this discussion nor to minimise the issues around sexism or misogyny, but it may or may not be pertinent to observe that there are other (lesser) arcane rules within Orthodoxy.
For instance, if I wanted to be a priest (I don't) then I'd have to obtain special permission as I've had a vasectomy. Equally, that might also apply if I became a deacon without aiming to move on from that to the priesthood.
If I married again as a widowed man after becoming a deacon I'd have to stand down. I'd be expected to remain single.
If I married again before becoming a deacon that could also disqualify me and my wife would be expected to be in her first marriage.
As ever, within Orthodoxy there is a degree of latitude and a bishop could make exceptions in the interest of ekkonomeia. At the moment that doesn't apply to female ordination of course.
So yes, there could potentially be latitude extended to me as a bloke despite my vasectomy and whatever my marital status in away that isn't currently available to women in terms of ordination. I once quipped that I could go to my GP and ask to have my vasectomy reversed. If the doctor asked why this was, did I want to father a child at my age, I would reply, 'No, I want to be ordained ...'
Black humour.
We will desperately need a deacon in our parish once our deacon is ordained priest. We need deaconesses too across the Orthosphere and quickly.
I would also argue that the rule against blood ends up as gender discrimination in practice even if the reason isn't based on misogyny, simply because women are much more likely to be in a state of bleeding on the regular - but also, the argument that it's so the Eucharist isn't seen as a blood sacrifice makes no sense when menstrual blood isn't going to end up in the elements anyway.
Given the history of menstrual taboos and current societal stigmas towards menstruation (even in generally liberal countries), that the actual reason may be for some other reason doesn't seem particularly pertinent when it has the same practical impact.
On @Arethosemyfeet's point about cleaning and kitchen tasks being determined by gender expectations. In our parish and any church I've previously been involved in during my Protestant days, everyone mucks in, or mucked in, with those.
I'm on the cleaning rota and I've noticed that when someone's ill or needs help the volunteers for cleaning, cooking etc tend to be men or women alike. There are more male volunteers for gardening and DIY type tasks and on a Sunday morning or at 'memorials' it's generally women who bring the food.
Sadly, I don't think @Cactus's experience is at all unusual though and generally speaking I'm not sure many churches are that good at dealing with single people either - of whatever gender, although it can be particularly difficult for single women who are often virtually invisible or marginalised.
@Pomona, Christianity itself developed in the Middle East so if we are saying that Orthodoxy has been shaped by cultures that have taken a negative view of women and gender minorities then the same applies to any form of the Christian faith.
In some respects both Judaism and Christianity had more positive views on women and indeed children than some pagan cultures at that time. And no, of course Orthodoxy didn't develop in a vacuum any more than other form of Christianity has.
And yes, feminism in its current form derives from the Enlightenment which itself developed from the Protestant Reformation. There was light in the Enlightenment. Although various forms of humanism weren't solely a Protestant phenomenon.
Arguably liberal ideas of personhood in general derive from Christianity. Which doesn't mean that Christians always get it right.
I stand to be corrected but I've heard an Orthodox priest say that some of the issues around menstruation and indeed nocturnal emission in the case of men or boys, are comparatively recent. He reckoned that although they weren't unknown before around the 1500s and 1600s, there was a growing emphasis on them from that time. A kind of 'Old Testament' approach whereby menstruating women or males who had an emission of semen were expected not to receive the Holy Gifts at the Liturgy for a time.
The custom of taking male children behind the icon-screen after infant baptism but female children only as far as the icons themselves, has been questioned and challenged recently and I know at least one priest who flouts it.
On the East / West thing, Orthodoxy is only 'Eastern' insofar as the Patriarchates which remained in communion with one another after the Schism with Rome were all based in what had been the Eastern part of the Roman Empire.
Yes, it's developed cultural patterns from the societies in that part of the world, both good, bad and indifferent just as 'Western' forms of Christianity has been shaped and influenced for better or worse by the cultures it has developed within.
Individualism, the prosperity gospel and various forms of Scholasticism might be cited as egregious examples of aspects derived from 'Western' cultures.
Phyletism, caesaro-papism and regional forms of superstitious folk-religion might be cited as unfortunate developments within 'Eastern' Christianity alongside a slow rate of change.
Everything I'm learning about Orthodoxy from this thread is making it sound more sexist, not less. "I know one guy who doesn't treat female infants as inferior to male infants, which he's supposed to do according to the rules." Jesus Christ.
Can you all not hear how offensive these separate-but-equal analogies would be if you used them about any other minoritized group? "You shouldn't think we're treating you as an inferior if we make you sit at the back of the bus. You're a valued part of the bus-riding community; we're happy to include you on the bus, in a special area for people like you. You'll get where you're going as fast as anybody else."
Bearing in mind previously host posts on this thread; @Gamma Gamaliel the aim of centering the voices and experiences of those most affected is not being helped by you multi-posting repeatedly and at length, often elaborating points you have already made. I suggest you take a Quaker approach to when to post.
Thanks. That is good advice @Doublethink and I will take it.
I need to take a more 'Quaker' approach to life in general as well as on these boards.
Or a more 'Orthodox' one as we'd share an emphasis on being 'still' and not sounding off all the time.
Mea culpa.
I am working through some of these issues and I suppose posting here helps me do that but may not help anyone else.
I think it might be better for all if I take a break and allow space for others. As a parting observation though, and not one meant to deflect genuine concern, I would say that I've heard bishops say that it's high time the practice of nit taking female infants behind the icon-screen be reviewed.
Like the menstruation/nocturnal emission thing, there's a law of unintended consequences with some of these ancient customs and practices. We often say how the Orthodox view of Original Sin takes away the tendency to 'Catholic guilt' and introspection yet at the same time continue practices that can incur a sense of shame about the human body or suggest gender inequality.
Are you saying that churches with female clergy have less sexual abuse?
No. I'm saying the Holy Spirit has not proved to be a reliable guide.
There's a surprise.
I'm not sure why you're sniping at me, and I don't appreciate the sarcasm. I am serious. Churches claim to be following Jesus or to be led by the Holy Spirit, which makes them different from institutions that are well-intentioned (or should be) such as schools or scouting or public libraries or hospitals. They should be better. They should do better. That churches of all stripes have not been demonstrably better than non-religious institutions at protecting children and other vulnerable people from abuse, at treating all people as fully human with worth and value, is utterly damning. The excuse is always that churches are flawed because they're human institutions, but without requiring perfection it's not unreasonable to expect them to be better than other human institutions that don't make claims about divine inspiration or leadership. Instead, they reflect various cultural norms, sometimes contemporary, sometimes from ancient eras. It doesn't make me think the Holy Spirit is leading anyone.
Following the steer from Dafyd in the Hell thread (You support sexism, Gamma) I thought this topic might be worth a whirl here, despite the volume of discussion in the Hell thread.
The Hell thread was based on membership of a Church which does not ordain women. But I doubt whether experiences of sexism and misogyny are confined to the established Churches which do not ordain.
So here is an opportunity to discuss experiences, coping mechanisms, and the tipping point for departure.
I appreciate you starting this thread. It feels like a necessary conversation, especially since these issues often go unaddressed or are minimized in many communities. I’ve often wondered where that 'tipping point' truly lies for people—is it a single event, or is it a gradual realization that the environment just isn't healthy?
Looking forward to hearing others' perspectives on navigating these experiences without losing one's faith or sense of self.
For me, the change in culture was so gradual that I didn't notice the changes from healthy to unhealthy. Friends of mine left which made me think & question. I jumped through hoops to leave with the leader's blessing, although he did ask friends if there was secret sin in my life...
Unfortunately it's often the church as an institution which is the worst possible representation of Jesus's teachings. It's certainly been my experience that Jesus isn't the problem, the church is.
...and who wants to live in an institution -as the old joke goes.
But why is it "often the church as an institution that is the worst possible representation of Jesus's teachings"?
Are there root cause reasons we can tease apart to help solve this tragedy?
Is it because authority is addictive?
Is it because leaders paid by the church they work for have vested interests in keeping bums on pews?
Is because of fear that if the church doesn't proclaim the 'correct teachings' people will backslide, lose their salvation and go to hell, and the 'lost' won't be reached by gospel and so will go to hell?
In other words is all because of an underlying, maybe unconscious, belief that God is strict, authoritarian and vindictive?
...and who wants to live in an institution -as the old joke goes.
But why is it "often the church as an institution that is the worst possible representation of Jesus's teachings"?
Are there root cause reasons we can tease apart to help solve this tragedy?
Is it because authority is addictive?
Is it because leaders paid by the church they work for have vested interests in keeping bums on pews?
Is because of fear that if the church doesn't proclaim the 'correct teachings' people will backslide, lose their salvation and go to hell, and the 'lost' won't be reached by gospel and so will go to hell?
In other words is all because of an underlying, maybe unconscious, belief that God is strict, authoritarian and vindictive?
That was what drove the heresy and witch trials, the Magdalen laundries - who knows what else. "God said I can do this to you" is dangerous; "God said I must do this to you for your the greater good" is lethal.
Highly rigid power structures often have more embedded abuse due to the unquestioning of the power structure
Highly fluid power structures often have more opportunity for abuse. Die to often a lack of check and balances
I have never found the sweet point between the two.
Unfortunately I am in the situation where if I was going to design power structures for the churches I would not start from here, so I keep ducking out of the conversation.
A bit of my "experiences, coping mechanisms, and the tipping point for departure" over the years. I haven't always been EO, although I have been for a very long time. I was raised Presbyterian, where, in my experience, clergy were always men. (Presbyterians had been ordaining women by that time, but I did not know that, and had never encountered a woman pastor.) Women and men who were not clergy had plenty of other opportunities to serve. As a teenager, the Presbyterian church began to strike me as cold and overly-intellectual, and I decided I wanted/needed something warmer, something where God did not seem so distant, something that accepted and even rejoiced in the emotional side of things. That didn't have anything to do with gender (or, as best I can remember, any other particular issue); it was just the ordinary developmental exploration of who I was, what I wanted, and why.
When I went off to college, I joined the Assemblies of God - which, in spite of the fact that they did have women as preachers and teachers, was not a good place for women. The church taught (and still teach, as far as I know) a rigid family structure that enables and supports abuse. Women were told that they owed their husband obedience in all matters, even if the husband should tell his wife to do something sinful (he would answer to God for that, not her), and especially in matters related to sex, the husband's desires were the only ones that mattered. The story of Sarah pretending to be Abraham's sister and being willing to commit adultery to honor and submit to him was given as a model. These ideas were most often taught to women by other women.
Over the 5 or 6 years I was in the A0G, there were other issues that concerned me as well - the treatment of disabled people, the appetite for stories that were the religious equivalent of urban legends, and the tendency to blame everything on demons or atheists. The tipping point, though, the reason I left, was the birth of my first child. I realized that, once he started attending Sunday School, he would be taught things that I would have to correct at home. That just wasn't going to work. So my then-husband and I began looking for another church.
In any event, my experience from my mid-teens to my mid-20s did not cause me to believe that having women as pastors and evangelists and in other positions of church leadership was an intrinsically good thing, or that all-male clergy was an intrinsically bad thing. There are other things that matter more. And that's still true for me. While I do have friends who have left the EO church for that reason, if I were to leave, that would not be my reason.
I can certainly see how your own experiences affected things.
I think that - for me - there is quite a difference between saying that women can't be ordained, and saying that having women clergy prevents sexism. For me the issue of whether or not women can/should be ordained is a simple matter of basic human rights; this is not suggesting that every woman is suited for the job. For instance I don't have a lot of time for Sarah Mullaly, but I still think that women should be able to be an Archbishop. The fact that I wish someone else had the job isn't the same as thinking that it needs to be a man. Likewise, I am the first to recognise that women are often the main teachers of misogyny within churches. Women's organisations being misogynistic happens all the time, even ones claiming to be feminist (see any and all TERF organisations for evidence of that).
I think that denying ordination to women is inherently misogynistic, but I don't think that every woman who is ordained is good at her job - women can be terrible people too, indeed suggesting that women are inherently more saintly than men is also misogynistic and has awful consequences for women generally. Women are also just people in the same way that men are. Women should be allowed to be terrible clergy just like men are.
Following the steer from Dafyd in the Hell thread (You support sexism, Gamma) I thought this topic might be worth a whirl here, despite the volume of discussion in the Hell thread.
The Hell thread was based on membership of a Church which does not ordain women. But I doubt whether experiences of sexism and misogyny are confined to the established Churches which do not ordain.
So here is an opportunity to discuss experiences, coping mechanisms, and the tipping point for departure.
I appreciate you starting this thread. It feels like a necessary conversation, especially since these issues often go unaddressed or are minimized in many communities. I’ve often wondered where that 'tipping point' truly lies for people—is it a single event, or is it a gradual realization that the environment just isn't healthy?
Looking forward to hearing others' perspectives on navigating these experiences without losing one's faith or sense of self.
Cool bonuses are available at [link redacted]
I would be happy to read what you think about this.
(ETA advertising link removed - la vie en rouge, temp hosting)
... or try imagining a church with no 'clergy' as we know them.
The Quakers?
I did think about that and I went to Quaker service -but the mostly silence meant I became painfully aware of my tinnitus! I need a bit of 'people sound' and interaction.
I think the best way for churches that feel doctrinally incapable of ordaining women to operate in a way that is as just as possible is to make themselves “constitutional” hierarchies, in practice if not by law.
Let the day to day running of the operational, financial, charitable, hiring/firing, activist, and public and government relations aspects of the church to laypeople who can be women. If any decisions require the signature or seal of senior clergy, let it be handed to them for approval just as they would be handed to a constitutional monarch. Clergy could still be involved in the deliberation and may even have a vote on such matters, but any important decision made by clergy member that overrules a majority of a deliberative body where women represent about half of the members should prompt a crisis of applied ecclesiology that would be likely to the result in severe pressure for that clergy member or members to resign.
If sermons at Sunday services are restricted to male clergy, then additional speaking roles designed to reach all the faithful just like Sunday sermons do should be open to laypeople, including women, on Sundays and throughout the year.
Many churches are already structured similarly, but they tend to be ones that allow the ordination of women or that do not make much of a distinction between clerical or lay ministry. All it would take is for hierarchical churches that claim an eternal infallible dogma of restricting ordination to men only to start to operate in this way - so as to respect the dignity and full humanity of women without having to admit that infallible teachings can be fallible or that capital-letter divinely-revealed Sacred Tradition can change.
I think the best way for churches that feel doctrinally incapable of ordaining women to operate in a way that is as just as possible is to make themselves “constitutional” hierarchies, in practice if not by law.
Let the day to day running of the operational, financial, charitable, hiring/firing, activist, and public and government relations aspects of the church to laypeople who can be women.
<snip>
If sermons at Sunday services are restricted to male clergy, then additional speaking roles designed to reach all the faithful just like Sunday sermons do should be open to laypeople, including women, on Sundays and throughout the year.
stonespring, I am very confused by your post. At least in the Orthodox church, women can serve in roles related to the operational, financial, charitable, practical aspects of running a church. They can serve on the parish council, they can be choir director, they can be director of Christian education, they can be parish treasurer, and so on.
Lay women and lay men do all of those things and more. What they don't do is serve the sacraments. Only a priest can serve the Eucharist, baptize (except as any other lay person can do in an emergency), solemnize a marriage. Lay men or lay women can, in some situations hear confessions, but only a priest can pronounce the absolution.
Do you come from a tradition that doesn't have sacraments? Maybe you think that women aren't allowed to do anything at church? That's not the case on Orthodoxy.
All it would take is for hierarchical churches that claim an eternal infallible dogma of restricting ordination to men only
The all-male priesthood isn't dogma in the Orthodox church. Not even close. Depending on your background, you might say that it's covered by canon law, or church order, or just that it's part of the way we do things. And the way we do things can change. No quickly, and not often, but it can and does change.
Also, it seems like maybe you are thinking that priests are the only clergy. In the Orthodox church, we have more clergy than just priests. Minor orders of the clergy are readers, cantors, and subdeacons; major orders are deacons, priests, and bishops. We've had other orders in the past. Both women and men can act as lay readers and lay cantors, while (at this time anyway) only men are tonsured readers or tonsured cantors (tonsuring being the rite similar to ordination for a priest or consecration for a bishop). I am quite sure that this should and will change - as long as women can already do the thing, it seems clear that they should receive the rites and blessings that go with that thing. While we're at it, we need to restore the diaconate for women. We need women deacons.
We've had other orders of clergy in the past, and the requirements for the various orders have changed over time.
stonespring, I am very confused by your post. At least in the Orthodox church, women can serve in roles related to the operational, financial, charitable, practical aspects of running a church. They can serve on the parish council, they can be choir director, they can be director of Christian education, they can be parish treasurer, and so on.
Lay women and lay men do all of those things and more. What they don't do is serve the sacraments. Only a priest can serve the Eucharist, baptize (except as any other lay person can do in an emergency), solemnize a marriage. Lay men or lay women can, in some situations hear confessions, but only a priest can pronounce the absolution.
For me, the key part of stonespring's post is the following:
Clergy could still be involved in the deliberation and may even have a vote on such matters, but any important decision made by clergy member that overrules a majority of a deliberative body where women represent about half of the members should prompt a crisis of applied ecclesiology that would be likely to the result in severe pressure for that clergy member or members to resign.
What this is leaning towards is divesting the clergy of some of their power. I think this can be understood in a number of ways - separating the ecclesiastical power from the power to govern, or separating the spiritualities from the temporalities, to put it in more Anglican terms. I'd also consider abolishing the (spiritual) power to excommunicate.
Are you saying that churches with female clergy have less sexual abuse? Do you have research on that?
This wasn't directed at me, and I don't know if I have research, but at my job this was given to me as a reason for why male staff are not to toilet/shower/etc. female clients while women do work with male clients in these settings. The context here being a facility for adults with cognitive impairments, some of whom have needs that include assistance with bathing, toileting, etc.
We were told point-blank in training that the statistics on abuse were thus: While female-on-male sexual abuse does occur, the overwhelming majority of cases of sexual abuse in our profession is male-on-female. So they play it safe by not allowing men to work with women in showering, toileting, etc. The fact that they're a Catholic organization might be in play here. It's also likely relevant that the majority of the employees in our profession are women.
Again, I do not have numbers myself, and I will not slam my foot down on this observation, but it would not surprise me if churches with women in charge have lower rates of sexual abuse, especially committed by clergy. The reasons for that - if it stands - are complicated and certainly influenced by a culture, etc.
stonespring, I am very confused by your post. At least in the Orthodox church, women can serve in roles related to the operational, financial, charitable, practical aspects of running a church. They can serve on the parish council, they can be choir director, they can be director of Christian education, they can be parish treasurer, and so on.
Lay women and lay men do all of those things and more.
For me, the key part of stonespring's post is the following:
Clergy could still be involved in the deliberation and may even have a vote on such matters, but any important decision made by clergy member that overrules a majority of a deliberative body where women represent about half of the members should prompt a crisis of applied ecclesiology that would be likely to the result in severe pressure for that clergy member or members to resign.
What this is leaning towards is divesting the clergy of some of their power.
In my experience, Orthodox priests do not have nearly as much power as you seem to think they have.
Going back to what @Cactus and a few others have written about the role played by women in leadership positions in the church (ministers, nuns), it struck me how few women I have encountered or worked with in church leadership in southern Africa, or even in Britain. I'd hesitate to generalise about whether their influence was positive or negative because of this paucity. As a Roman Catholic and ecumenical church-goer, my generation in the 1980s onward was often the first generation to see woman training for clerical positions or even publishing in feminist theology or speaking up within the church on sexual abuse or misogyny.
Older women religious who taught in Catholic missionary schools or nursed in missionary field hospitals were, by their own admission often poorly educated, conditioned by their superiors and mentors to internalise the hierarchies and authoritarian styles of leadership or power prevalent at the time, the way men took charge, the traditional ways things had been done. For many the 1960s and '70s were a scary unlearning period and most acknowledge they made many mistakes and had very little support in changing church attitudes to establishing equity or more collegial democratic ways of running things.
The Brethren traditionally have no clergy. Very definitely hold to the 'Priesthood of all believers' but of course it helps if you are male!!
As said earlier, I made great use of that when arguing for equality of role, determined only by gifting and character. It worked, eventually.
But I think @josephine has a very good point. Essentially, English nonconformist churches only have two sacraments, communion and baptism. We don’t believe the bread and wine are changed, nor that the water changes the person. Rather our understanding is that communion is memorial and baptism is an obedient outward symbol of an inner change. So we don’t need specially chosen and anointed priests to perform these sacraments.
Hance I think the moves re leadership roles have fewer traditional obstacles in their way for us.
So far as Anglicanism is concerned, I think the struggle towards acceptance of women priests is often a reflection of the low church and high church elements within that broad church. And if you unpick that, the high church folks are more traditionally sacramental.
Misogyny and sexism, where they are found, may very well be a different matter. And misogynistic and sexism are still to be found in the low nonconformist churches in the UK. There the arguments and rationalisations are justified by a few biblical texts. (As, historically, were racist attitudes).
I suppose the real argument is whether the Traditional views of the sacraments support the sexists and misogynists, or whether the misogynists and sexists simply make use of them to support their prejudices.
Strictly speaking, @Barnabas62 your tradition doesn't have sacraments but 'ordinances'.
The Anglicans, or at least some of them, recognise two - baptism and communion.* I think it's the same for Lutherans. The Baptists have three, of course - they add the 'church meeting' ... 😉
* As with much else among our Anglican friends the answer is often, 'it depends ...'
I do not usually post on Epiphanies threads but was interested in the appearance of references to the Brethren. I have not had much contact with them in recent years but irrespective of what they might maintain about the priesthood of all believers, the Brethren never used to allow Sisters to speak in their meetings at all. Does anyone know if that has changed?
...The story of Sarah pretending to be Abraham's sister and being willing to commit adultery to honor and submit to him was given as a model. These ideas were most often taught to women by other women. ...
Thank you @josephine for that example. It strikes me as a classic demonstration of how one can have a strong sense of the authority of scripture and yet misunderstand completely what its implications are or how to relate to it.
FWIW, every US Baptist church, convention or association I’m familiar with firmly rejects both the term and the concept of “sacrament.” Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are described as ordinances, not sacraments.
I've never heard of any orthodox Christian groups that think it's fine to get baptized multiple times. The only times I've heard it condoned are when the group believes no true baptism has ever taken place yet.
Comments
Well, there’s a thing! I’ve met her a couple of times, chatted to her. Liked her and respected very much.
(If you haven’t read it, it’s a very good book and available on Kindle for less than £10.)
I'd echo that. I met her years ago at a party at someone else's house and found her inspiring.
But she can answer for herself. I won't put words in her mouth.
That the 'iconic' reason for a male-only priesthood often deployed in discussions on this subject is being challenged by some voices in the Orthodox Church, as @Pease demonstrates with the links and quotes he's provided, shows that there is at least an ongoing debate.
You might not believe us Orthodox when we say so but there's more to Tradition than us simply saying, 'This is the Tradition. End of story.'
Yes, we tend to do theology in more 'mystical' way than tends to be the case in some 'Western' confessions, but that doesn't mean there isn't any 'mysticism' in 'Western' expressions of Christianity any more than there is no rationality or reasoning going on within Orthodoxy.
It might not feel like it at times ...
I'm so sorry to hear that you went through this.
I've been fortunate in that I don't think any church I've been part of has imposed those sort of limits. I am aware that even churches that are egalitarian in principle can tend to fall into old-fashioned habits of "women's work", particularly around cleaning and kitchen tasks. I don't know whether it's helpful or intrusive for men to try and make sure they take a turn at doing the washing up etc.
Speaking more generally (ie not to Cactus directly), many cases of abuse - including sexual abuse - in the Roman Catholic Church were perpetrated by nuns, so even in churches without female clergy there were women with a relative amount of power who abused others. Power is always relative, and abuse is about power first and foremost. I believe I am correct in stating that a large amount of child abuse (including csa [child sexual abuse]) is perpetrated by other children. So it's definitely not a simple case of cause and effect wrt lack of women clergy.
However, I do believe that churches that do not allow women clergy generally develop in socially conservative regions or cultures - the church and social culture inform each other. Just like any other church, the EOC [Eastern Orthodox Church] didn't develop in a vacuum and has flourished in regions which are particularly negative in terms of women's rights and the rights of gender minorities. Although many liberal European countries are historically Catholic, most religious Catholics live in more conservative places. Although my personal taste in worship leans towards Anglo-Catholicism, it can't be denied that the Protestant Reformation played a huge role in the development of feminism.
I also must note that mainstream charismatic evangelicalism generally endorses women clergy (a lot of Anglican ordinands are young char-evo women nowadays) and puts an obviously huge emphasis on the Holy Spirit. I am in no way charismatic-leaning, but the openness to women clergy in many charismatic churches is a good thing. I don't accept that if the Holy Spirit speaks, it's just conveniently agreeing with the opinions of a bunch of old men.
For instance, if I wanted to be a priest (I don't) then I'd have to obtain special permission as I've had a vasectomy. Equally, that might also apply if I became a deacon without aiming to move on from that to the priesthood.
If I married again as a widowed man after becoming a deacon I'd have to stand down. I'd be expected to remain single.
If I married again before becoming a deacon that could also disqualify me and my wife would be expected to be in her first marriage.
As ever, within Orthodoxy there is a degree of latitude and a bishop could make exceptions in the interest of ekkonomeia. At the moment that doesn't apply to female ordination of course.
So yes, there could potentially be latitude extended to me as a bloke despite my vasectomy and whatever my marital status in away that isn't currently available to women in terms of ordination. I once quipped that I could go to my GP and ask to have my vasectomy reversed. If the doctor asked why this was, did I want to father a child at my age, I would reply, 'No, I want to be ordained ...'
Black humour.
We will desperately need a deacon in our parish once our deacon is ordained priest. We need deaconesses too across the Orthosphere and quickly.
Given the history of menstrual taboos and current societal stigmas towards menstruation (even in generally liberal countries), that the actual reason may be for some other reason doesn't seem particularly pertinent when it has the same practical impact.
I'm on the cleaning rota and I've noticed that when someone's ill or needs help the volunteers for cleaning, cooking etc tend to be men or women alike. There are more male volunteers for gardening and DIY type tasks and on a Sunday morning or at 'memorials' it's generally women who bring the food.
Sadly, I don't think @Cactus's experience is at all unusual though and generally speaking I'm not sure many churches are that good at dealing with single people either - of whatever gender, although it can be particularly difficult for single women who are often virtually invisible or marginalised.
In some respects both Judaism and Christianity had more positive views on women and indeed children than some pagan cultures at that time. And no, of course Orthodoxy didn't develop in a vacuum any more than other form of Christianity has.
And yes, feminism in its current form derives from the Enlightenment which itself developed from the Protestant Reformation. There was light in the Enlightenment. Although various forms of humanism weren't solely a Protestant phenomenon.
Arguably liberal ideas of personhood in general derive from Christianity. Which doesn't mean that Christians always get it right.
I stand to be corrected but I've heard an Orthodox priest say that some of the issues around menstruation and indeed nocturnal emission in the case of men or boys, are comparatively recent. He reckoned that although they weren't unknown before around the 1500s and 1600s, there was a growing emphasis on them from that time. A kind of 'Old Testament' approach whereby menstruating women or males who had an emission of semen were expected not to receive the Holy Gifts at the Liturgy for a time.
The custom of taking male children behind the icon-screen after infant baptism but female children only as far as the icons themselves, has been questioned and challenged recently and I know at least one priest who flouts it.
On the East / West thing, Orthodoxy is only 'Eastern' insofar as the Patriarchates which remained in communion with one another after the Schism with Rome were all based in what had been the Eastern part of the Roman Empire.
Yes, it's developed cultural patterns from the societies in that part of the world, both good, bad and indifferent just as 'Western' forms of Christianity has been shaped and influenced for better or worse by the cultures it has developed within.
Individualism, the prosperity gospel and various forms of Scholasticism might be cited as egregious examples of aspects derived from 'Western' cultures.
Phyletism, caesaro-papism and regional forms of superstitious folk-religion might be cited as unfortunate developments within 'Eastern' Christianity alongside a slow rate of change.
There's a surprise.
Can you all not hear how offensive these separate-but-equal analogies would be if you used them about any other minoritized group? "You shouldn't think we're treating you as an inferior if we make you sit at the back of the bus. You're a valued part of the bus-riding community; we're happy to include you on the bus, in a special area for people like you. You'll get where you're going as fast as anybody else."
Doublethink, Admin
I need to take a more 'Quaker' approach to life in general as well as on these boards.
Or a more 'Orthodox' one as we'd share an emphasis on being 'still' and not sounding off all the time.
Mea culpa.
I am working through some of these issues and I suppose posting here helps me do that but may not help anyone else.
I think it might be better for all if I take a break and allow space for others. As a parting observation though, and not one meant to deflect genuine concern, I would say that I've heard bishops say that it's high time the practice of nit taking female infants behind the icon-screen be reviewed.
Like the menstruation/nocturnal emission thing, there's a law of unintended consequences with some of these ancient customs and practices. We often say how the Orthodox view of Original Sin takes away the tendency to 'Catholic guilt' and introspection yet at the same time continue practices that can incur a sense of shame about the human body or suggest gender inequality.
I'll step aside for now. Peace be to all.
I'm not sure why you're sniping at me, and I don't appreciate the sarcasm. I am serious. Churches claim to be following Jesus or to be led by the Holy Spirit, which makes them different from institutions that are well-intentioned (or should be) such as schools or scouting or public libraries or hospitals. They should be better. They should do better. That churches of all stripes have not been demonstrably better than non-religious institutions at protecting children and other vulnerable people from abuse, at treating all people as fully human with worth and value, is utterly damning. The excuse is always that churches are flawed because they're human institutions, but without requiring perfection it's not unreasonable to expect them to be better than other human institutions that don't make claims about divine inspiration or leadership. Instead, they reflect various cultural norms, sometimes contemporary, sometimes from ancient eras. It doesn't make me think the Holy Spirit is leading anyone.
I wasn't sniping at you and will not apologize. I was sniping at the so-called Holy Spirit.
Ah. I misunderstood.
[ This was posted by a bot - not a real poster - post hidden - L]
I appreciate you starting this thread. It feels like a necessary conversation, especially since these issues often go unaddressed or are minimized in many communities. I’ve often wondered where that 'tipping point' truly lies for people—is it a single event, or is it a gradual realization that the environment just isn't healthy?
Looking forward to hearing others' perspectives on navigating these experiences without losing one's faith or sense of self.
But why is it "often the church as an institution that is the worst possible representation of Jesus's teachings"?
Are there root cause reasons we can tease apart to help solve this tragedy?
Is it because authority is addictive?
Is it because leaders paid by the church they work for have vested interests in keeping bums on pews?
Is because of fear that if the church doesn't proclaim the 'correct teachings' people will backslide, lose their salvation and go to hell, and the 'lost' won't be reached by gospel and so will go to hell?
In other words is all because of an underlying, maybe unconscious, belief that God is strict, authoritarian and vindictive?
Could the connection be patriarchy, by any chance?
That was what drove the heresy and witch trials, the Magdalen laundries - who knows what else. "God said I can do this to you" is dangerous; "God said I must do this to you for your the greater good" is lethal.
I have never found the sweet point between the two.
Unfortunately I am in the situation where if I was going to design power structures for the churches I would not start from here, so I keep ducking out of the conversation.
When I went off to college, I joined the Assemblies of God - which, in spite of the fact that they did have women as preachers and teachers, was not a good place for women. The church taught (and still teach, as far as I know) a rigid family structure that enables and supports abuse. Women were told that they owed their husband obedience in all matters, even if the husband should tell his wife to do something sinful (he would answer to God for that, not her), and especially in matters related to sex, the husband's desires were the only ones that mattered. The story of Sarah pretending to be Abraham's sister and being willing to commit adultery to honor and submit to him was given as a model. These ideas were most often taught to women by other women.
Over the 5 or 6 years I was in the A0G, there were other issues that concerned me as well - the treatment of disabled people, the appetite for stories that were the religious equivalent of urban legends, and the tendency to blame everything on demons or atheists. The tipping point, though, the reason I left, was the birth of my first child. I realized that, once he started attending Sunday School, he would be taught things that I would have to correct at home. That just wasn't going to work. So my then-husband and I began looking for another church.
In any event, my experience from my mid-teens to my mid-20s did not cause me to believe that having women as pastors and evangelists and in other positions of church leadership was an intrinsically good thing, or that all-male clergy was an intrinsically bad thing. There are other things that matter more. And that's still true for me. While I do have friends who have left the EO church for that reason, if I were to leave, that would not be my reason.
I think that - for me - there is quite a difference between saying that women can't be ordained, and saying that having women clergy prevents sexism. For me the issue of whether or not women can/should be ordained is a simple matter of basic human rights; this is not suggesting that every woman is suited for the job. For instance I don't have a lot of time for Sarah Mullaly, but I still think that women should be able to be an Archbishop. The fact that I wish someone else had the job isn't the same as thinking that it needs to be a man. Likewise, I am the first to recognise that women are often the main teachers of misogyny within churches. Women's organisations being misogynistic happens all the time, even ones claiming to be feminist (see any and all TERF organisations for evidence of that).
I think that denying ordination to women is inherently misogynistic, but I don't think that every woman who is ordained is good at her job - women can be terrible people too, indeed suggesting that women are inherently more saintly than men is also misogynistic and has awful consequences for women generally. Women are also just people in the same way that men are. Women should be allowed to be terrible clergy just like men are.
I would be happy to read what you think about this.
(ETA advertising link removed - la vie en rouge, temp hosting)
The Quakers?
Doublethink, Admin
I did think about that and I went to Quaker service -but the mostly silence meant I became painfully aware of my tinnitus! I need a bit of 'people sound' and interaction.
Let the day to day running of the operational, financial, charitable, hiring/firing, activist, and public and government relations aspects of the church to laypeople who can be women. If any decisions require the signature or seal of senior clergy, let it be handed to them for approval just as they would be handed to a constitutional monarch. Clergy could still be involved in the deliberation and may even have a vote on such matters, but any important decision made by clergy member that overrules a majority of a deliberative body where women represent about half of the members should prompt a crisis of applied ecclesiology that would be likely to the result in severe pressure for that clergy member or members to resign.
If sermons at Sunday services are restricted to male clergy, then additional speaking roles designed to reach all the faithful just like Sunday sermons do should be open to laypeople, including women, on Sundays and throughout the year.
Many churches are already structured similarly, but they tend to be ones that allow the ordination of women or that do not make much of a distinction between clerical or lay ministry. All it would take is for hierarchical churches that claim an eternal infallible dogma of restricting ordination to men only to start to operate in this way - so as to respect the dignity and full humanity of women without having to admit that infallible teachings can be fallible or that capital-letter divinely-revealed Sacred Tradition can change.
I would rather neither women nor men be allowed to be terrible clergy.
stonespring, I am very confused by your post. At least in the Orthodox church, women can serve in roles related to the operational, financial, charitable, practical aspects of running a church. They can serve on the parish council, they can be choir director, they can be director of Christian education, they can be parish treasurer, and so on.
Lay women and lay men do all of those things and more. What they don't do is serve the sacraments. Only a priest can serve the Eucharist, baptize (except as any other lay person can do in an emergency), solemnize a marriage. Lay men or lay women can, in some situations hear confessions, but only a priest can pronounce the absolution.
Do you come from a tradition that doesn't have sacraments? Maybe you think that women aren't allowed to do anything at church? That's not the case on Orthodoxy.
The all-male priesthood isn't dogma in the Orthodox church. Not even close. Depending on your background, you might say that it's covered by canon law, or church order, or just that it's part of the way we do things. And the way we do things can change. No quickly, and not often, but it can and does change.
Also, it seems like maybe you are thinking that priests are the only clergy. In the Orthodox church, we have more clergy than just priests. Minor orders of the clergy are readers, cantors, and subdeacons; major orders are deacons, priests, and bishops. We've had other orders in the past. Both women and men can act as lay readers and lay cantors, while (at this time anyway) only men are tonsured readers or tonsured cantors (tonsuring being the rite similar to ordination for a priest or consecration for a bishop). I am quite sure that this should and will change - as long as women can already do the thing, it seems clear that they should receive the rites and blessings that go with that thing. While we're at it, we need to restore the diaconate for women. We need women deacons.
We've had other orders of clergy in the past, and the requirements for the various orders have changed over time.
This wasn't directed at me, and I don't know if I have research, but at my job this was given to me as a reason for why male staff are not to toilet/shower/etc. female clients while women do work with male clients in these settings. The context here being a facility for adults with cognitive impairments, some of whom have needs that include assistance with bathing, toileting, etc.
We were told point-blank in training that the statistics on abuse were thus: While female-on-male sexual abuse does occur, the overwhelming majority of cases of sexual abuse in our profession is male-on-female. So they play it safe by not allowing men to work with women in showering, toileting, etc. The fact that they're a Catholic organization might be in play here. It's also likely relevant that the majority of the employees in our profession are women.
Again, I do not have numbers myself, and I will not slam my foot down on this observation, but it would not surprise me if churches with women in charge have lower rates of sexual abuse, especially committed by clergy. The reasons for that - if it stands - are complicated and certainly influenced by a culture, etc.
In my experience, Orthodox priests do not have nearly as much power as you seem to think they have.
Older women religious who taught in Catholic missionary schools or nursed in missionary field hospitals were, by their own admission often poorly educated, conditioned by their superiors and mentors to internalise the hierarchies and authoritarian styles of leadership or power prevalent at the time, the way men took charge, the traditional ways things had been done. For many the 1960s and '70s were a scary unlearning period and most acknowledge they made many mistakes and had very little support in changing church attitudes to establishing equity or more collegial democratic ways of running things.
As said earlier, I made great use of that when arguing for equality of role, determined only by gifting and character. It worked, eventually.
But I think @josephine has a very good point. Essentially, English nonconformist churches only have two sacraments, communion and baptism. We don’t believe the bread and wine are changed, nor that the water changes the person. Rather our understanding is that communion is memorial and baptism is an obedient outward symbol of an inner change. So we don’t need specially chosen and anointed priests to perform these sacraments.
Hance I think the moves re leadership roles have fewer traditional obstacles in their way for us.
So far as Anglicanism is concerned, I think the struggle towards acceptance of women priests is often a reflection of the low church and high church elements within that broad church. And if you unpick that, the high church folks are more traditionally sacramental.
Misogyny and sexism, where they are found, may very well be a different matter. And misogynistic and sexism are still to be found in the low nonconformist churches in the UK. There the arguments and rationalisations are justified by a few biblical texts. (As, historically, were racist attitudes).
I suppose the real argument is whether the Traditional views of the sacraments support the sexists and misogynists, or whether the misogynists and sexists simply make use of them to support their prejudices.
The Anglicans, or at least some of them, recognise two - baptism and communion.* I think it's the same for Lutherans. The Baptists have three, of course - they add the 'church meeting' ... 😉
* As with much else among our Anglican friends the answer is often, 'it depends ...'
Tangent over. I'll butt out.
What Baptists have three sacraments? They recognize two ordinances, baptism-which can happen multiple times--and the Lord's Supper.
Thank you @josephine for that example. It strikes me as a classic demonstration of how one can have a strong sense of the authority of scripture and yet misunderstand completely what its implications are or how to relate to it.
You missed the smilie. There's a Baptist joke about the 'church meeting' being a 'sacrament.'
I am going to have to type 'irony alert' in future I think.
/tangent