Controversial Questions

Hello all,

So I normally post in reply to others, but there are a few areas I don't quite understand within Orthodoxy, being relatively new to it myself (only a convert of 4 years). I'd like to post these questions and have an open dialogue about them, and I want that to be open to any contributor (Orthodox or not), hence posting it here in St. Justin Martyr's corner.

1) The ancient Church, and the Byzantine Church, both had a woman's deaconate. In St. Ignatius of Antioch and in the Divine Liturgy the Deacon represents the angels around God's throne. Angels are genderless, being purely spiritual beings, so unlike with the priesthood there's no issue of "iconography" (where the priest must be male to be an icon of Christ, who is male).

Why don't we re-institute this since we have, in recent years, moved beyond some of the sexism of our cultures? We respect women's mind, ability, and spirituality, there's no issue of iconography (conceivably they wouldn't be serving Eucharist from the chalice), and it's IN the tradition of the Church.

If reinstituted, can anyone think of a reason they couldn't serve around the altar just like a male deacon, with the exception of not being allowed to spoon the Eucharist into the mouths of the faithful (for iconographic reasons)?

If deacon means "servent" I know a LOT of women who are just as much deaconesses as their male counterparts. Shouldn't the Church be blessing this service with the vocation of servanthood, the deaconate?

2) I know we don't want to promote the heretical variety of ecumenism with its fluffy "I'm ok, you're ok" relativism, but here's something I've been thinking of, and I'd like to be corrected (or affirmed, I suppose):

What if we began a functional international synod of Catholic and Orthodox bishops who met, NOT to try and resolve past differences, but to ensure that, as much as possible, NEW controversies are answered jointly by the Catholic and Orthodox churches? We make decisions about worship practices, doctrine, etc all the time. Over the last millenia, we've grown quite a bit apart, and if that's going to change, we should stop making decisions separately (so far as we are able - obviously the Orthodox Church would need to remain consistent with Holy Tradition and as such there are lines we cannot cross).

Something similar would be nice between the Orthodox Churches. We NEED an international synod since we are an international Church with international issues.

3) Protestants and Catholics do a much better job than us at evangelizing non-Christians. We do ok - but if we're honest we could learn a thing or two from them.

What are some evangelistic methods we could borrow from them without comrpomising the integrity of our Church's unique character?

In Christ,
Macarius

rusmeister said:

On number 1: As soon as you speak of “sexism” that reveals to me a secular world view that is not Orthodox. (I don’t mean you consciously hold secular world views, but that you (like most of us) have gotten a lot of indoctrination into falsehood from schooling and the media, and it’s something the Church can cure us of if we let it. The assumptions behind such words needs to be carefully examined in the light of Orthodoxy – the history that we think we know, the cultural attitudes that we think are right, need to be held up to the Church’s inspection. I question the implication that the Church has been doing something wrong with regards to women that it needs to correct.

Click to expand...

Do we know why the practice of the deaconesses was stopped? I'd be curious if there was a theological reason.

Also, the Church IS filled with human beings - we make mistakes. A lot. You may reject the term sexism as mere secular-humanist mumbo jumbo, but do you really deny that, historically, the all-male clergy has been used as a means to demean / put women down? NOT in the core theology of the Church, but due to human failure to correctly apply that theology?

If you don't, then it is you who need to re-read some medieval history. Women were talked about like baby-making factories, with all the dehumanizing implications there-of. I may not be a typical humanist, but I can at least see that there's a failure to love my fellow human being there.

I don't, from that, conclude that women should have identical roles as men within the Church, but I was questioning whether the removal of the female deaconate was a theological Holy Tradition to be maintained as revealed by the Holy Spirit, or a product of a cultural-human flaw (a tradition of men) due to a failure of human beings to love one another.

Just because the Orthodox Church has done it for a while doesn't mean its right. Note jurisdictionalism.

Rather, if it has ALWAYS been done, THEN it is de-facto Holy Tradition.

At the very least, if it has been done EVERYWHERE (as this has) then we can say it is theologumenon - it can't be "core" theology because the Church cannot die. I do want to consider it though, even as we respectfully submit our opinions to those appointed over us. It can't be heretical not to have women deacons, but it likewise can't be heretical TO have women deacons, since half of Christian history HAD them.

The question is why'd they disappear? What was the reason? And, given that we are communicating this gospel to a new culture (one with a different conception of gender) would it be appropriate to bring them back as a means of ministering to this culture? So long as it doesn't violate our Tradition it would seem practical / useful.

Hope that clarifies - totally respect your opinion that we should submit this to those above ourselves. But honestly, the Holy Spirit works through all of the Church. If the laity don't also guard the tradition (and understand it) then we are missing a key defense of the Church.

Basically, I think it should be up for discussion...

In Christ,
Macarius

rusmeister said:

The Church was instituted by Christ. Yes, it is full of fallible humans, but it is still a divine institution. What correction would you bring into it and from where? Surely we should love the Lord our God and love our neighbor as ourselves. Then all of these “historical injustices” just fall away. There are all kinds of sins committed in the Church. How would you stop them? (Essentially it seems to add up to attempting to stop the sins of others). You know how women should be treated – as fellow images of God who we should respect and love as ourselves. So do so. The other churches fell away from the body of Christ and so go around changing things to fit how THEY think things ought to be done. I don’t think I need to point out Catholic changes; other modern ones like the introduction of gay bishops and women priests proceed precisely on this principle – the idea of reforming the Church based on perceptions of social injustice.

Concentrating on our own failure to love is key.

As a side note, is the history you are referring to the history of Orthodox countries? Or the history of western countries which had long since ceased being Orthodox?

On the laity ‘guarding the Tradition’ –I think there is something wrong with suggesting that the Orthodox Church has been wrong on something important for the last 1,000+ years. The conclusion would be that the OC has failed, like all the other churches, to maintain that which was passed down – in a word, it looks like an attack on the Church.

On the question of the ending of the deaconate for women, ask at OCA or SVS or your priest.
(Or maybe someone else here has a canonical source that is of some use?)

Oh, yeah - agree with Mike's comments as well.

Click to expand...

So the every single thing the Orthodox Church has done for any length of time is de-facto 100% correct?

So Jurisdictionalism is now Holy Tradition?

How do they function within the OO? Are there noticable differences in what they do / don't do by comparison to male deacons?

Thanks!

rusmeister said:

What Lotar said.
The whole point of women deaconesses is that it is not dogma and it is not of a salvific nature. It falls under local (regional) practices, and these can be changed without nullifying Orthodoxy. Like pews or no pews. Lotar has a good point in that any drive to restore would most definitely be connected to modern feminism.

Click to expand...

This is actually progress to me - since now we're talking about whether it would be practical or wise as part of our ministering to this culture, rather than discussing whether or not this is a matter of Holy Tradition.

I think it could be seen as capitulating to modern feminism, but at the same time it would make Orthodoxy MUCH more accessible to an entire generation of young women.

If this were a matter of Holy Tradition, that concern would be irrelevant. But if it is not, we have to ask what our current practice (no women deacons) communicates to our current culture.

It doesn't communicate the love we know we have for one another. It communicates close-mindedness, sexism, and a reactionary perspective. Are those true things? No. And so we should be careful not to communicate those things, unless the practice in question is a matter of Holy Tradition (in which case we wouldn't change it; for example, even if people again accuse us of cannibalism for partaking of eucharist we would still partake of eucharist).

In addition, I'm not sure women deacons just function as liturgical aids during baptism, they also aided in the catechizing of women converts (or so I recall hearing once; if someone has a source stating otherwise please let me know).

Not sure what to draw from that, though I can say that having women teaching in the church (as they already do, when teaching children or working as evangelists as they have at times in our tradition) would go a long way towards helping some women feel less like "2nd class citizens in the Church" (as I've heard it put).

A given bishop would have to weigh whether or not the cost of capitulating in this way to feminism would outweigh the benefit to the women of that diocese. Obviously, that's something beyond our capacity here.

But since the Church is rather firm on no-women-priests-or-bishops because of the iconographic meaning and the lack of historical precedent, the argument that women deacons will inevitably lead to women bishops or priests is a slippery-slope falacy. To advocate women deacons does not force one to advocate for women priests. Two key criteria (traditional precedent and no theological barrier) are met for women deacons that aren't for the other ordained clergy.

Unless there's a theological barrier I'm missing... is there a theological / liturgical reason women ought not to be deacons?

In Christ,
Macarius

PS: this is entirely in the spirit of discussion. I'm not about to go to my bishop and request a woman deacon in my parish. I've just never pursued the question and am trying to test out the reasoning, if that makes sense. I trust the Church's judgment, ultimately, because I have faith that the Holy Spirit guides it.

Anglian said:

Dear Macarius,

No real difference, except they deal mainly with women and children.

peace,

Anglian

Click to expand...

Do OO women deacons serve Eucharist to the sick or from the chalice in liturgy, as male deacons do in the EO?

Lotar said:

Macarius,

"Capitulation" and "accessibility" are equivalents in the way you are using them. By "accessible" you mean palatable or pleasing to modern sensibilities without reference to traditional sensibilities.

Click to expand...

Only to a point - we "capitulated" to the Americans when we started holding services in English. What next? A single American Orthodox Church? Clergy and bishops appointed from within the ranks of Americans?

That's a bit sarcastic, but the point is this:

We don't mind 'capitulation' if it improves evangelization and is consistent with Orthodox teaching. Because THEN it isn't capitulation, but rather 'being all things to all men' for the sake of the Gospel. The Gospel is NOT "Eastern European Culture" (where the Church prospered for the last millenium) and so we HAVE to have some kind of discernment about what things from that culture can be shed, and what things are truly Holy Tradiiton.

To bundle it all into an "all or nothing" package seems odd.

The point being that women can already be in the choir, leading the choir, be a presvetera, and so on.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. Choir director used to be a lesser order (akin to a sub-deacon). I wonder if it would be prudent to reinitiate that and thus give institutional recognition for the work that many women do in keeping our parishes running.

Allowing women another position, such as deaconess, in a vain attempt to sate their feminist cravings will merely whet their appetites.

Click to expand...

Perhaps. But the point that the Church has valid reason to deny the priesthood and episcopacy to women, whereas we don't have any theological reason to deny them the deaconate, makes this less likely to men than within churches like the Episcopal Church where the adherence to Holy Tradition had already been attacked and rejected.

Those who see themselves now as "second class" will continue to see themselves as such until every clerical position is open to them. It is not a slippery slope fallacy, but rather the logical conclusion from the basis of modern feminist thinking.

Click to expand...

Technically (forgive me), it isn't a logical necessity. You're making several big assumptions and arguing, from these assumptions, that something is going to happen. That's definitionally a slippery slope.

It's like when someone argues "if we restrict handgun ownership, soon the government will take away all our guns." That's just an assumption. Or when someone argues, "If we have a national ID card its just the first step in the government becoming big brother."

I do agree with you that we should examine our reasons for doing something. I don't agree that if we have valid reasons (historical precedent, improving evangelism, etc) we should automatically have to defend invalid reasons (feminism, modernism).

This is probably an unfair analogy (actually, I know it is; please don't take this too far... I'll try to unpack the analogy to show what I'm getting at), but its a bit like the Council of Jerusalem. Christianity, in coming from Judaism, had the vast majority of its members circumcised in keeping with the Law of Moses. However, to improve evangelism, the Church capitulated to the desires of the Gentiles and did not maintain this "cultural" tradition. That is to say, one didn't have to adopt Jewish culture to be Christian.

Now, I in NO way intend to paint you or Ras as Judaizers or heretics. To me this isn't an issue of Holy Tradition and I have no doubt as to your Orthodoxy. That's the "unfair" part of the analogy.

But I do see the refusal of the women's deaconate as a mistaken identification between a cultural tradition of patriarchy in Eastern Europe (something the Church capitulated to in removing the women's deaconate) and a matter of Holy Tradition (that the priest and bishop are icons of Christ and therefore male).

Furthermore, the point of the Church is not to be "accessible", but rather the opposite. If one's views and opinions run contrary to Her teachings, then one should feel very much uncomfortable and find Her "inaccessible".

Click to expand...

Yup, but the Church also doesn't need to go beyond its teachings (which are radical enough) to force people to feel uncomfortable. For example, I'd feel more uncomfortable in a church that used Church Slavonic. That doesn't mean the Church ought to do this.

It is on you, then, to argue that no-women-deacons is a NECESSARY teaching of the Church. Otherwise, it CAN be changed for accessibility reasons, if the bishops so chose.

Saying "this is the way it is done, so it can't change because you should bend to it" is only valid for Holy Tradition. In other matters, it is economia.

Rather than being palatable to modernist sensibilities, we should rather encourage the development of saintly sensibilities.

Click to expand...

And how many saints interacted with women deacons? I know John Chrysostom did. St. Paul writes of one in one of his epistles...

Same point as above.

So it is that we should not be encouraging women in the destructive thinking of the day, even if it leads some, or many, to think that we are "sexist". When one looks at the Church and Her Saints, we see that the chief of these is not a bishop nor a priest nor a deacon, but rather a mother. Our deviated society teaches our young women that to teach and raise one's own children is demeaning, but to raise and teach other's children is honorable. It teaches that to clean and cook for your family is servitude, but to clean and cook for another is liberating.

Click to expand...

Should bishops be forbidding women from working for income, then, as this is a capitulation to the feminists and teaching the wrong things?

What reasoning can you provide that the basic thrust of feminism (that women are essentially as capable as men in most occupations and ought to be given an opportunity to work if they desire to) is somehow sinful according to Holy Tradition?

Can you honestly look at the women around you - your sisters and co-workers and friends - and tell them that?

I ask this in the spirit of love - are we loving the women around us if we accept the sexist attitudes of the past?

In light of the pain and de-humanization that women have suffered in the West, could we not examine the teachings of the Church for places where we can help HEAL that without compromising our Holy Tradition?

In Christ,
Macarius