ORTHODOXY AND THE ORDINATION OF WOMEN (posted on facebook by Petros Vassiliadis on February 2nd, 2013 ) In my post of January 30 on a challenge

to think again the ordination of women, some distinguished friends, both from Greece and the US, responded taking a little further the conventional Orthodox argumentation on the issue. Since the discussion took place only on an Orthodox Fb forum I thought it is a good idea to bring it also in a wider ecumenical forum. Below are the interventions so far, in addition to those in the Jan 30 post. Dr. Maria McDowell, an Orthodox theologian and ethicist, responded as follows: I read with interest, and great concern, your response to Dr. Luis T. Gutirrez. Please permit me to respond as someone who actually has written a dissertation on this topic, *The Joy of Embodied Virtue: Toward the Ordination of Women to the Eastern Orthodox Priesthood.* I hope you will take this as the beginning of a conversation between two theologians who love their Church, and sometimes deplore its practices. It may be that the length of my response is too much for Facebook. I would be delighted to engage in a public conversation with you about this, perhaps on my blog (deiprofundis.org) or another venue. I entirely agree that full participation of the entire "royal priesthood" to ecclesiastical affairs is important. I do not agree that it is more important than the issue of female ordination. Persuading all baptized Christians to take seriously their shared priesthood is a concern that has existed for our entire history as a Church. It will not ever be solved (though it should always be addressed), and so putting off the question of female ordination serves only to side-step a difficult issue. I personally believe that seeing female priests will enhance our movement towards a fully shared royal priesthood as it will provide a visible, iconic, liturgical example the full humanity of women. You sum up two standard arguments for a male-only priesthood, both of which are theologically incomplete. First, our sacramental theology does not only see in the bishop and image of Christ. This is a significant element of the Catholic objection to female priests, that the priest/bishop stands in persona Christi. However, Metr. Kallistos Ware has argued that this liturgical theology does not reflect Orthodox symbolism, in which the priest also stands (more frequently) in persona Ekklesia (see his 1999 article, Man, Woman and Priesthood. The 1983 version is quite different.). Both Sr. Nonna Harrison and lisabeth Behr-Sigel have noted the priest as standing in persona Theotokae as well, bearing the body of Christ to the world, and the people of God to God. The theology of Gregory of Nazianzus and John Chrysostom employs an even wider range of metaphors to describe the relationships of priests to the laity, many of which are feminine (addressed in Chapter 2 of my dissertation, Virtuous Priesthood). In short, our liturgical theology employs a wide variety of symbolism for the priest and the priesthood. Second, you argue that the ecumenical formulation of Chalcedon, that Jesus Christ was perfect God and perfect human being, reaffirms this position, i.e. the male character of priesthood. I consider this a very dangerous theological argument. If dangerous seems strong language, consider the implications of this line of thinking. Taking seriously the Incarnation is to declare that Christ is fully human. What he has not assumed is not healed. This is a dogmatic belief of Orthodoxy, and a first principle of our entire soteriology: we are able to participate in theosis because Christ has taken on our humanity, all of it. It is also a principle that underlies the legitimacy of our icons: because Christ took on matter, we can depict in matter Christ as well as all those women and men who exhibit the holiness which the Incarnation makes possible (addressed in Chapter 3 of my dissertation, The Glory of Embodied Diversity: Icon, Virtue, Gender).

In the Incarnation, Christs humanity includes all that makes both men and women human. If we say that his full humanity leads to the male character of any human role or relationship such as priesthood, then we are implying one of two things: either he is not fully human as he did not assume whatever it is that constitutes female humanity, or we declare that only maleness contains full humanity, and that females may not actually be fully human. The former denies the ecumenical formulation of Chalcedon, it constitutes heresy. And because we are all good Orthodox, we would never say such a thing. At least not intentionally. The second option however, subtly permeates our theology, and I believe, underlies many of our liturgical practices. We have no dogmatic statement that women are fully human, but we seem to believe it when we assume that women too can participate in theosis. However, the most recent turn in Orthodox arguments against female priests almost universally put forward male headship. This line of thinking, reflected in scripture (though hardly reflecting all of scriptures portrayal of the relationships between men and women: think Judith, Esther, Miriam, all of whom are hymned as prototypes of the Theotokos), inevitably defines the capabilities and charisms of women according to what they are, not who they are. Metr. John Zizioulas rightly argues that any such definition fails to account for our full personhood. On the one hand, our practices perpetuate such a view: female bodies are not permitted in our sacred spaces during the liturgy. The reasons put forward for this have varied in our history, and are quite inconsistent. Given the historical existence of the female diaconate, ordained and receiving the Eucharist in the altar, we know that blood impurity has not always mattered in the Church, as it should not. However we explain it, the visual story we currently narrate through every liturgy confirms a belief that women are not quite as human, or as capable, or as holy, as men. On the other hand, this is belief is belied by the practice of the saints and their presence among us through icons. Female saints are examples of embodied virtue, that is, theosis. Their presence among us belies any theology that says women are unable to become like Christ. This is affirmed by icons of female saints. Every altar has in it the body of one woman, the Theotokos. Many have more. Which brings us back to the idea that women cannot image Christ: this is exactly what every icon, male or female, does. It brings us into the presence of a person who has embodied Christ through loving God and neighbor in some unique manner. Further, as men and women created in the image of God, every one of us images Christ when we love God and neighbor in our daily lives (addressed, with liturgy, in Chapter 4 of my dissertation, Virtuous Liturgy). Our practices do not reflect a Chalcedonian theology of Christ as bearing our full humanity. The fact is, Orthodoxy has never seriously discussed this issue, and the theologoumena put forward in hasty response has been, as Metr. Anthony once said, demeaning to women. Given our practices, we are simply articulating what we see, and failing to articulate what we (supposedly, hopefully?) believe. Visual theology, that is, our liturgy, is a powerfully persuasive tool. Perhaps, since we have no dogmatic statement regarding the full humanity of women, we can preserve Christ as the paradigmatic male who is also fully divine and fully human, by dogmatically concluding that women are not fully human. Such a prospect is horrifying to me, but it is a choice that our ecclesial authorities can make via a conciliar council. Needless to say, if such a dogmatic statement were ever to be made, I would happily stand in line with those who refused to cede to the destructive theology of various councils, making every effort to theological overturn such a statement. Dr. Luis T. Gutirrez is correct in his concern: the unity of humanity is not perpetuated by practices which deny the ability of women to stand in the place of Christ, the Church, and the Theotokos. In shared love for our Church,

My immediate response was: Maria, I am not only delighted with your intervention; this was after all the only reason to post a private correspondance for further reflection. Believe it or not I also feel in agreement with you, with Valerie, with the late Behr Sigel, with Biship Kallistos - who for our readers generously changed his view between the '70s and the 90s, and together with Bishop John brought into the fore the anthropological issue - and so many other "pioneers" in a fresh approach of our Orthodox theology. Perhaps, in a very hasty letter I have not made crystal clear my position. I deliberately kept my discourse into a descriptive level. But with only one concern, the ecclesiological awareness in our Orthodox constituency. I hinted - though not clearly - that I am not in full agreement with "sacramental theology", at least in its conventional sense. Remember, I ended my short exposition with a reference to a...dissertation. And by God's providence came ... your dissertation, which you mentioned in an earlier exchange, but I have not seen it yet. Send it to me, to have it translated! PS. This is a quick answer after a quick look, not a careful reading of your kind response. When I make a second reading I may come back with more comments. Anyway, thanks for your time and passionate exchange, even with some strong wording! Maria McDowell replied: Petros, I do believe it. The stereotype is that the "mother countries" are much more conservative on issue of gender, we radical westerners should not talk about it, in order not to upset our more fragile brothers and sister in the homelands. Not only is this immensely patronizing towards anyone not in North America, but my experience is that Orthodox intellectual thought in Greece, Romania (I am thinking of Bria here) is actually much more comfortable with what we think of as too radical. So, I am glad to have a conversation on this topic, strong or gentle! Then Dr.Luis Gutierrez replied to my letter: Dear Petros, thank you for taking time to reply! For me, the key issue is the sacramental theology whereby the priest must have a "natural resemblance" to Jesus Christ, and therefore must be male. Surely, there must be a natural resemblance, but the resemblance must be to Jesus Christ as a "body-person', not as a bodymale. The masculinity requirement derives from the patriarchal culture, which is pre-biblical and biased biblical texts from the beginning. Patriarchy has been normative as "the natural order of things" for 10,000 years, perhaps more, and it may take another 10,000 for the patriarchal mindset to be overcome, but it seems clear to me that the patriarchal order is not intrinsic to divine revelation. However, I am no theologian, just a layman. It is a visceral issue, and I have no false hopes that it will be resolved during our lifetime, but I also think that religious patriarchy is the greatest obstacle to make progress back to the original unity of humanity, as well as the original harmony between humanity and the human habitat. Please keep me posted if you publish anything about these critical issues. I publish a modest ejournal about solidarity and sustainability, and would be delighted to get something from you! He also sent another e-mail to Maria and myself: "Happy to know that at least one sister and one brother in the Eastern Orthodox tradition share my concerns about the exclusively male priesthood. I also have meditated about the "priestly" role of the Theotokos. It seems to me that Mary's ministerial vocation, which she accepted at the Annunciation, utterly transcends the ministerial priesthood of those who are ordained by a bishop. If anything, Mary was "ordained" by the Holy Spirit. I cannot understand the logic of saying that Mary not being a priest (in the sacramental sense) confirms that women are not called to ordination. Attached is an image of the "inexhaustible chalice" icon which is very eloquent in this context.

Furthermore, to say that the masculinity of Jesus is normative is a trivialization of the inexhaustible mystery of the Incarnation. At the incarnation, the Second Person of the Trinity embraced all limitations of the human condition, including sex and gender, and submitted to the constraints of the patriarchally biased Hebrew culture; a culture which he challenged albeit within the limits of what people of his time could understand (Cf. John 16:12). Keep the candle burning! With prayers, Luis" And finally a doctoral student, Vassilios Tzerpos, from the University of Athens asked a short question: I read all these interesting points on the "priestly" role of Theotokos and the ordination of women. One short question; if Theotokos, a distinguished figure in Early Church, had been ordained , why then we have no such information from the Church tradition, even from the apocryphal literature?

Post from 30 January Few days after the end of the ecumenical symposium organized by my colleagues in the Department of Theology at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki to honour me upon my retirement, and immediately after the special extensive communiqu issued by WCC (http://www.oikoumene.org/en/news/news-management/eng/a/article/1634/petros-vassiliadisthe.html ), I received the following interesting and challenging letter by the editor of Mother Pelican Journal of Solidarity and Sustainability (http://pelicanweb.org/), Dr. Luis T. Gutirrez: I read with interest an article about your recent lecture on the church and the unity of humanity. Church must speak for human unity, says Greek Orthodox theologian (http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/17837). My concern is that the church will not be able to foster the unity of humanity as long as the exclusively male priesthood is perpetuated. I would be grateful to get your view on this matter Due to my engagement with another symposium, also organized by my Department on Church and the Left, focusing on issues of my concern as the Orthodox member of the PWE group of the AGAPE process of WCC, I postponed till yesterday my response, which is as follows: Dear Luis, I do apologize for delaying my response to your kind letter, and your request to comment on the consequences of my firm conviction that the Churches and Christian communities must show an honest interest for the unity of humankind and beyond, the unity and integrity of the whole creation. The unity of women and men of course falls into this affirmation. The ordination of women is a slightly different theological issue. Christian traditions in recent years have developed different theologies. Those with strong sacramental dimension in their theology (like the Orthodox and the Catholic), but also other traditional groups, normally use the argument from tradition, whereas more liberal theologians and communities use the argument from sociology. But even to the former the only prohibition is drawn from the canonical tradition; when they try to add theological arguments these are not uncontested. I am refering to some scattered biblical references, especially the argument from creation. On the other hand, the latter lack any strong theological basis, unless they are completely cut off from the theological wisdom of the undivided Church, at least of the first millennium. To sum up: a theological position, coming out of a conciliar process, able to develop a sound "theological" basis, beyond the traditional and socio-historical argumentation, is still pending. Now I come to my personal position. I have no problem at all with women priests and "bishops" in those communities without sacramental priesthood, and especially if elevating into priestly hierarchy to share power is what matters. Perhaps women can better do the job. In my Orthodox constituency, in addition to the traditional mentality (it will take generations to accommodate

with female priests) the issue at stake is not so much whether women will enter into the sacramental priesthood; the lack of conciliarity at all levels, the full participation of the entire "royal priesthood" to ecclesiastical affairs, is more important. Participation in the prophetic/teaching ministry is the only progress that seems to have been nowadays accepted in the Orthodox Church, at least in some autocephalous Churches. Even participation to the royal ministry, the governance, is feasible. The most difficult step is participation in the priestly ministry of Christ, despite the fact that the Liturgical theology is the strongest advantage of Orthodoxy. Personally I was involved in the promotion of liturgical renewal at an official level; and despite the agreement of the hierarchy and the strong support by the theological schools, the reaction of the fundamentalist eventually won the case. In my Orthodox Church we recognize only the high priesthood of Christ and the priesthood of all believers. The sacramental theology sees the Bishop acting in the image, and in place, of Christ. Taking seriously the historical fact of incarnation, Jesus of Nazareth was a male, thus inevitably demanding a male to stand in His place. The ecumenical formulation of Chalcedon, that Jesus Christ was perfect God and perfect human being, reaffirms this position, i.e. the male character of priesthood. Jesus Christ, however, being at the same time perfect God - who despite being addressed as Father is beyond any division and beyond the division of sexes - of course allows a possibility, though a slight one I must confess, of women to stand in His/Her place and in His/Her image. But this is a theologoumenon, certainly to be addressed in loving and conciliar way by the entire eucharistic community, first among the members of the still divided Churches, and then ecumenically by all those who confess Christ as their God and saviour. This very short exposition of by view, in response to your honest inquiry, for which I brotherly thank you, may need further elaboration. But then I had to write a ... dissertation.