Empathy, feminism, and the church [women’s ordination]

[2PhiloVoid]

"I'm just not convinced" is not an argument.

You're correct. "I'm not convinced" is not an argument. But that doesn't mean the argument, whether it is good or bad, doesn't exist.

And I'm going to go with the two thousand years of Tradition interpreting Scripture over and above Kroeger and Kroeger.

Well, please forgive me if I don't go that far with you in over-extolling the significance and use of an ambiguous term known as "Tradition."

P.S. As a side note to the hesitant, please know that when I'm positioning my argument on behalf of women in the Church, I'm not directly positing that the issue of women in Church Leadership should be seen as normative or expected on all counts; I especially don't do so due to the inroads of, or because of, Modern Feminists tracts and theories.

Rather, I think the Bible and Church Tradition are fragmentary in nature and, therefore, we are left with enough room open on Historiographical, Historical and Hermeneutical grounds to, at the least, occasionally permit women to lead in the Church if it seems they're truly being led by the Lord to do so. I don't think my position is an incoherent one once a number of factors extraneous to both the Bible and to Tradition are taken into account.

 

[rturner76]

I like the idea of hearing Mass done by a man. In my upbringing at least until 2nd grade, I went to mom for love, hugs, and food. Having Mass led by a man is what it has always been. It's what we are used to. It reminds me of my father because he tried to impart wisdom and tell stories and had high expectations of me. I think there are some places where a man is more effective.

Still, I can see many women and sensitive men who would appreciate a more nurturing approach. Not that all women are nurturing or that men can't be nurturing. Let me make that clear. I am mostly talking about my own experience and philosophy.

When I was young, I went to a Lutheran Church with husband and wife co-pastors. I used to go to Tom with my stuff and my brother went to Becky. Neither one of us could put our finger on why.

I guess the bottom line for me is I like it when changes are made very slowly in The Church but I don't see why the responsibilities of a Deacon couldn't be expanded. I wonder if, at the time, it was just a time when mom stayed home and made babies and dad did all of the leadership stuff. I know the Deacon is a very prominent position. If they could be educated and ordained maybe it would be enough of a compromise to allow them it consecrate bread.

 

[zippy2006]

His whole argument falls flat when one realises that the ordination of women is not argued for, or practiced, based on "empathy" for women struggling with exclusion, but on the call of God and the clear precedents in Scripture (and, to a lesser extent, in tradition). He's attacking a strawman.

You are the one attacking a strawman. He is not saying that empathy for struggling women causes women's ordination. That is a bizarre reading. (Incidentally, it's clear to me that many who have criticized the article have not read the article.)

The idea is that female ordination is a "watershed issue"--an outgrowth of feminism and a measuring stick for the way that feminism (and distorted empathy) are affecting the culture and the church. Correcting the error of female ordination is proposed as a way to address the feminism problem and the empathy problem. There are other thinkers--secular and religious--who have made the same argument with respect to a number of different institutions. My guess is that they are all correct, but I would nevertheless like to research the topic more.

(There are other related arguments as well, but this one runs through.)

 

[Paidiske]

He is not saying that empathy for struggling women causes women's ordination. That is a bizarre reading.

He doesn't say it in so many words, but that seems to be the clear understanding of what he means when, for example, he says that men standing against egalitarianism "must develop the kind of Christian fortitude that will enable them to endure the hurt feelings and offense of priestesses* and lady pastors."

His whole argument rests on the idea that women's ordination has been fought for out of empathy for women claiming frustrated vocation.

*Side note: the term "priestesses," when used to refer to Christian clergy, is a gross slur.

 

[zippy2006]

He doesn't say it in so many words, but that seems to be the clear understanding of what he means when, for example, he says that men standing against egalitarianism "must develop the kind of Christian fortitude that will enable them to endure the hurt feelings and offense of priestesses* and lady pastors."

You think that, <we must stand against egalitarianism even though it will offend women pastors> implies, <empathy for struggling women causes women's ordination>? You're making logical errors. Undue empathy for women pastors will exacerbate the problem, but it does not follow that empathy for suffering women caused women pastors. That is not the argument at hand. Egalitarianism is what caused women pastors, not empathy. Feminism and egalitarianism are simply not premised on pity or empathy for suffering women.

His whole argument rests on the idea that women's ordination has been fought for out of empathy for women claiming frustrated vocation.

I don't think you will find that idea presented anywhere in the article, and I think you will search for a quote in vain. You seem to be projecting something into this article.

 

[Paidiske]

You think that, <we must stand against egalitarianism even though it will offend women pastors> implies, <empathy for struggling women causes women's ordination>?

Well, it certainly implies that empathy for struggling women would be one cause of not standing against egalitarianism, no?

Egalitarianism is what caused women pastors, not empathy. Feminism and egalitarianism are simply not premised on pity or empathy for suffering women.

No? You do not think pity or empathy have played any part in the push for women's equality? That recognition of the sufferings caused by the subjugation of women had any part to play in it?

You seem to be projecting something into this article.

It seems to me that if empathy is the problem, and women's ordination is one symptom, the implicit link is quite clear.

 

[zippy2006]

Well, it certainly implies that empathy for struggling women would be one cause of not standing against egalitarianism, no?

Suppose there is mold in a bathroom, and someone says, "You have to be willing to clean up the bathroom, even to the point of overcoming your distaste for mold." Apparently you think this statement means that a distaste for mold is what caused the moldy bathroom. It didn't; if the bathroom had been kept clean the mold would never have formed in the first place. The accumulation of mold is a symptom of the real problem, and therefore the mold problem will never ultimately be solved unless the underlying problem is addressed (i.e. regular cleaning, even before progressive symptoms emerge).

The author of the article is not confusing the symptom with the cause, as you are.

No? You do not think pity or empathy have played any part in the push for women's equality? That recognition of the sufferings caused by the subjugation of women had any part to play in it?

Early feminists were not playing the pity card. They were playing the justice card. They had real arguments. The intellectual stature of feminism has since diminished.

 

[Paidiske]

Early feminists were not playing the pity card. They were playing the justice card. They had real arguments. The intellectual stature of feminism has since diminished.

As if pity and justice were unrelated in this case. It is possible for pity to be the affective face of justice.

As to the rest, I don't know how much you know about the history of the struggle for women's ordination. I know it well enough to know that the emotional suffering of those with frustrated vocations was very much part of the story, and the argument.

 

[Rose_bud]

Worth a read.

View attachment 342442

"Anumber of years ago, I kicked up a hornet’s nest by highlighting how empathy, as understood and practiced in the modern world, is dangerous, destructive, and sinful. Since then, every so often, another battle in the Empathy Wars breaks out (usually on social media), and we all learn something. In most of these dustups, there is an underlying dynamic that manifests again and again, and now seemed as good a time as any to identify it. Providentially, the recent controversy involving Fr. Calvin Robinson and the Mere Anglicanism conference provides the perfect opportunity to do so. The dynamic I have in mind is the intersection of feminism in the church, theological drift, and the sin of empathy.

My basic contention is that running beneath the ideological conflicts surrounding all things “woke” (race, sexuality, abuse, and LGBTQ+) is a common emotional dynamic involving untethered empathy–that is, a concern for the hurting and vulnerable that is unmoored from truth, goodness, and reality. In the modern context, empathy is frequently, as one author put it, “a disguise for anxiety” and “a power tool in the hands of the sensitive.” It is the means by which various aggrieved groups have been able to steer communities into catering to greater and greater folly and injustice. And a key ingredient in making this steering effective is feminism."

Empathy, Feminism, and the Church | Joseph Rigney

Women's Ordination is Indeed a Watershed Issue

americanreformer.org

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Hi there

This was quite a lengthy article. Not entirely new arguments, just re-framed around an incident with Fr Robinson.. all the same arguments between the egalitarians vs complimentarians...

And off course there will be those that say the article is justified by the reaction it receives... ie they are responding emotionally..

I even read the comments.. for me the post on the article was summed up and more or less accurately describes the situation...by this comment by a lady Eve...

"Hmm… Well, I was told by the writings of John Piper, Emerson Eggrichs, Gary Thompson, and others that as a woman, I’m supposed to show you respect by hinting around to things, dropping clues, and using indirect language so as to not usurp your authority as a man, which is basically the essence of indirect speech. So does this mean I’m allowed to tell you directly now that your ideas about empathy are off base, dangerous, and unchristian, or do I have to hint around at it? Because you’re throwing out the baby with the bath water while saying you aren’t by saying ministers of the gospel ought not include empathy when dealing with the truth.

This is dangerous and wrong. We’re supposed to speak the truth in love, sir, and if you can’t or won’t empathize as you speak the truth, you’re harming the truth. You seem to be grossly conflating empathy with capitulation and surrender. I can empathize with someone without condoning their sin or accepting it. It’s because I’m emotionally and intellectually mature enough to ground myself in principles like truth, justice, and righteousness and use them to temper my empathy. I can also use empathy, sympathy, and mercy to temper justice and such things. It works both ways.

Also, this isn’t a super power I possess as a woman. It’s a developed skill I’ve come into possession of as a Christian and a human who has actively chosen to mature and better myself. Hiding behind gross and inaccurate sex based stereotypes to justify your lack of emotional maturity isn’t going to wash in this life or the next. The Holy Spirit has empowered us to be able to do all things and achieve ALL the fruits of the spirit and sanctify every emotion, including empathy.

I strongly suggest, sir, that you sit down with your Bible, put aside your commentaries, and just read a little bit and see how much God empathizes with us without yielding His holiness and righteousness. He understands our weaknesses and sinfulness so well that at every turn He met is where we were and brought us to righteousness. He showed us empathy and compassion and used those as tools to help bring us to Himself. Or have you forgotten the ENTIRE redemptive story arc of the Bible?

I think instead of you trying to convince Christians to be less Christ-like and more pharisaical, you’d be much better served dropping out of the Jesus fish shaped lime light and go have a soul searching in the mountains moment with just you and your Hebrew-Greek Bible.

I hope I wasn’t too indirect for you."

 

[zippy2006]

As if pity and justice were unrelated in this case. It is possible for pity to be the affective face of justice.

This is precisely why recent forms of feminism are not taken seriously. The pity card is the antithesis of robust secular feminism.

 

[zippy2006]

The video that accompanies the OP article. The dialogue begins after the introduction, which lasts about 5 minutes:

 

[FireDragon76]

Can support be provided in scripture or Christian tradition that empathy can be "sin?"

I find the idea that empathy is sinful, to be grotesque.

Some people that get lost down a rabbit hole of wokeness are probably motivated by an overbearing, and possibly misplaced, sense of grievance, not empathy.

Empathy should lead us to question our inherited religious traditions if the welfare of our neighbor is at stake. That is in keeping with the highest ideals of agape, to go the extra mile for our neighbor. If the religious traditions cannot withstand our moral scrutiny, they should be ammended or dropped.

 

[FireDragon76]

"Untethered empathy." Good Lord, don't die for us, that would be untethered.

Isn't the central narrative of the Bible one of the "untethered empathy" of God?

 

[The Liturgist]

Obviously empathy is not a sin, regardless of how one feels about women’s ordination.

Edit: the OP refers to the misuse of sin, but I have also been made aware of a compelling argument that empathy is a neologism and does not mean what I incorrectly assumed it to mean, which was a blend of Christian charity, compassion, sympathy and a desire to follow the Golden Rule. In fact, it seems we should just use these terms, and I thank @zippy2006 for making that point.

I myself take the specific view that it should be done in those churches where it presently is being done, but that the schisms it would cause in other denominations are too high a price. Unfortunately, one has to weigh the cost of addressing the trauma being ineligible for these offices in some denominations that @Paidiske refers to with the impact a change in policy would have on the denomination. There are some churches in the Anglican communion which have clearly benefitted from the ordination of women and where this has resulted in a revitalization.

I do think it would be useful if more churches had deaconesses, furthermore, to serve as ministers of the font, as they served in the early church before that order fell into abeyance in most churches. This is because I believe baptisms, whether of infants or children or adults, should be by full immersion, and I think it best, as did the early church, that women baptize women. At present I believe the Armenians and the Copts have restored deaconesses.

Historically we know from ancient canon law that the deaconesses were celibate females, originally 40 years of age or older, but the minimum age was later increased to 60 years or older.

The ancient canons do not say anything about female presbyters or bishops, so it is possible as @Paidiske has argued that they exist, although I myself consider this unlikely, having reviewed the evidence, but what is clear is that the early church did have women in a wide variety of important ministries, and I have not come across any canons prohibiting female priests or bishops.

So while some people are explicitly disqualified under ancient canon law, for example, any man who has himself castrated for reasons other than medical necessity, or anyone who has engaged in sodomy or committed murder, there are no ancient canons which prohibit the ordination of women as presbyters or bishops. In addition, in the heresiological catalogues of St. Irenaeus, and St. Epiphanius, and St. John of Damascus, no group is called out for doing this. Rather the surviving documents we have simply do not discuss the matter. This to me suggests that such ordination did not happen or was so rare that no one thought to discuss it in the canons, but that it was not prohibited, even if in practice it did not happen.

As far as what St. Paul wrote, there are interpretations of what he wrote that are permissive of female priests or bishops, and I think churches that ordain women should use such an interpretation, as opposed to saying that St. Paul was wrong or a misogynist, which is obviously an extremely offensive proposition as far as most Christians are concerned. And furthermore dismissing St. Paul as being in error is clearly unnecessary, since the early church venerated the Armenian princess St. Nino as Equal to the Apostles for spreading the Christian faith to Georgia and persuading the largest Georgian kingdom, that of Iberia, to convert to Christianity, obviously involved her teaching people about Christianity and clearly she exercised an authority as a source of information about the Gospel, and ancient Georgia was by no means a matriarchal society. Indeed this point is made clear by the very good biography of her on Wikipedia: Saint Nino - Wikipedia

I realize my position on this issue is therefore technically ambivalent, and is likely to satisfy neither side of this argument, but I am proceeding from three principles: that the needs of the specific church must be considered as well as the desire of women to serve in ministry, that the historical record must be studied objectively, and that no canonical scripture may be deprecated, nor its authors criticized (nor would anyone advocating the ordination of women have any legitimate need to do so, as the Life of St. Nino and the ancient canon law makes clear).

 

[public hermit]

Isn't the central narrative of the Bible one of the "untethered empathy" of God?

Yes, I think so. it's been awhile since I posted that, but I'm pretty sure I was being sarcastic.

 

[zippy2006]

Isn't the central narrative of the Bible one of the "untethered empathy" of God?

No, not at all. Again, I would suggest that the people in this thread try reading the article or listening to at least the first few minutes of the video. Such is of course the prerequisite of discussion, even though it is so seldom managed on CF.

One might question the way the authors distinguish sympathy or compassion from empathy, but their usage seems to be supported by Merriam-Webster:

What is the difference between empathy and compassion?​

​

Compassion and empathy both refer to a caring response to someone else’s distress. While empathy refers to an active sharing in the emotional experience of the other person, compassion adds to that emotional experience a desire to alleviate the person’s distress.​

 

[BNR32FAN]

Worth a read.

View attachment 342442

"Anumber of years ago, I kicked up a hornet’s nest by highlighting how empathy, as understood and practiced in the modern world, is dangerous, destructive, and sinful. Since then, every so often, another battle in the Empathy Wars breaks out (usually on social media), and we all learn something. In most of these dustups, there is an underlying dynamic that manifests again and again, and now seemed as good a time as any to identify it. Providentially, the recent controversy involving Fr. Calvin Robinson and the Mere Anglicanism conference provides the perfect opportunity to do so. The dynamic I have in mind is the intersection of feminism in the church, theological drift, and the sin of empathy.

My basic contention is that running beneath the ideological conflicts surrounding all things “woke” (race, sexuality, abuse, and LGBTQ+) is a common emotional dynamic involving untethered empathy–that is, a concern for the hurting and vulnerable that is unmoored from truth, goodness, and reality. In the modern context, empathy is frequently, as one author put it, “a disguise for anxiety” and “a power tool in the hands of the sensitive.” It is the means by which various aggrieved groups have been able to steer communities into catering to greater and greater folly and injustice. And a key ingredient in making this steering effective is feminism."

Empathy, Feminism, and the Church | Joseph Rigney

Women's Ordination is Indeed a Watershed Issue

americanreformer.org

Yours in the Lord,

jm

I fail to see the correlation between women preaching and woke, sexuality, LGBTQ. I mean they’re not even in the same ballpark. There’s nothing sinful about being a woman as opposed to the other more drastic issues regarding woke, sexuality, and LGBTQ. These should be discussed in their own respective discussions because women preaching has nothing to do with these other abominations. Maybe I’m missing something in the discussion here but it seems like someone just doesn’t like the idea of women preachers because Paul said they should remain silent in the church and I get that. But that was 2,000 years ago when things were very different. Personally I don’t see a problem with women preaching in fact in every single Sunday school I’ve ever seen it’s always been women preaching to the kids. Women are just as knowledgeable about the scriptures as men are. It seems to me that because someone doesn’t like the idea of women preaching they decided to make an article about it and placed it in the same category as the most vile and blasphemous abominations they could find, that being sexuality, woke, and LGBTQ when it’s not anywhere close to being anything like any of these examples. It’s like saying I don’t think people should ride skateboards on the sidewalk because it’s illegal just like murder, rape and indecency with a minor. When the scriptures forbid something there’s usually a reason for it that we can all clearly see. Maybe there was an issue 2,000 years ago that I’m not aware of but I don’t see one now. I certainly wouldn’t tell my two daughters that they shouldn’t preach the word of God if that’s their heart’s desire because I don’t see anything immoral about it and I don’t see anything coming from it other than them glorifying God. I think we need to remember that when Paul wrote his epistles they weren’t written to people 2,000 years later they were written to a specific audience and we need to apply some common sense on whether or not this is actually a bad thing.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You're correct. "I'm not convinced" is not an argument. But that doesn't mean the argument, whether it is good or bad, doesn't exist.


Well, please forgive me if I don't go that far with you in over-extolling the significance and use of an ambiguous term known as "Tradition."

P.S. As a side note to the hesitant, please know that when I'm positioning my argument on behalf of women in the Church, I'm not directly positing that the issue of women in Church Leadership should be seen as normative or expected on all counts; I especially don't do so due to the inroads of, or because of, Modern Feminists tracts and theories.

Rather, I think the Bible and Church Tradition are fragmentary in nature and, therefore, we are left with enough room open on Historiographical, Historical and Hermeneutical grounds to, at the least, occasionally permit women to lead in the Church if it seems they're truly being led by the Lord to do so. I don't think my position is an incoherent one once a number of factors extraneous to both the Bible and to Tradition are taken into account.

Yeah I think Paul wrote 1 Corinthians to the Corinthians who lived 2,000 years ago and probably had no idea that it would become part of the scriptures that would last 2,000 years. I think what he wrote in this regard was written in the context of that particular time. I see no reason why he would condemn the idea of women preaching today.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You are the one attacking a strawman. He is not saying that empathy for struggling women causes women's ordination. That is a bizarre reading. (Incidentally, it's clear to me that many who have criticized the article have not read the article.)

The idea is that female ordination is a "watershed issue"--an outgrowth of feminism and a measuring stick for the way that feminism (and distorted empathy) are affecting the culture and the church. Correcting the error of female ordination is proposed as a way to address the feminism problem and the empathy problem. There are other thinkers--secular and religious--who have made the same argument with respect to a number of different institutions. My guess is that they are all correct, but I would nevertheless like to research the topic more.

(There are other related arguments as well, but this one runs through.)

There’s a huge difference between a woman preaching and the acceptance of homosexuality, woke, and LGBTQ. Women preaching isn’t an abomination the rest is. Women preaching is glorifying God the rest isn’t.

 

[zippy2006]

There’s a huge difference between a woman preaching and the acceptance of homosexuality, woke, and LGBTQ. Women preaching isn’t an abomination the rest is. Women preaching is glorifying God the rest isn’t.

Opinion sans argument or authority.