Controversial Questions

Macarius,

Firstly, if the reason for instituting English in the Liturgy was distinctly anti-Orthodox, then it would have been capitulating. That is why I state that the woman deaconate should not be restored, at this time. Not because it is wrong, or cannot be restored, but because it would be instituted for the wrong reasons (and, incidently, as a liturgical institution behind the altar, which is theoligically wrong).

Secondly, you are misapplying the "slippery slope" fallacy. Firstly because the entire history of the last two centuries of modernism has been of turning us into the preverbial frog in the pot, and secondly because I did not say that the necessary response would be priestesses in the Church. The point was that to institute deaconesses in order to appeal to feminist sensibilities will not work because it does not give everything - the equality of sameness.

Furthermore, women have never been tonsured anything. Deaconess, despite the name, was a lay ministry. They were not allowed behind the altar. Only certain Mothers are allowed behind the iconostasis, and even they do not walk in front of the altar or through the royal doors. It was ended because it fell out of use as baptisms were no longer performed nude.

Thirdly, it is quite clear that you do not take time to understand what I say, and make inferences. It does not matter to me whether or not a woman is as capable as a man in certain jobs. What matters is should they be working in those jobs.

What it comes down to is that being a mother is work, and the highest of work outside of the monastery. I do not say that a woman should not have a career because she is not capable of it - quite the opposite is true - I say that she should not have a career because she is too good for it. Her place is higher than that. To demean the role of being the bearer of life and motherhood is what is de-humanizing.

Quite frankly, a man should work from the home if possible as well. Careers and such are soul killing things. http://pactum-serva.blogspot.com/2008/01/on-question-of-baby-making-machines.html

A bishop should not forbid working women, because unfortunately there are times that it is required. What a bishop should do, and quite a few do, is teach that women should be with the children if possible.



And I have told the women around me that.

For whatever reason, the Church does not have deaconesses today. I saw a claim on some dot net site that the Russian Church does; I'm here to tell you that we do not.
Discussing why we do not becomes bootless, if we do trust that the Church was not wrong to discontinue deaconesses. The question becomes "Why do you want to change it?"

Macarius said:

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).

Click to expand...

This is the heart of the problem of your argument. In answering the question, "Why change?" - (it is a key point that the Church doesn't change - even on practices changes are made for incredibly important reasons) it comes out that you are claiming that Orthodox practice is somehow "inaccessible" to women. What does that mean? Why do we "have to ask"? Who is raising a demand and need?

There are a great many things that people misunderstand, often willfully. Trying to change our practices to prevent their misunderstandings is a horrible mistake, and a fairly straight road to heresy. One big thing about the Church is discovering the need to surrender oneself to it. This is precisely the opposite of what "making accessible" means in the sense you are using it. Surrender oneself to what one doesn't like, as well as what one likes. ESPECIALLY to what one doesn't like. The Church is a hard thing to accept - who can hear it? Hard because it is real. The practices are another way that we stand out, and do not conform to the world. We do show love, and a recognition that men are just as good as women, and that women are just as much in need of salvation as men. But we do it God's way, not the world's way.

Macarius said:

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.

Click to expand...

Who on earth in the Church has been speaking of "feeling like second-class citizens"??? (As you point out, they DO already teach in the Church. Being a deaconess is not a requirement.) If there is any catechumen or lay member feeling that way, they just need a little education by the other women in the Church; er, to be taught...by women in how their perception is wrong.

Again, what is the benefit to women that is not feminist driven, and therefore not really benefit?

In short, it is we that have to conform - not the Church.


BTW, Your arguments can equally be used to level racist (and other "-ist") charges against the Church. Sit back, and trust that God has always known about what He instituted, even with its human faults.

Canon XLIV of Laodicea (ratified by Quinisext and 7th Councils)

I read an excellent article which talked about female deacons.

This article, which was published by a woman's monastery, said that nuns in monasteries do go behind the altar to clean and that many of the female deacons were nuns, widows, or women past the age of menopause who had consecrated their lives to God.

However, these female deacons did not serve in the Divine Liturgy.

It would be a shame to give into the feminists who want to become priests, because the diaconate is the next step toward becoming a priest.