Eastern Orthodoxy is often thought of as opposed to women's ordination in a unified, monolithic way. From what I can see this is less and less so. Not that any hierarch will be ordaining a woman soon but the thought patterns are becoming more diverse. What was once unthinkable is becoming, more and more, an open question.
There is no better evidence of this than this article in a 2008 book by St. Vlad's Press, where Alexis Karras argues from within the Orthodox tradition for the ordination of women.
http://books.google.com/books?id=oqIjyCKOAAUC&dq=thinking+through+faith&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=Kk8KUeI36S&sig=yo5p2BdQvHdDdq5XnCk-V6tNYos&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA113,M1
That is a google books link where you can read the entire article. The book is "Thinking Through Faith". The article in entitled " Orthodox Theologies of Women and Ordained Ministry."
My knowledge of Orthodoxy is limited and if any Orthodox want to add some perspective, feel free.
9 comments:
I remember reading an Orthodox book a few years ago on the ordination of women. It dawned on me that this is a real possibility in the Orthodox Church by the way the book was written. It would not surprise me if they would seriously consider it. In the Roman Church, it is not dogma but an episcopal ruling that they don't ordain female priest (from my understanding). - Dreyer
Even though some "prominent" thelogians have written advocating women's ordination such as Bishop KALLISTOS in England (I'm not countng Dr. Karras), this will not happen in the Orthodox Church especially as we are guided by the phrosyne of the holy fathers. I'd invite you to read a critique of Dr. Karras' argument:
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/whatbeef.aspx
I'd also invite you to read this article on the Rhodes symposium which specifically dealt with this issue some 20 years ago. Though some books have appeared the consensus patrum is the basis for our resistance and all the arguments would have to, ultimately, find some reason why the minds of the fathers should be ignored for this one issue, though that would certainly open the flood gates for other heresies to creep into Orthodoxy.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3818/is_200207/ai_n9107871/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1
As a member of a Lutheran congregation affiliated with the ELCA (ordains women)I can honestly say that I hope that the Orthodoxy never goes down that road.
I think ordaining women is a mistake.
Women have great gifts, but I do believe the arguments against ordaining women are powerful and an observation of my church (ELCA) has shown me that the detriments outway the positives.
Tolerance, inclusiveness, pluralism, social awareness, all great things...but not at the expense of the gospel.
Many women (some men too) in the ELCA have turned the faith into a love fest for all beliefs and practices ...anything goes nowadays...and it is wrong.
Now, Jesus is just one more way instead of being 'THE WAY'.
The feminization of the Church is not a good thing.
Hi Steve
I'd be really interested to hear more. You seem to draw a straight line between ordaining women to pluralism to losing sight of the gospel. At one point it in your comments it looks like this is being driven by the agenda and preaching of the women in the pulpit ("and a few men" as you mentioned).
I belong to a Lutheran tradition which does not ordain women. I'm curious, though, whether we can tell how much of the disintegration of orthodoxy within ELCA comes from ordaining women, or from the agenda of the women who have been ordained, or whether the drive to ordain women was itself coming from particular people with anti-orthodox agenda ... From the outside I can't tell.
What do you think?
Weekend Fisher,
Great questions.
I think it started with 60's style liberals taking (or winning) roles of authority and then it "progressed" from there.
Now I think the whole pluralistic, humanistic viewpoint has permeated the entire church body (with a few exceptions)
I think maybe I should've written 'most men' in my first comment.
I don't see much hope for the ELCA unless the current crop dies off and the new crop has more common sense, and God's law actually might mean something to them.
As the late canonist Archbishop Peter (L'Huillier) of New York used to say: "It is their opinion. They are stupid. They know nothing of canon law." He had a frail, quivering French accent, which makes it funnier when said than written.
Academics write all kinds of things. They get ahead by writing new things and being controversial. They also have very little pastoral responsibility, so they are speaking in and to the academy about abstract, academic matters. She is a pretty lone voice in the world of Orthodoxy, even Orthodoxy in America, so I wouldn't fear.
It is correct to note, however, that there is no specific canon barring women from ordination, it's just that it has never been done. Now, if canons and texts were the primary authority in Orthodoxy, this might be seen as an opening for the ordination of women. Dogma and canons are like fences; and one must not mistake the fence for the farm. In addition to these fences, Holy Tradition is a significant force in the Orthodox Church (and not boiled down to something as crass as 'if the Pope says it, it's Tradition'), so the fact that women have never been ordained to the priesthood or episcopacy, ever, in any of the cultures and circumstances and necessities that Orthodoxy has ever found herself in is an extremely weighty argument against the propriety of women's ordination.
Orthodox aren't as 'go along, get along' as Anglicans and those of northern European stock, so if someone started ordaining women it would be a quick trip to the door, anathemas, defrocking, non-commemoration, etc.
Due to the limited extent of Orthodox dogma, properly speaking, there is quite a lot of room for theologoumena. It is possible to raise all sorts of things, it is possible to proposed new and radical terminology, but Orthodoxy runs on consensus - the consensus of the Fathers, the liturgical and ascetical tradition, the consensus of modern divines, the bishops in each local Synod, and between each local Church - and then requiring the 'reception' of the Church at large as enunciated in the Eastern Patriarchs response to Vatican I. It's like the 'checks and balances' and 'division of power' in the US Constitution, but on steroids. That's a tough thing to get through and neither Greeks, Russians and the Balkan Orthodox are known for their easy going manner - I sometimes think the symbol for Orthodoxy should be a double headed donkey rather than a double headed eagle.
The Orthodox faith is not easily boiled down to an aphorism. There is not a single doctrine upon which the Church stands or falls. As St. Justin Popovich noted:
“ In Christianity truth is not a philosophical concept nor is it a theory, a teaching, or a system; but rather, it is the living theanthropic hypostasis - the historical Jesus Christ. Before Christ men could only conjecture about the Truth since they did not possess it. With Christ as the incarnate divine Logos the eternally complete divine Truth enters into the world. For this reason the Gospel says: ‘Truth came by Jesus Christ’”
Our understanding of Jesus Christ and His Church is always growing and maturing - the Church's, yes, but also each individual person's. Fr. Gregory Jensen has a good post regarding this at:
http://orrologion.blogspot.com/2008/12/crowds-disciples-apostles-typology-of.html
When new issues arise, new answers are needed, or at least new ways of presenting the old answers. Sometimes these answers don't 'work'. Bulgakov's sophiology is a modern, Orthodox example of the rejection of a new formulation. But, he was allowed to raise it and have it mulled over by the Church for her response. Talk about evolution, ecumenism, the reception of the heterodox, etc. are other examples never really faced before and needing new formulations or thoughts. Theologoumena are therefore allowed, but humbly presented the Church in the same way that Augustine deferred to the Church.
Whether women should or can be ordained are questions (plural) never previously addressed. It is related to questions surround gender roles and sexuality that the canons don't address and that various Orthodox cultures (again, plural) over time have looked at differently. For instance, there were very powerful political leaders in Byzantium and Russia while western Europeans refused the throne to women. The high regard shown lay monks and nuns in the Orthodox Church has also placed women in positions of authority quite different than were women in the West until somewhat recently.
Thanks orrlogion for a bit of insight from inside orthodoxy.
How would one be defrocked for something not against the canons? Wouldn't that require some sharpening of the theological rationale for no women's ordination?
BTW, are you the same Chris Orr that was blogging somewhere on the presidential campaign? Just curious :)
There is a Christopher Orr who writes for the New Republic, so that is probably the blogger you ran across. I was writing a little on the campaign and political issues, but just on orrologion and nowhere else.
The defrocking would likely come about for reasons having to do with disobedience. A Synod of bishops would recognize or not recognize the act as in keeping with Holy Tradition. Again, actions by the bishop's aren't simply based on following 'the rules'. The 'rules' are really just historical precedent regarding what has been received by the Church as true, fitting and holy. That's where my comment regarding the fence and the farm comes in - most of Orthodoxy is not 'codified' in some form of dogma or canon, but that doesn't lessen its official, authoritative and binding Orthodoxy.
If the Synod doesn't recognize the fact as being in keeping with Holy Tradition and the teaching of the Fathers, they would not approve the ordination - I believe ordinations are usually approved by the Synod ahead of time or require approval after the fact. Even if an ordination takes place, it is not automatically 'valid' - if an impediment to priesthood is present, the ordination is simply never took place regardless of the proper actions and words (ordinations and other sacraments in schismatic Orthodox churches are seen in much the same light) - ordination is not a magic formula and rite just like being a canonically consecrated bishop is both a valid apostolic succession and Orthodox faith and doctrine.
If a bishop decided to go ahead on his own and ordain, he would then be in disobedience to his Synod contrary to the canons. Same if he refused to abide by the Synod's non-recognition of the ordination. Repentance is possible, of course, as was allowed to the Romanian bishop who purposefully communed with the local Romanian Eastern Catholic bishop and faithful.
Post a Comment