Why we don't have women as priests (Moved from TAW)

GregConstantine said:

"I'll bet dollars to doughnuts you heard multiple references to Freud in the course of your studies."

Actually, no. Most of modern psychology actually rejects Freudian theory of human development as not having much merit. Modern psychology is much more biology based, finding the cause of certain behaviors and mental illnesses via physiology, genetics, and biology.
That statement I quoted just proves my point. It's popular to portray psychology and psychiatry in the media (and the media btw gets those two fields mixed up all the time) as very Freudian, when in fact, most modern psychologists and psychiatrist have rejected Freudian theories.

Almost all of Freud's specific theories have either been disproven or recognized as fairly ridiculous. His theories about psychological development into adulthood (penis envy, Oedipus complex, oral/anal/genital stages, etc) seem to be empirically wrong or at best untestable, and have been replaced with much more complete developmental models. His theories of how the brain works (Id, Ego, Superego) are useful as a broad metaphor, but not so much besides that. His theories of psychopathology are incredibly outdated, offensively sexist, and often empirically wrong. The benefits of Freudian psychoanalysis have been shown to be mainly due to having the chance to discuss your psychological problems with somebody who sits and is willing to listen to you about them.

Click to expand...

You misunderstood me, Greg (I probably should have forseen that.)
Please note that I did NOT say that they teach "Freudian psychology".
But Freud is an unavoidable part of the history of modern psychology, and the fact that you show any knowledge of him at all proves that what I said was true - he WAS mentioned multiple times in the process of your education. But more than that, his general philosophy set the groundwork and direction for modern psychology, which decidedly excluded the teachings of what the nature of man is accoding to the Church.

I don't go with popular media portrayals of psychology, but with what I onow that psychology professes itself to be, and then I proceed to think about that and how it squares up with Truth.

Everything that you describe tells me nothing about how the "complete" developmental models fit in with man's Fallen nature and his relationship to his Creator. I think they entirely exclude those essential first facts of human existence. And that's pretty much what I'm saying. Psychology, as it is practiced and taught in the main today, is largely either false, or only coincidentally true in places, and it is because it tries to separate man from those "religious views" that explain why we are messed up in the first place. That means that a fair portion of what you were taught is probably worthless; the rest needs to be fit into the scheme of what the Church teaches and understood within that context. That is my firm opinion about most of what passes for education in our time; I do not think it any fault of yours; you fell into that system and among those teachers as we all did in one way or another.

sigh...

Hi, Greg,
I realize that my position is the one that runs against conventional wisdom, and so, is harder to believe - and much harder if you've invested your life in the proposition that the wise men of this world in our education establishment are right, and have the truest knowledge there is - and so, (my position) would seem to bear the burden of proof.

Furthermore, I do seriously consider what I disagree with - and think I have no right to disagree with something I don't understand.

To give an example of what I take into consideration, the writer of the book you cite is (according to his own web page) a member of Kentucky Association of Science Educators and Skeptics. "Skeptics" is the first red flag. A committed skeptic is decidedly a bad philosopher. I might have to break down how that must be so; at any rate, it is certain that the position of the skeptic is anti-God.

He wrote a book titled "In Evidence We Trust: The need for science, rationality and statistics".
There is hardly anyone who is not aware of the value of good science, genuine rationality and accurate statistics that are assessed in proportion and truth. But the trouble is that the materialist doesn't admit anything else. Scientific rationalism utterly rejects intuitive reasoning, let alone revelation. Common sense is not something that the rationalist skeptic can define or quantify, therefore he denies any connection it might have with his science, and so today we have a noted dearth of common sense. What is truly lacking in the world could be put as "In God we Trust: the Need for Faith, Hope and Charity".
IOW, the religion of rationalism is being preached on every street corner. Reason does have its place, but also its limits. The modern philosophy of scientific rationalism, which almost certainly permeated your education program, seeks to place human reason on the throne of God, to make it the ultimate and exclusive arbiter of truth.


"Virtually all areas of modern psychology are scientific, except for certain subsegments of clinical psychology and a good deal of clinical psychological practice."

And this is what I mean. This implicitly denies that the Church has an important role in understanding the human soul. It tries to turn the soul into a subject that can be neatly studied, classified and categorized. It tries to pretend that we are NOT talking about the soul, by speaking about a "psyche", as if we knew no Greek (well, let's face it, most of us don't). They forget that the object of study is being studied by the very thing that is studying it. They are NOT impartial observers of a thing different from themselves.

There's lots more I could write, and I realize that anything I say now could hardly change your mind now. You invested some years and a lot of effort and faith into your studies and I totally understand why you would completely reject my words. So I'm not offended, and I'm not going to engage in angry argument. But do consider - the authorities you mostly have to refer to hold world views that moderately or strongly oppose our own, and that has everything to do with what they see, and how they understand and teach it.

my irritation is coming from the appearance that you are not really reading/listening to what I am saying, including my real experience. It is coming across very dismissive.

BTW, just because someone is a skeptic, that doesn't mean he/she never has anything true or correct to say.

You did the same thing (the apparent not reading/listening and dismissing) when we were discussing evolution.

So, I'm done with this topic, and its off tangent anyways.

GregConstantine said:

my irritation is coming from the appearance that you are not really reading/listening to what I am saying, including my real experience. It is coming across very dismissive.

BTW, just because someone is a skeptic, that doesn't mean he/she never has anything true or correct to say.

You did the same thing (the apparent not reading/listening and dismissing) when we were discussing evolution.

So, I'm done with this topic, and its off tangent anyways.

Click to expand...

Regarding your real experience, I think I paid attention. I noted that you very probably correctly diagnosed what you saw at church, for example.

I can say that I get an impression that you don't read what I say carefully. I ansolutely never said that skeptics never have anything true or correct to say. I said that when their worldview is wrong, they can only be right coincidentally. I even repeated that. Yet you are left with a false impression that I said they can never be right, period. So obviously there is something of a communication problem.

I'll say that I sympathize with how you feel. Most people tend to dismiss my professional experience in education, combined with the knowledge of the history of public ed. I do experience being summarily dismissed, and so try not to do that to others. In your case, I'm trying to explain that the metaphysics of psychology are more important than details, theories, diagnoses, and so on, and that one doesn't need to be a specialist in anything to understand the vital importance of philosophy and worldview in forming hermeneutics. There are aspects of things where the specialist, as a rule, ceases to specialize.

I'm fine with letting it lie, especially this week. If you want, we could talk about it next week.

QFT

rusmeister said:

I ansolutely never said that skeptics never have anything true or correct to say. I said that when their worldview is wrong, they can only be right coincidentally.

Click to expand...

The most fascinating podcast on the issue of males and females I found was on AFR - an interview with two guys. I'd have to look it up, but they explained that women are the prophets and men are the priests. It was interesting. I'll see if I can find it.

ETA: Here it is: http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/aftoday/christianity_and_same_sex_attraction

Dorothea said:

The most fascinating podcast on the issue of males and females I found was on AFR - an interview with two guys. I'd have to look it up, but they explained that women are the prophets and men are the priests. It was interesting. I'll see if I can find it.

ETA: Here it is: http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/aftoday/christianity_and_same_sex_attraction

Click to expand...

truefiction1 said:

It's only a weak argument when people don't realize what it is that drives religious practices, which is the case for most religious persons. It's often known intuitively, but not easily verbalized. Once the unconscious mechanisms are understood, the findings are hard to contest. We are talking about religious liturgical practice and customs and what is best in regard to these, not about banal secular organization. So, what roles women and men may play in society are one thing, and their liturgical roles are another, because religion serves a unique and important function. To fiddle with its form could eventually lead to widespread societal neurosis.

Click to expand...

I really cannot argue with that, other than to say it doesn't reconcile with what I read in the Bible at all. The Bible's narrative is one of the failure of religion to deliver the goods, to make us right with God, of course culminating in the crucifixion of Christ (appropriately, today is Good Friday in the west). Putting religion on a pedestal, immune from critique, is the sort of thing that the Jewish prophetic tradition (and Jesus) fought against.

FireDragon76 said:

I really cannot argue with that, other than to say it doesn't reconcile with what I read in the Bible at all. The Bible's narrative is one of the failure of religion to deliver the goods, to make us right with God, of course culminating in the crucifixion of Christ (appropriately, today is Good Friday in the west). Putting religion on a pedestal, immune from critique, is the sort of thing that the Jewish prophetic tradition (and Jesus) fought against.

Click to expand...

It seems to me, in my humble understandings, that it was the tendency on the part of people to fail to live authentically as themselves (the way that He Himself lived) that Jesus fought against, not religious observance, which He participated in and encouraged. Who was it that instituted Baptism and Eucharistic communion? According to the Bible, it was Christ.

Please consider: from antiquity there have been religions that have featured "priestesses". Where are these religions now? Let me tell you where they are: they have fizzled out because they lacked the symbol power necessary to carry them across generations upon generations. Would you have us alter our symbol-isms and fizzle out too? Is this, perhaps, what we desire for the future of Christianity?

The priesthood is a sacrament. In other words, it is a sacred symbol with a strictly male element to it. It's nothing to mess with. Best if we leave it alone.

GregConstantine said:

speaking as someone who has been in the field of psychology and studied it, unfortunately, I will have to disagree with you. I would say you're right generally speaking that there isn't a "rebellion", however, amongst many Christians, both Orthodox and not in my experience, can be very hostile towards anything having to do with psychology. When I declared my intentions to major in psychology, many of my evangelical friends (I was not Orthodox at this time) warned me not to major in psychology because of all the false info I will be fed. And even among the Orthodox, we had to deal with a man a few years ago at our parish who was having an obvious schizophrenic episode and many refused to aknowledge that and respond appropiately to the situation.
So, I will have to respectfully disagree.

Click to expand...

If I can just respectfully mention that the example you brought about is of Psychiatric nature and not Psychology. Psychiatry is very much in tune with EO spirituality. There are very many EO Theologians as well as priests and Bishops who are involved heavily in the studying and expansion of both disciplines; psychiatry and theology. Psychology indeed is not looked upon with much credibility I will not argue that. Not to discredit psychology but the 'methods' of old like Freaud (not good with spelling) has already been debunked and some of the newer methods have been doubted... It is a great tool if it is used at the same time with a psychiatry and I won't deny that. Actually the "relational methods" have been of great value and they are in harmony with EO teachings, about relational approaches. Also the "thought process" methods such as Dr. Burns seem to be in accordance to the EO approach on keeping our minds from wandering etc.

I do not dis-value psychology but I think it is still in a very infantile state and combined with other methods and def. with pastoral care.

Kalo Pascha have a great Easter everyone!

truefiction1 said:

It seems to me, in my humble understandings, that it was the tendency on the part of people to fail to live authentically as themselves (the way that He Himself lived) that Jesus fought against, not religious observance, which He participated in and encouraged. Who was it that instituted Baptism and Eucharistic communion? According to the Bible, it was Christ.

Click to expand...

Yes, but Jesus never put religion on a pedestal and made it the measure of all things. He argued that there are times that adherence to traditions conflict with higher values, and that the traditions are not as important as values like justice or compassion. That's why other Christians might have problems with the stance that "the Church has spoken". Often times that's just a dodge against doing good theology.

FireDragon76 said:

Yes, but Jesus never put religion on a pedestal and made it the measure of all things. He argued that there are times that adherence to traditions conflict with higher values, and that the traditions are not as important as values like justice or compassion. That's why other Christians might have problems with the stance that "the Church has spoken". Often times that's just a dodge against doing good theology.

Click to expand...

Hi, FD,
Your idea about Jesus and "religion" seems overly simplistic to me and leaves out everything where Jesus obviously honored and practiced a particular (and not just "any") religion and affirmed that He came to fulfill, and not destroy it.

He didn't "argue" at all. He asked questions that were unanswerable in the paradigms of the world. If anything, He taught that the traditions were meant to support what you call "higher values" and spoke against not the traditions, but against their abuse. Jesus asked the young man what the greatest points of the Law were. Loving God and loving your neighbor are not opposed to the Law but are rather the point of the Law, and when the man said this, Christ said that he was right, not that he was wrong.

The Church happens to be the institute that has preserved that understanding, whereas people like you and me get it wrong generation after generation on our own (rather limited) wisdom. In doing good theology, we discover that the Church is right, not only where we are right (that is, happens to agree with us) but is right where WE turn out to have been wrong. Those who realize this don't have so much problem with "the Church says". The fact that we are free to ask - AND get answers - on the hows and whys is how we can see that the Church IS a more worthy authority than any one individual could be.

FireDragon76 said:

Yes, but Jesus never put religion on a pedestal and made it the measure of all things. He argued that there are times that adherence to traditions conflict with higher values, and that the traditions are not as important as values like justice or compassion. That's why other Christians might have problems with the stance that "the Church has spoken". Often times that's just a dodge against doing good theology.

Click to expand...

Is ordaining women to be priests a higher value that would fulfill justice or compassion? Is the desire of those who wish to have women become priests being driven by the Spirit of God or by some other spirit? We should test the spirits, I think, and see whether they are of God or of somewhere else, as advised in Scripture.

I do not believe there is an answer for the problem of women and the priesthood to be found in theology. This is a matter of anthropology, not theology, and anthropological evidence seems to point to this being a bad idea, though I'll admit that we may not have looked at all the evidence as closely as we might.

But anyhow, FireDragon, I hope you have a good Easter.

FireDragon76 said:

Yes, but Jesus never put religion on a pedestal and made it the measure of all things. He argued that there are times that adherence to traditions conflict with higher values, and that the traditions are not as important as values like justice or compassion. That's why other Christians might have problems with the stance that "the Church has spoken". Often times that's just a dodge against doing good theology.

Click to expand...

He also said that the Holy Spirit would come and recall all that He had taught them, would lead them into ALL truth, and would keep the Church from going astray. if women were to be ordained, it would have been allowed long ago, unless Christ either lied or was mistaken. so to say that the Church has spoken is a dodge against good theology (at least in this case) is incorrect.

truefiction1 said:

Is ordaining women to be priests a higher value that would fulfill justice or compassion? Is the desire of those who wish to have women become priests being driven by the Spirit of God or by some other spirit? We should test the spirits, I think, and see whether they are of God or of somewhere else, as advised in Scripture.

Click to expand...

I know women who felt called by God to be priests. One of them, an Englishwoman I happen to know, was turned down in the CoE because her bishop was liberal and didn't care for her piety. It was frustrating for her because she felt the call so clearly. She happens to be an excellent preacher, as well, and preaches sermons that put many of the men I have heard to shame.

It is one of the beliefs in the CoE and Anglicanism that the Church is not infallible and that God can and does raises up reformers to correct her errors. And this is why I'm not Orthodox... because the Orthodox church's self-understanding is romantic and idealized and glosses over the real history of the religion.

As to why Christ did not ordain women... maybe he guessed that we were smart enough to work this out later and that the world at the time was not ready for such things (Jesus was, after all, a product of his time and place, being fully human)? Again, Anglicanism advocates for human reason alongside tradition, not tradition alone.

It is one of the beliefs in the CoE and Anglicanism that the Church is not infallible and that God can and does raises up reformers to correct her errors. And this is why I'm not Orthodox... because the Orthodox church's self-understanding is romantic and idealized and glosses over the real history of the religion.

Click to expand...

this contradicts Christ's own words. either the Holy Spirit did lead the Apostles into all truth or He did not. if He did not, Christ is either mistaken or lying.

As to why Christ did not ordain women... maybe he guessed that we were smart enough to work this out later and that the world at the time was not ready for such things (Jesus was, after all, a product of his time and place, being fully human)? Again, Anglicanism advocates for human reason alongside tradition, not tradition alone.

Click to expand...

does not wash with history. there were women priests in the pagan world all over the place. if it were that women were to be priests, the transition prolly would have been just as easy when they went and preached among the Gentiles. it certainly would not have taken as long as it has for women to be ordained, if it had been Christ's intent all along.

I know women who felt called by God to be priests. One of them, an Englishwoman I happen to know, was turned down in the CoE because her bishop was liberal and didn't care for her piety. It was frustrating for her because she felt the call so clearly. She happens to be an excellent preacher, as well, and preaches sermons that put many of the men I have heard to shame.

Click to expand...

whether or not folks feel the call to be a priest is a moot point if God is not doing the calling. all that folks ever offer who want women priests is personal opinion and nothing from either the Scriptures or history.

and that's awesome that she is a great preacher, but there is more to being a priest than preaching.

ArmyMatt said:

this contradicts Christ's own words. either the Holy Spirit did lead the Apostles into all truth or He did not. if He did not, Christ is either mistaken or lying.

Click to expand...

Christ didn't present "Truth" as a bunch of unchanging facts about the world. No, he told Pilate that all those who hear the truth hear his voice. What that exactly means is a mystery we encounter in a dynamic way. Your Orthodox conceptualization of truth is not particularly biblical. In the Bible God is always doing a new thing (Isaiah 43:19). The Bible is a narrative of a people (Israel and the Church) deepening relationship with God, with Truth, it is not a static presentation with all answers for all time.

does not wash with history. there were women priests in the pagan world all over the place. if it were that women were to be priests, the transition prolly would have been just as easy when they went and preached among the Gentiles.

Click to expand...

There were women elders in the Jesus movement too, until they were removed when Christianity became a patriarchal state religion. Many conservative Protestants support women's role in ministry precisely because they do take the Bible seriously and it's hard to overlook the biblical evidence that women played a role as elders in the early church. No, they may not have presided over Eucharists that were identical to what modern Orthodox do, but that's precisely my point- liturgy changes and the Orthodox church would like converts to pretend that the liturgy they experience today is the exact same liturgy the early church experienced, and that's not the case.

Simply because God has appointed man to govern and be over the earth. Adam was over Eve. Eve sinned but when Adam chose the curse began. Because it is the father who is the head of the household.
Ephesians 5:22-33 ESV /
Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,