Feminism, the contest of authority and the nature of
Mankind:
An essay
Mark McMonagle
In democracy, there is the prospect of great human and ideological heroism. This has to be viewed as an occasional thing since heroism is rarely called for. Yet, in America, ’heroism’ is attempted for each-and-every issue, at least seemingly so. In light of myriad issues with countless champions vying for contest, great ideologies or even simple beliefs become secondary to the impetus of that contest. In the best case scenario foes of humanity are defeated and freedom, hallmark. In other cases, there come the championships over the mundane, the abominable, and even the diabolical.
If all contest is the deciding or discriminating method of endorsement then any notion of right or wrong become ambiguous at best and irrelevant in the worst. Since championing an issue is historically effective in the way Americans influence public feeling and thoughts, ethics, morals and fundamental structures of society and family, public cohesion and tradition is sacrificed when it becomes necessary to establish a place in society for the championed ideal.
Ideological Feminism and Theology
Feminism is a case in point. Feminism, I have recently concluded, is not a passing concern among many women and men in America. It is a force that is changing the ethos of the country in many ways. As a Christian, I should investigate the fare that my family and I will be consuming as a consequence of pluralism, for the protection of our souls. As the saying goes, ‘not all that glitters is gold.’ In reviewing this topic I will be drawing from some feminist writers on the topic of theology and their particular understanding of what is essential to contemporary visions of where theology should go and compare this to theological anthropology that is of a more traditional nature at least from an Orthodox perspective. After this I will try to address the place of women in leadership in the Church as an ecclesiological ideal.
Feminism is a contest of authority. Dating back to 1792, one can see the first glimmers of concern about the subjection of women in Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Women. As Penelope Washbourne comments in her article ‘The nature of power and authority became her (Wollstonecraft) overriding concern, and her discussion focused on the destructive aspects of power, both for those who are subject to it and for those who exercise it.’ [1] Washbourne voices her assent in the next paragraph of the article by saying, “I find myself agreeing with Mary Wollstonecraft’s analysis of the structures of social power: any personal or corporate relationship that places some in the role of dependents on a supreme authority fundamentally dehumanizes the individuals involved.’ She clarifies her proposition by citing a Church case in the 1970’s and commenting on it.
“The ecclesiastical trial of Father William
Wendt in Washington, D.C., over the issue of women’s orders symbolized that
once the nature of authority is challenged, even in church governance, the very
basis of traditional Christian thought and practice crumbles.”[2]
This is a hasty conclusion certainly. However, to focus in on how thought and practice of an institution can crumble if challenged is naïve and reflects that spirit of contest so pervasive in our country. Her argument turns on the axis of a perception of reality. By noting that language reflects a limited symbolism for any reality, she then proceeds to qualify what becomes her contest against authority. ‘Perhaps our problems between sexes and cultures arise when we presume to know what people mean’ (her emphasis).
“Feminine theology calls us to recognize our limited nature as human beings and as speakers of religious words. It suggests that we use the poor stuff of that which is closest to us—our personal and social experience—in order to express the meaning of our encounter with that which is holy. It calls us to recognize the limited nature of all Christian theology, all church structures, all theological imagery, all doctrinal statements.”[3]
Ms. Washbourne is a poor theologian in that her contest is against enemies of her own making. In asserting the frailty of Christian theology, its structures and language, she is hinting at the possibility that with frailty comes error or, is an error. Indeed, Christianity has had its dark moments, but to propose a new theology as reparative is even more dangerous. It demonstrates her lack of breadth into the nature of ecumenical consensus within historical Orthodoxy. For example, in the same article she says, ‘the problem of theology begins with the word “God.”…The word God “objectifies” the experience of holiness or transcendent power, and to that extent the word itself becomes idolatrous.’ She makes several errors here. Her measure of definition is based upon an ‘experience’ of holiness or what she alternately calls transcendent power. Experience is an unpredictable measure of anything since all experiences are different. Also, God is not God because He has been experienced but because He has revealed Himself as God. God is not God based upon an adjective either; holiness as such is not God.
Washbourne’s theology of feminism is iconoclastic and antiestablishmentanarian. To quote her on this: ‘to call Jesus the “Christ” was to do him great disservice. We objectified him and his words, we worshiped him and the book that emerged from his followers, we held as holy the people who preached his word, we treated as sacred the laws and buildings and ecclesiastical customs – and it was all idolatry.’[4]
The end of her article is a call to end all models of authority: ‘for me, feminine theology calls an end to the traditional Christian framework and asks us to return to the basis for all theologizing: the experience of the demonic and the holy within the context of our particular, limited existence.”[5] Not only does she want to eliminate the essence of the Christian Church but has reduced all religion to two opposing elements, the demonic and the holy which is again measured by experience. Furthermore, at least within the article used here, she does not indicate whether we should follow the demonic or the holy.
Washbourne’s reliance on experience is as drastic as singular reliance on reason. It is also clear that this article was written in the ethos of the 1970’s. Perhaps we can forgive her then, there being little evidence of any recent documents she has written that support different thoughts on this matter. However, this puts her article in historical context but does not alleviate the fact that for her to write an article on theology, she ought to be familiar with the ground upon which that discipline is rooted.
But Washbourne is not alone.
Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, professor of English at William Paterson College in Wayne, New Jersey, wrote an article in 1982 in which she states she is an evangelical and a feminist and is also impressed with the feminism of witchcraft. Referring to Starhawk’s book[6] on the ‘Craft’, as witchcraft is called, she comments:
‘The Male and Female forces represent
difference, yet they are not different, in essence: They are the same face
flowing in opposite, but not opposed, directions…. Neither is “active” or
“passive,” dark or light, dry or moist – instead, each partakes of all those
qualities. The Female is seen as the
life-giving force, the power of manifestation, of energy flowing into the world
to become form. The Male is seen as the
death force in a positive, not a negative, sense: the force of limitation that
is the necessary balance to unbridled creation…. They are part of a cycle, each
dependent on the other…. Unchecked, the life force is cancer; unbridled, the
death force is war and genocide.
Together, they hold each other in the harmony that sustains life.’[7]
Mollenkott is here trying to concede to men their importance in feminism, but does so using the understanding of a particular witch. Mollenkott is also drawing on dualism and metaphorism that can just as easily be found in Taoism or Manicheeism, neither of which can be justifiable positions within classical foundations of Christianity, be they apologetic, irenic or polemic. Additionally, the emphases that Mollenkott uses within Starhawk’s work to elevate the place of creation above that of Incarnational and Trinitarian theology places her views well outside Christian Theology, making her claims of Christian affiliation a deception if not to us, at least to herself.
As for witchcraft, in an undergraduate study many years ago I researched witchcraft to not so much as understand it (solely) but, to see it in the context of both the Church and the world. My conclusion then was that witchcraft is about manipulation of the powers of creation to one’s own will, in which case the creation is a force to harness not a force as recognized by St Francis as brother and sister, or in the Cappadocians’ theology as needing redemption. I also concluded that each witch is different in her (or his) approach to this manipulation, there being no real continuity within the ‘Craft’ that concedes to concrete set of beliefs. Every thing is meant to be in subjection to the witch. I mention all of this to show that I have deep suspicions about anyone who wants to glean ‘wisdom’ from witchcraft, particularly since witchcraft or Wicca, has no room for belief in God or the devil, thusly no need for any of the concomitant teachings or structures of the Church.
Mollenkott agrees with Washbourne on the role of language limitations on religion and seeks reconciliation between her notion of feminism (which she calls evangelical) and Goddess Worship. “Because Goddess worship not only generated creative energy in women but respect for women in men, the role and status of women in prepatriarchal societies was apparently rather high. (As Virgil commented, “We make our destinies by our choice of gods.”) Liturgical references to God exclusively as “he” are therefore unmasked for what, politically, they are: empowerment to the male and enervation to the female. This practice must stop.”[8]
Well, so should trying to change the Church by restructuring her under the guidance of witchcraft!
Another Christian feminist, Dr. Harold H. Oliver, asserts an inadequacy of the Christian Tradition.
‘If there is one truth at the heart of both
Judaism and Christianity, it is that no representation of the divine—either
visual or verbal—is finally adequate, and that failure to accept this judgment
leads to idolatry. This is the central
message of the tradition. But to exempt
the tradition from this judgment would in essence be to deny the central
message itself. This may seem a hard
truth—one that finally reduces religion to a ‘relativism’. But it is a truth fully appreciated in many
historic segments of Christianity that have chosen to live with the fragility
of this truth, rather than with the certainty—and presumed finality—of
magisterial truth.’ [9]
Oliver’s concern about idolatry is easily routed when one compares his argument to the doctrine of Incarnation that shows God to be demonstrable in a very human way, living in and among the limited and frail human milieu. His theology is shared with (and flawed) the two previous feminists reviewed. If his sense of traditional doctrine is based on flawed concepts of God, both immanently and transcendently, his accusation of doctrinal tyranny becomes indefensible.
Rosemary Reuther differs from the previous thinkers in that she is firstly, a better scholar and writer, and secondly a more convincing theologian. Reuther identifies numerous categories of feminism that are championing different sub-issues of feminism in the marketplace. Some of these are civil libertarians who stand for equal rights but generally accept the status quo of economics and social structure. One could point to those who want to break the ‘glass-ceiling’. Some are socialist who challenge the socio-economic system. There are also the countercultural feminists who seek radical changes in symbolic consciousness and sexual identities. There are also the radical cultural feminists who ‘flee God and embrace Goddess’. She also describes in a cursory way other variants of feminism.
Stating clearly her own conclusions on feminism in a Christian setting she writes:
‘In terms of religious feminism, I have been critical of an evangelical feminism whose proponents believe that they can solve the problem with better translation and exegesis but cannot reckon with serious ideological and moral error in Scripture and tradition. On the other hand, I find the “rejectionist” wing of feminist spirituality engaged in serious distortions and pretensions. Although biblical religion is sexist, it is not reducible to sexism alone! It has also been dealing with human issues, such as estrangement and oppression and the hope for reconciliation and liberation. It has been doing this on male terms, failing to apply the same critique to women. Biblical feminists use these same liberating principles of the biblical tradition. But they make the principles say new things by applying them to sexism.’[10]
In my opinion, the underlying principle of feminism is one of self-identity. That identity is who a woman is, what her relationship is to men and patriarchal society and what, if any, unique spirituality a woman does have. Not all of these questions can be quickly answered, but should be asked and explored.
Anthropology and Society, influences on Theology
A related question is theologically anthropological in nature. Who and what is man (in the older use of the term, or the generic sense)? Some Dutch Reformed writers of the last century tackled this question quite seriously. Alistair McGrath writes in his Historical Theology, ‘According to Barth…theology is not a response to the human situation or to human questions; it is a response to the Word of God, which demands a response on account of its intrinsic nature.’[11] He says elsewhere, ‘The human search for meaning presents us with a paradox, in that we realize that we are radically finite on the one hand, and yet on the other we have unlimited questions. Even though we are finite and limited, we experience the hope for an absolute fullness of meaning.’[12] Feminism recognizes human finitude but wants to redefine all previous answers and set a course free of all contexts except those that it wishes to create or replace. The Church has historically not faltered in this area, despite feminist accusations. To look in the Bible one must, along with Barth, agree that the Bible does not try to answer many questions, and if read, the Bible makes no pretenses to answer some questions.
Karl Barth does not hesitate to warn us about capitulation to the contests of change that are rampant in the world today. As someone else said, ‘not all change is good, as all movement is not forward.’ Barth, in developing his argument in Protestant Theology, [13] in respect to Faust, by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, states “anyone who is confident, unjustifiably confident, that ‘we have carried things so much farther,’ is in no position any longer to take seriously ‘what many a wiseman has thought before us…’ Consequently, to reject the largesse of the past, feminism can only stand in a void where their particular issues become the cornerstone and bedrock of all subsequent history, and for that matter language, science and art. Unfortunately for them, history though in the past, has a way of reasserting itself and voicing itself into the contemporary setting, even if poorly heard and interpreted. Even God has not voided the past so as to start something new. No! Rather, He has inserted Himself into history in order to redeem it. Besides, it would be impossible to judge mankind if the past were to be nullified.
Jim
Wallis identifies a serious ill in connection to the American Church’s ideology
of change and anthropocentricity (with its inherent questions, as mentioned
above).
‘The gospel must be preached in context. We live in one of the most self-centered
cultures in history. Our economic
system is the social rationalization of personal selfishness. Self-fulfillment and individual advancement
have become our chief goals. The
leading question of the times is, “How can I be happy and satisfied.”…. The
gospel message has been molded to suit an increasingly narcissistic culture. Conversion
is proclaimed as the road to self-realization.
Whether through evangelical piety or liberal therapy, the role of
religion is presented as a way to help us uncover our human potential – our
potential for personal, social and business success, that is. Modern conversion brings Jesus into our
lives rather than bringing us into his.’[14]
This is a very important point, that we are to be brought into his (Jesus’) life and not attach him to our personal agenda’s like a vitamin. The point is when one claims Christianity as their nexus and foundation in life one cannot logically only adopt portions of the Christian life to suit our own selfishness. The Christian is called to reject the ideologies of the world as if contaminated by death itself and discipline oneself to conforming to the life of Christ. How one interprets that is of course the premise upon which the feminist theologians present their case. Is the old way of patriarchalism sufficient to all of Christianity throughout history?
Feminist revulsion to traditional Christian theology excludes that same feminism from understanding the full predicament of humanity, its salvation and the nature of both humanity and of salvation, because it has chosen an eisogesis of scripture that is predicated on certain ideological presuppositions.
The starting point in understanding any of this is found in defining who man (generically speaking) is. As a Christian, my definitive concerns lay in biblically understanding who man is in God and in Christ and in what the Church says about it. Herman Bavinck wrote years ago:
“Man does not simply ‘bear’ or ‘have’ the image of God; he ‘is’ the image of God. From the doctrine that man has been created in the image of God flows the clear implication that that image extends to man in his entirety. Nothing in man is excluded from the image of God. All creatures reveal traces of God, but only man is the image of God. And he is that image totally, in soul and body, in all faculties and powers, in all conditions and relationships man is the image of God because and insofar as he is true man, and he is man, true and real man, because and insofar as he is the image of God.’[15]
Biblically speaking, man and woman collectively are man and as man, the Image of God. If man is the image of God in totality, then he cannot be reduced to anything less than the image of God, physically, spiritually, politically or sociologically. The obvious implication here is that woman is by no means a reduced image of God via her ‘status’ in her relationship to the rest of Creation or to her mate. Thus, the Image of God does not lose its distinctive nature and become reducible to a sub-human species. The reality is that the guilt of Eve’s sin rested first on Adam and subsequently on Eve. This does not mean and has never meant that the woman is somehow inferior to man physically and genetically, psychically and spiritually. It does mean that sin has altered the relationships of man and woman and mankind over all with God. The guilt is nevertheless pronounced upon both sexes. A collateral question also arises; does sin have the power to create, recreate or merely to mar? I sincerely doubt that sin has any creative power. Again, let me say, sin has entered the Image of God, and in so doing, has altered the relationship with God and His Image. I am convinced then that man is irreducible – but is in need of reconciliation and restoration, thus redemption.
Anthony Hoekema challenges another Dutch writer, G.C. Berkouwer, who holds that the Image of God is an accident to man not an essence, from an Aristotelian perspective. By accident, he is referring to the Aristotelian meaning in which the Image of God is incidental to man or attached to man. “Berkouwer’s distinction between man’s continuing humanity (which persists after the Fall) and the image of God (which, according to him, was wholly lost in the Fall) implies that the image of God is somehow separable from man’s essence.” Berkouwer is then also at odds with Barth who, using a parallel antithesis (the topic of sin) of Imago Dei using the term Sundermensch to emphasize that sin is not a detachable aspect of human nature.[16] An implication of detachability has enormous impact upon Christian theology and particularly Christology when one thinks that the nature of God in Christ was detachable from his humanity. That happens to be heresy. But, Berkouwer seems to be insistent, at least in Hoekema’s understanding of him, that ‘the image of God is so nonessential to human existence that man can still be man without it.’[17]
Before expending too much more heat on this, Jaroslav Pelikan cites one of the church fathers on this topic with great insight. “‘Church doctrine,’ according to St. Epiphanius, ‘believes that man is, in general, created according to the [divine] image; but it does not define, when it comes to the image, precisely in which part [of man] this is to be found.’[18] Thus, Genesis identifies man as the Image of God, but is imprecise about what that means. Pelikan does not let us forget that this issue was not so easily sidestepped by other fathers of the Church, John Damascene for instance, ‘emphasized “intelligence,” “free will” and “virtue” as the components of the image.’[19] Pelikan sums up the classic view of man using Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s comment on Genesis 2:7 (found in Aids to Reflection, 1.9, Shedd’s edition 1:119-70) where biblically speaking, ‘“man became a living soul,” made clear that man “did not merely possess it, he became it. It was his proper being, his truest self, the man in the man.”’[20]
One of the neptic Fathers of the Church, Nicodemus the Hagiorite (1749 – 1809) made a startling comment in a book I recently picked up.
‘You must remember, dear reader, that God
first created the invisible world and then the visible, “in order to reveal a
greater wisdom and the manifold purposes of nature,” as St. Gregory the
Theologian noted. God also created last
of all man with an invisible soul and a visible body. He, therefore, has created man to be a ‘cosmos,’ a world unto
himself, but not a microcosmos within the greater one, as the philosopher
Democrites declared and as other philosophers have upheld. Such philosophers
considered man to be a microcosmos, minimizing and restricting his value and
perfection within this visible world.
God, on the contrary, has placed man to be a sort of Macrocosmos – a
“greater world” within the smaller one.
He is indeed a greater world by virtue of the multitude of powers that
he possesses, especially the powers of reason, of spirit, and of will, which
this great and visible world does not have.
‘This is why St. Gregory the Theologian again stated “God has placed this second cosmos (i.e., man) to be upon earth as a great world within the small one. Even when man is compared with the invisible world of the angels, again he is and is called a great world, while the invisible world is by comparison small. Man includes in his world both the visible and the invisible.” St. Gregory Palamas has noted that this cosmos (i.e., man) adorns both of these worlds, the visible and the invisible. Nemesios has also concluded that man as cosmos draws the two ends of the upper and lower world together and thus reveals that the creator of both is one.’[21]
To hold this kind of theological position on the nature of man is to of necessity abandon any notion of the reducibility of man.
What kind of battle is the Church ‘contending’ in regards to feminist theology when it attempts to use new paradigms, language and definitions, and the general tenor of enlightenment-influenced theology of our time? I think we must remember that Darwin has his ante in the kitty, so to speak, when it comes to dominating world-views. If evolution is the driving and formative power in the existence-question of man, then at what point or where can a Divine Image be expected to be found? What connection does spontaneous generation have in common with a created Image of God? It is not possible for man to be the Image of God if he is actually descended from monkeys and lemurs or other rodents. At what point in the evolutionary development of man does he (for those who concede to an evolutionary principle), or could he, take on the Image of God?
If it is possible that man attained some special self-knowledge, what differentiation did he make between this and something he accidentally ate 100,000 years ago for breakfast? Did he give himself his own divine appellation? This latter question would be answered in the positive in some circles. If, on the other hand, in a deist sort of way, God started the ‘process of evolution’ man cannot be called the Image of God because as Image, a reflection is implied. This would give ample room for the process theologians to claim that as God was in the process of becoming, so was man, or vice versa. If this be true then there is the problem of uniqueness that is muddled by the myriad of precursors to man having also to be reflectors of the Divine Image in the same way as man (since man is effectively, insignificantly no different from any other creature), which could justify panentheism, animism and monism depending on one’s particular slant or persuasion. This Darwinian implication would then make Christian Theology obsolete.
Obsolescence is the goal of much of feminism as well. As Christians, the assault on us for our beliefs comes in many forms, in this paper I sought to show that feminism is a force that seeks to overthrow perceptions of authority based on Christian language and definitions, so that it can establish an independent agenda for living. I also wanted to show that Christian Theology is adequate to defend against deconstructive powers in the world today. In feminism there remains however the valid question of equity, justice and reconciliation that has not been addressed in this or other papers used to develop this paper. It is important that equity, justice and reconciliation be found in Christ and demonstrated in more than abundant portions in many other domains of theology, as should it be. It is, however, not necessary to rewrite theology and the essential beliefs of the faith to rectify perceived and demonstrable inequities. It is incumbent upon we who claim to be Christian, however, to listen fully and as broadly to the Deposit of Faith commissioned to the Church to understand how best to make an answer to those within the Church on what is the place of women. To this I will now turn.
The cultural context in which Christian feminism exists is highlighted above. Indeed, many of the examples and ideologies are in the extreme there is an underlying valid concern by women within the Church to express themselves creatively and authoritatively as leaders within the Church. Are the old models obsolete though? Is the role of deaconess, saint, Apostle(ess), prophetess, mother, nun, sister, counselor in anyway inferior to a view that intimates that masculine ministry is select? Unfortunately, the supposition abides that if someone cannot enter a role it means that the boundary must be crossed if not fully eliminated.
Some
have argued that:
“The general reaction among
Orthodox thinkers to the modern discussion of the role of women in the Church
(is) on the one hand, ... the very "traditional" view, expressing a
conservative attitude toward the social role of women in general ... (where)
images of women ... are in almost total concord with the old German expression,
"Kinder und Kuche"—women are essentially for child-bearing and
for cooking. In Greek we think of the notion of "oikokyrosyne," the
woman of the house." It is argued, from this point of view, that women
have an essential "nature" such that they appropriately belong to the
home. The things of the home are fundamentally and somehow appropriately suited
to the female gender. One senses, in the more extreme advocates of this view,
the notion that the social roles of females are perhaps dogmatic, that women
are universally relegated, by a God-given command, to the home and its
concerns.
On the other hand, we find
ample evidence, in all of the media in American society, that women are willing
to sacrifice every notion of their separate and unique identity in order to
break the bonds of the presumably man-made social roles, which constrain them
in their actions and behaviors. It is not unusual for women to deny even their
physiological distinctions from the male and to advocate the most extreme form
of "sexual equality." In the frenzy of this denial process, they
paradoxically often claim for themselves the right to the same abusive
characteristics, which men have ostensibly exhibited in exercising their
prejudicial authority over women. And often, from the psychological standpoint,
the intemperance of these women leads them to crises in sexual identity,
further resulting in behavior of such an abominable kind that it bears little
protracted comment.”[22]
One cannot, without
difficulty, admit to having heard or observed expressions of these sentiments.
Where there are certainly differences between men and women the argument should
be raised and defended that the nature of women is the nature of humanity and
that delegation of roles has little to do with the ‘nature’ of the sex of an
individual. It is true that the
argument for kinder und kuche has been strongly adhered to in many, many
places of the world for a very long time; but the question for Christians in
regard to the topic of authority, and specifically, the ‘right’ to priestly
orders, must be taken away from the proponents of nature because of its
indefensibility (and rudeness) and because it skirts the issue order.
If then
nature is indefensible, because of the theological statute that God made man,
male and female, which results in the sharing of nature; what then of
tradition? Is the Tradition of the
Church a valid authority to address the question of women in leadership?
“As regards the so-called
"feminist" position (of which we hear so much today), there are
certain issues on which the Orthodox Christian (if not, perhaps, the rational
individual) cannot yield. We do affirm and recognize an order, meaning, and
functional differentiation in created things. Thus our Faith teaches us that
the female is endowed by God with certain characteristics and tendencies that
differ from those of men. (And this, rather than detracting from her, elevates
her as part of the divine scheme. By no means does this teaching suggest or
tolerate the relegating of women to some lowly status.) Moreover, our
intellects and senses teach us that women and men differ. We border on the insane
(not an unusual thing in these bizarre times) if we deny the biological roles
of men and women in procreation. These roles are verified by the external,
physical distinctions of gender. And even the most radical psychological
portrayals of men and women readily admit to fundamental differences between
the sexes in cognitive style and mental functioning. (Paradoxically enough, it
is part of the feminist movement itself that psychological profiles and
categories standardized on males are not appropriate in the assessment of
female behavior.)” [23]
Without changing a thing,
nature is maintained but individuated.
Still, this does not inform us as to the place of women in ministry or
ordination. What it does is underscore the acknowledgement that there is a difference
in sex. But, this is obvious and
over-stressed by both feminists on the one hand and the fundamentalists and
traditionalists on the other.
The
character of contemporary theology comes in many ilks and forms. It is interesting to note that the humanism
of the French philosophes, and the enlightenment in general, have
influenced how ministry roles, tradition and ecclesiology have been re-viewed
and re-interpreted. Whether hierarchy or genders, roles have been challenged
and reformed in such a way that generational succession of the Christian
self-image has been drastically upset and disordered. It may be that for generations to come disorder may be the
hallmark of the Church and ultimately subject to the judgement prepared for the
world.
When the
Church (and I am considering only the Orthodox Church here) looks at the
fundamental issues of ecclesiastical roles, and in this case the ordination of
women, it must answer the questions posed to her (woman) out of courtesy and
also because of her need to navigate through a world that considers any
institution fair game for re-formation and frontal confrontation. Women have
posed the question, often quite honestly, whether ‘she’ may be ordained to the
clerical orders, and by this she would like to enter the priesthood proper,
that is priest and bishopric. Whereas, today many branches of Christianity have
answered in the affirmative and ordained and consecrated women to the high
orders of the Church others have not.
Orthodoxy,
for one, answers in the negative, but with a caveat. Through the history of the Church women have been called the
‘equal to the Apostles’, saints, martyrs, mothers, sisters, deaconesses,
theologians, wonder-workers, and abbesses, many of whom have had considerable
authority in the communities in which they have worked and lived. One of the
most common accusations against the Church hierarchy today is that it is a
‘good ole’ boys club’, a power structure.
What the evidence shows is that at times and places this is very true;
but there is a history of exceptions that show a Church that is in fact
Christian in temperament and practice. Take for instance this ancient story.
“Moderation in thought and
attitudes manifests itself to us also in flesh and blood, so that we can see in
sober Orthodox men and women exactly what is wrong with our present intemperate
thinking about men and women in “roles” dictated by their “natures.” Where,
indeed, are such thoughts in the tear-evoking sweetness of the encounter of the
Elder Zossima with our wondrous Mother, Saint Mary of Egypt? Can one imagine
the holy elder saying to himself, “Being a priest, I shall bless - this saint,
for I am, by nature, worthy of that which she, by nature, is not”? God forbid!
Rather, the holy elder fell before our beloved Mother and asked that she bless him.
And could it be that the wondrous woman among God’s saints said to herself, I
will bless this man, since he, indeed, must know that I have a right to
the priesthood”? Indeed, no. Which of us can forego tears thinking of
what truly happened? Falling prostrate before the holy elder, St. Mary begged
his forgiveness, the two remaining for some time thus prostrated before one
another, each saying, “evlogeite,” or “Bless.” As we all know, the Holy
Mother, deferring to Father Zossima’s priesthood, wished his blessing. And what
a lesson to learn from the result. She cried out, “Blessed is our God, who
watches over the salvation of souls and people.” And the holy elder responded, “Amen.”[24]
The fundamental problem
today in the issue of whether women should be allowed to enter the priesthood
is not about rights, power, sexism or patrimony; rather, the issue is about
service. To what have we been called?
We have been called to serve the Church not restructure the Church based
upon ideology or contemporary opinions influenced by ‘rights’ issues. Unfortunately for many today the Tradition
of the Church is suspect and should be reformed. And as we continue to see the
Church in continual need of reformation (which in the final analysis is the
attempt to pre-empt any man or woman from determining religious belief for
others, God forbid!) there will never be a resolution to the issue. What is
constantly changing can never, it seems, impel its momentum from suddenly
stopping.
Conclusion
This
assignment was given so as to state clearly what I believe about women in
ministry. What I have discussed is the
cultural context of contemporary feminism found in non-Christian settings,
pseudo-Christian settings, heterodox and Orthodox Church settings. I have also briefly looked at pagan and
Wiccan thoughts on womanhood, though admittedly very briefly. I have reviewed
some cultural and social tensions found in post-Enlightenment Western society
as they relate to a continuous drive for change and challenge. This last
consideration gave some thought to some questions of “rights”, “nature”,
“roles” and so on.
The conclusion I have come
to is that the preponderance of feminist pursuit of priestly ordination has
less to do with calling than a pursuit of ideological disruption of established
tradition. Though there are exceptions. What has occurred to me is that given
the narrow definitions allowed in our compartmentalist Western world, ministry
of value is pigeon holed in the priesthood.
This is a result of professionalization among other things, an area not
discussed in the above text, but is at least partially responsible for the
migration of women to ‘pastoral’ or ‘priestly’ roles.
The
reality of the whole situation is that there is momentum towards the ordination
of women in the Church. This is unlikely to change despite the commentary and
conclusion and recommendations of the traditionalists. The world wants endless change and women in
pastoral ministry are an artifact of this change. My opinion is frankly of little value in the greater scheme of
issues, but that is not to say that I do not have one. I have chosen to follow tradition here and
encourage the Church to enlarge its concept of service to the Body without
compromising it’s traditional practices.
I believe that there is considerable room for women to exercise their
skills, wisdom and yes, callings. They should continue to go to seminary, write
pivotal and expert literature, serve the body in new ways faithful to
Tradition, biblical insight, and within the Church. Women have been an untapped
resource for centuries. Those who have the education and wisdom should be
allowed to teach. Those who have not the education but are in more traditional
settings as housewife and homebound mother should pursue other virtues.
I leave
this paper with a question. If the
conclusions of this paper are distasteful or objectionable, as I am sure it is,
what is the source of the distaste? And
is that source based in Christian virtue or in ideological motives?
[1] Authority or Idolatry? Feminine Theology and the
Church, found in Christian Century, (1975) pp 961-964.
[2] Washbourne, p. 962.
[3] Washbourne, p. 962.
[4] Washbourne, pp. 965.
[5] Washbourne, pp. 965.
[6] Starhawk, The Spiral Dance: A Rebirth of the
Ancient Religion of the Great Goddess, Harper & Row, (1979).
[7] Starhawk, p. 27.
[8]
http://www.religion-online.org/CGI-bin/relsearched.dll, pg.4
[9]
http://www.religion-online.org/CGI-bin/relsearched.dll/showarticle?item_id=1922,
pg. 1
[10] http://www.religion-online.org/CGI-bin/relsearched.dll/showarticle?item_id=1753,
pp 6.
[11] Alistair McGrath, Historical Theology, Oxford
(1998), pg. 238.
[12] McGrath, pg. 336.
[13] Karl Barth, Protestant Theology, (1947) pp. 5.
(Full source unavailable at time of writing)
[14] Jim Wallis, The Call to Conversion, Harper
& Row (1981), pp 27 & 28.
[15] Herman Bavinck: Dogmatiek 2: 595-96, as
translated by Anthony A. Hoekema in Created in God’s Image, Eerdmans/Paternoster
(1986) pp 65 footnote 140.
[16] McGrath, pp 290.
[17] Hoekema, pp 65.
[18] Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition Vol.
5, Chicago (1991), pp 203.
[19] Pelikan, pp. 203.
[20] Pelikan, pp. 206.
[21] Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, A handbook of
spiritual counsel, trans. Peter A Chamberas, Paulist Press (1989) pp.
67. This is a translation of Symvouleftikon
Enchiriridion.
[22]Women in the Orthodox Church Brief Comments from a Spiritual
Perspective by Archimandrite [now Archbishop] Chrysostomos, Orthodox
Life, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Jan-Feb, 1981), pp. 34-41.
[23] Ibid.
[24]
Archbishop Chrysostomos, Women in the
Orthodox Church brief comments from a spiritual perspective, From the Orthodox
Life, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Jan-Feb. 1981). pp. 34 - 41.