tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36968486568633118942024-03-08T08:44:47.181-08:00Father David Bissias' TransformationsRev. David Bissiashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06643992379358484990noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3696848656863311894.post-61896432945881163402020-04-13T11:28:00.000-07:002020-04-13T11:28:55.731-07:00A Hero's Love: Because Heroes Love<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
All heroes begin as idiots.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
When my mother learned that a cousin of mine volunteered to work in an ICU at a local hospital to help treat Covid-19 patients, her immediate reaction was to wonder how my cousin could be so stupid. She said it out of worry and concern, because I strongly suspect my mother loves my cousin more than me, and certainly does not believe my cousin is stupid in any regard.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Nor do I believe my cousin is stupid. So I corrected my mother, telling her that my cousin was not stupid. My cousin was an idiot, I told her. But, I immediately added, all heroes begin as idiots.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Only an idiot runs into a house on fire, but the hero comes out with persons trapped within it. Only an idiot jumps into a frozen lake, but the hero saves the person who fell in and in danger of drowning. Only the idiot steps into the line of fire, but the hero takes the bullet for another.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The word "idiot" in English initially was a technical term, referring to those who were profoundly intellectually or cognitively disabled. It was still used that way until recently, though relegated to the label "idiot savant," referring to such a disabled person who exhibited an unusual--even extraordinary--intellectual gift in the absence of most others. However, because "idiot" came to be used as an epithet and defined (in the dictionary even!) as "a stupid person," we now normally refer to such persons as "savants." Be that as it may, most people use "idiot" to refer to someone who does something most unwise and stupid, against reason and logic.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But that was certainly not the original meaning of the word. It is etymologically derived from the Greek<i> idiotes</i>, referring to a "private person" or "individual," itself derived from<i> idios</i>, meaning "one's own" (in ancient Greek, before it came in Modern Greek to mean "the same"). Latin borrowed the word as<i> idiota</i>, meaning "common," and later took on the meaning of a "commoner" or "ignorant person." This is when it took on a derogatory sense, passing into French as "illiterate," "crude," or a synonym of "stupid" and then into English. By the 14th century, English used it to mean something more than ignorant, but as actually "mentally deficient." Today, while still meaning the same, it is used only in a derogatory sense.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Be that as it may, the word "hero" also comes to us by way of Homeric (or Attic) Greek, a word denoting a "defender" or "protector."</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And this is where we see the connection between an idiot and heroism. At least in the original meaning of the word<i> idios</i>, each of us begins as "one's own" self. The natural inclination and drive to survival would typically suggest that each "self" would be self-concerned, and to do things that risk survival is certainly not prudent or wise. In some sense, risking one's own life is stupid. Unless...</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Being a defender and protector of another makes a person a hero, and the very act of defending or protecting another is always, in greater or lesser degree, a risk to one's own self. It is, by one definition, an act of idiocy.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But true idiocy is the mental and intellectual deficiency that suggests that one's own self is sufficient for survival in the first place. We do not begin life "alone" and we cannot, actually, survive alone. We cannot rely on our "own self" and remain human. "No man is an island unto himself," the saying goes. Fundamentally, we<i> need</i> other human beings in our life to live.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
A hero is someone who realizes this in an extreme way, perhaps not even consciously. While the dictionary may define a hero as someone who displays courage, noble qualities, and outstanding achievements, the original meaning of defender and protector points to something else: the act of love.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Love is self-less-ness, plain and simple. It is not an emotion (though acts of love may be motivated by such or evoke emotion), but a manner of existing, to defend, protect, and share "one's own" life with another, even to the point of risking life--or in the "greatest" example of love, losing one's own life for the sake of another (which is how Jesus defines the greatest love).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
By all accounts of "conventional wisdom," any act that endangers one's own life is almost by definition an act of idiocy. Only idiots would run into a burning building, or step into the line of fire, or jump into the frozen lake. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Only an idiot would come close to those infected with disease and risk contagion, as so many have chosen to do in our day. It <i><u>is</u></i> idiocy to do so recklessly and in denial of danger. An idiot--in the derogatory sense--is cavalier about real danger to one's own self and those around one's own self. The hero, by contrast, recognizes risk and danger, and for the sake of defending and protecting others faces the danger anyway head on.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So many persons in our time have demonstrated real heroism in serving the public needs during this pandemic. While most who are infected with this novel coronavirus may not have severe symptoms or even be aware of it, it is unpredictable in its effect on persons. Seemingly healthy human beings fall prey to the contagion, while those seemingly more susceptible survive. There is so much about this virus that we have yet to understand.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And knowing this, recognizing the risks perhaps better than most, certainly not wanting to become infected or infectious, my cousin has still chosen to enter the Intensive Care Unit of a hospital to bring care and healing to Covid-19 patients. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
By any stretch of the imagination, only an idiot would do so. And we obviously have many idiots who, day in and day out, enter the ICUs around the world, or drive ambulances, or fight fires, or walk the beat, in order to help, defend and protect their fellow citizens, family, friends and neighbors (and even the idiots, in the derogatory sense, who don't appreciate that fact). Yet these people show themselves to be anything but "<i>idiotes</i>" in the classic sense, because they are not common, they are not private, and not putting their own selves and self-interest above others. They are sharing their very lives for the sake of others. <span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: black; display: inline !important; float: none; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">Because that is what heroes do. Heroes love. </span>And that's why my mother likely loves my cousin, my hero, more than me.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Rev. David Bissiashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06643992379358484990noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3696848656863311894.post-51672405497078640902019-05-05T04:38:00.000-07:002019-05-05T04:38:53.759-07:00End of an EraEND OF AN ERA<br />
<br />
It was just announced by our Archdiocese of America that His Eminence, Archbishop Demetrios, Geron (Elder) of America submitted his resignation to His All-holiness Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople. The acceptance of the resignation will be considered by the Holy Synod of Constantinople at its meeting next week.<br />
<br />
While much can happen in a week, and it is uncertain how things will play out in the weeks to come regarding the election of a new Archbishop and so forth, it appears we are coming to the end of an era.<br />
<br />
His Eminence Archbishop Demetrios is the third Archbishop of America under whom I have served as a clergyman, and as I was ordained in 1994, certainly this is the longest tenure of any Archbishop during my own ministry, and His Eminence is the hierarch of the three whom I knew "personally" and best. <br />
<br />
I met him as a student at our seminary, when he was a visiting professor at our own Holy Cross Orthodox School of Theology and Harvard University Divinity School. Even before having him as my own professor of Old Testament Exegesis, he was a frequent, if not daily, browser in the seminary bookstore where I worked. He was always engaging conversation with students--even freshmen in the undergraduate program such as me--and always teaching in some manner. I cannot recall hearing any criticism of him as a teacher (and I had none), though such criticism was abundant for nearly every other instructor. Humble, friendly, cheerful and gently-spoken even when apparently irritated or frustrated--this is how I recall His Eminence at school.<br />
<br />
When change is incremental as it often is in our Archdiocese, it is sometimes taken for granted. Much has changed for the better under His Eminence's leadership. Perhaps a fair criticism of these last two decades is that there was not enough institutional change, but such inertia in such a vast institution as our Archdiocese and its very nature makes this an enduring criticism. Indeed, His Eminence's predecessor was criticized, and perhaps ultimately removed, for undertaking change too rapidly.<br />
<br />
In the past several years, our Archdiocese has faced numerous crises and problems, mostly of an administrative and financial nature. Many of these have been issues before the tenure of His Eminence and reflect systemic and perennial problems our Archdiocese; they will persist for years to come, and will require the efforts of many persons to solve them. One man, such as any Archbishop, cannot solve them without the cooperation of the faithful at every level of our ecclesiastical life, and it is unreasonable to believe so. Perhaps His Eminence could have done more, and perhaps he made mistakes along the way. Yet it was not for lack of devotion to the Church, or faithfulness as a pastor, and for a man now in his 90s, these are still evident in his person.<br />
<br />
Even as we pray for the Holy Spirit to rightly guide the Holy Synod of Constantinople to elect a worthy successor, we should pray that the Lord continue to bless His Eminence Archbishop Demetrios as he enters into what I imagine will be a retirement or, more likely, a new phase in his service to the Church through his scholarship to which he can now return. We owe him our deep gratitude for nearly two full decades of service.Rev. David Bissiashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06643992379358484990noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3696848656863311894.post-2429998413635756692018-12-26T13:23:00.000-08:002018-12-26T13:23:17.035-08:00Moscow and Constantinople: Who Stands to Gain?<br />
On January 6, 2019, His All-holiness, Patriarch Bartholomew, on behalf of the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, will formally issue the<i> Tomos</i> (or "Proclamation") of Autocephaly for the newly-constituted Church of Ukraine to the newly-elected primatial hierarch of this new autocephalous Church, His Beatitude Metropolitan Epiphanius of Kiev.<br />
<br />
The event is most controversial, perhaps the most serious controversy affecting the Orthodox world during my lifetime, and has already resulted in the Moscow Patriarchate essentially excommunicating the Ecumenical Patriarchate (and all its clergy and faithful). The Patriarchate of Moscow has protested the move on several grounds, accusing the Ecumenical Patriarchate (and His All-holiness Patriarch Bartholomew personally) of all sorts of motives (political and even financial!) and violations of the Holy Canons. The Ecumenical Patriarchate has defended itself by claiming canonical and traditional prerogatives.<br />
<br />
Without any doubt, this is a "political" controversy, for the rivalry between Moscow and Constantinople is long standing--centuries long in some respects. Likewise, there is a continuing dispute between the Ukrainian and Russian governments. Without doubt, the accusations and defenses of all sides (Moscow, Constantinople, the various Ukrainian groups involved) are messy, complicated, and subject to a number of interpretations. At least from an international "public relations" perspective, this has not been the Orthodox Church's finest hour.<br />
<br />
As a clergyman formally under the jurisdiction of Constantinople, I take the side of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, but not out of any "blind loyalty." In fact, some of the arguments the Ecumenical Patriarchate has made in defense of its actions seem somewhat strained: reassertion of canonical prerogatives essentially ignored for over three centuries struck me as quite curious. After all, up until just a few months ago, the Ecumenical Patriarchate--at least publicly--considered two of the three Orthodox "jurisdictions" in Ukraine to be schismatic or uncanonical, just as the Moscow Patriarchate did. Technically, the reassertion of canonical "rights" may have been necessary, but it is not the strong argument in the matter.<br />
<br />
In such cases, where various aspersions and motives have been thrown around by the Moscow Patriarchate and others, I think it is simpler to ask who has what to gain in such matters. And for this writer, it seems to me that rather than gaining anything, the <b><u>Ecumenical Patriarchate is actually the only side in the controversy willing to give anything away</u></b>.<br />
<br />
From a purely ecclesiastical and canonical perspective, declaring the Ukrainian Church autocephalous actually creates a situation where Constantinople will no longer have any canonical prerogatives or "rights" in Ukraine, apart from the ability to hear "appeals" of hierarchs on canonical matters--and even this prerogative is contested by Moscow and some others. In any case, an autocephalous church is completely self-ruling, and elects its own "head" and hierarchal primate. From an administrative point of view, once Constantinople declares the Ukrainian Church autocephalous, it ceases to have any "rights" or prerogatives in that territory. Unless requested, the Ecumenical Patriarchate will have no say regarding any aspect of the internal life of the Ukrainian Church.<br />
<br />
Of course, the Ecumenical Patriarchate can expect<i> some</i> gain in the matter, but what is gained will be things such as the gratitude of those Ukrainians who desire to have their own autocephalous church. Because this controversy undoubtedly involves secular politics (and there is a<i> de facto</i> war occurring between Ukraine and Russia), the Ecumenical Patriarchate has already received the gratitude of the secular leadership of Ukraine. The Ukrainian government did also provide the Ecumenical Patriarchate the use of an ancient church in Kiev, but honestly this could not have been a major motivation! The United States government applauded the move, but mostly because Russia was against it, and that rivalry is escalating to a degree not seen since the end of the Cold War. NATO countries might sympathize as well in this geopolitical struggle, and the Ecumenical Patriarch has earned some goodwill.<br />
<br />
But none of that, for me, compares to the pastoral accomplishment that many commentators seem to ignore. Basically, since the independence of Ukraine, there have been three Orthodox "jurisdictions" claiming legitimacy and essentially not in communion with each other. Whatever the actual numbers, there is no doubt that<i> millions</i> of Ukrainian Orthodox were negatively affected by these schisms and considered outside the communion of the Orthodox Church. By recognizing bishops that formally and formerly were in schism with the rest of the Orthodox world, millions of Ukrainian Orthodox faithful were recognized<i> as Orthodox</i> by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The Unification Synod held recently, in preparation for the declaration of autocephaly, brought at least two of the three "jurisdictions" together--those that stood opposed to the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate.<br />
<br />
So now, not counting a sizeable Ukrainian (Byzantine) Catholic Church (known as Uniates, for they appear identical to Eastern Orthodox but are in union with Rome) in the country, the Ecumenical Patriarchate now essentially recognizes<u> all</u> Orthodox Christians in the country as "canonical." On January 6, 2019, there will be two such groups: one autocephalous church recognized as such by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and one "autonomous" church under the formal jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. After all, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has not severed communion with anyone in this matter, including the Ukrainians united still to Moscow. <br />
<br />
What the Ecumenical Patriarchate has done, however, is most significant. It has decided, essentially and canonically, to give up its right to being involved in this matter. It will be up to the Ukrainians themselves to solve the remaining "jurisdictional" problem and schism. Even if one is inclined to view this matter as one of an uncanonical "interference" by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Ukraine, there can be no doubt that once autocephaly is proclaimed and formally recognized, the Ecumenical Patriarchate cannot "interfere" or intervene on any Ukrainian matter without request and invitation. In effect, it has tied its own hands in this matter and relinquished any "rights."<br />
<i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i><u></u><u></u><br />
The situation in Ukraine is quite complicated, involving both ecclesiastical and civil disputes. Yet the ecclesiastical dispute, as complicated and unseemly as it seems, comes down to this: Moscow has only asserted its rights and its "possession" (and by Moscow, we must consider the Patriarchate and government to be in lock-step as has been amply demonstrated). It has not addressed the reality of millions of faithful being formally outside the communion of the Church. Constantinople, in contrast, brought millions of faithful back into communion and, at the same time, allowed the Ukrainians the opportunity through self-rule and self-determination, to solve their own problems. Those problems will not disappear anytime soon. But this significant first step must be credited to the Ecumenical Patriarchate which, contrary interpretations of the canons aside, has taken the moral high ground.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Rev. David Bissiashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06643992379358484990noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3696848656863311894.post-46296121031563514642018-01-03T10:04:00.000-08:002018-11-10T14:14:07.848-08:00Where Credit is Due...One of my previous blogs was highly critical of an article by Dr. Valerie Karras (<a href="http://bissias1.blogspot.com/2013/08/a-critique-of-valerie-karras-orthodox.html" target="_blank">see here</a>). While I stand by my observations in that blog, in all fairness I do believe in giving credit where credit is due, and therefore I would note two things.<br />
<br />
First, in my prior observations, I did concede that Dr. Karras' comments on the historicity of the female diaconate were sound, fully consistent with the scholarship of now numerous voices of both women and men within the Church. Whether one agrees with contemporary arguments for the ordination of women to the Holy Diaconate, the <i>history</i> of the order is no longer seriously debated.<br />
<br />
Second, in a more recent article appearing on the "Public Orthodoxy" website (<a href="https://publicorthodoxy.org/2017/11/22/two-views-on-the-female-diaconate/" target="_blank">found here</a>), Dr. Karras' argues cogently for the broad re-establishment of the order of female deacons within the contemporary Church, and her argument has much merit. She is to be credited with making this argument without resorting, as she has tended to do in previous work, to debatable or even somewhat dubious presuppositions and theological analyses.<br />
<br />
I would, however, make two comments of a critical nature in order to improve an opinion with which I generally agree in principle:<br />
<br />
1. Subordination is not necessarily negative as Dr. Karras states, while "domination" and oppression are.<br />
2. It is unclear if any of the Holy Orders of the Church are "Ideally,...full-time, paid ministers..."<br />
<br />
First, Dr. Karras addresses one contemporary criticism for restoring female deacons as normative in the life of the Church by rightly noting that what I would deem "oppressive domination" of male over female is a result of the primordial fall of humanity. On this, with Saint John Chrysostom whom Dr. Karras quotes in this regard, all Orthodox can agree:<br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>"Wherefore you see, she was not subjected as soon as she was made; nor, when He brought her to the man, did either she hear any such thing from God, nor did the man say any such word to her: he said indeed that she was 'bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh:' (Gen. 2:23) but of rule or subjection he nowhere made mention to her (Homily on I Corinthians).</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
However, Dr. Karras' summation of this, in light of likewise undisputed (an indisputable!) doctrine of the Orthodox Tradition, is problematic when she writes:<br />
<br />
<i>"Domination and subordination, therefore, are negative consequences of the Fall which should no more be theologically enshrined as normative for male-female relationships than death or disease (other biblical consequences of the Fall) should be theologically normative for the human body."</i><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; display: inline; float: none; font-family: "lucida grande" , "lucida sans unicode" , "lucida sans" , "geneva" , "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"></span><br />
<br />
Domination, in the sense of "subjection" as found in her quotation of Saint John above, is certainly a negative consequence of the Fall. This is not true, however, of the concept of "subordination" which is broader and not necessarily negative at all if we consider that the word literally involves an "ordering" of something, "subordination" meaning to come below another in order. Indeed, deacons and presbyters are, in the Eucharistic assembly, subordinate to the Bishop. And while sharing of one essence (<i>ousia</i>) and will (<i>thelema</i>) among the Divine Persons points to communion and the unicity of God, there is an "economic" subordination of the divine Son and Spirit to the Father. <br />
<br />
In short, the idea of "subjection" in the patristic quotation she uses is not identical to the idea of subordination.<br />
<br />
Second, it is clear that Dr. Karras would prefer that female deacons "ideally" attain the same "status" as other members of the clergy in the so-called "major orders" of the Deacon, Presbyter, and Bishop. On this we can agree; again, in principle. I would just pause before suggesting that any of the Holy Orders are "ideally...full-time, paid ministers..." as she writes.<br />
<br />
In the contemporary Church, it is more common for Presbyters and Bishops, if not always Deacons, to be "full-time" professionals, though this is not always the case. Many deacons and presbyters ("priests") are actually "part-time" professionals, and some are not technically "professional" at all as they do not receive financial compensation for this sacred service to the Church. (Indeed, the ordained clergy in monasteries would largely fall into this "non-professional" category.)<br />
<br />
Nonetheless, the general point Dr. Karras intends to make is clear and fair: ordained deacons of either sex (male, female) should be respected in like manner.<br />
<br />
These criticisms focus on but two semantic issues, and do not negate the thrust of Dr. Karras' argument which, in contrast to some other writings and opinions, here is fully consistent with the "mainstream" of Orthodox Tradition. <br />
<br />
This is not to dismiss other voices in the contemporary debate about restoring the female diaconate and the means by which this might be accomplished. The issue is actually more complicated than many advocates would suggest. Complicated, however, does not mean impossible or unworthy of serious consideration. It does appear that a consensus has emerged in the last half-century: in theory, the Church has and can (and apparently, from time to time, does) ordain women to the Holy Order of the Diaconate, and now probably should for good reason. Likewise, for too long the Diaconate has been woefully neglected even when it comes to ordaining males to this Holy Order. <br />
<br />
In any case, it will take some time for a consensus to emerge (considering the number of dissenting voices) as to how this may be properly effected for the good of the Holy Church without causing scandal and schism (if only at a local, grassroots level). Still, this is progress from "if possible" to "how to implement." In all likelihood, the best manner will be consistent with the emergence in the first two centuries of Church history of Holy Orders in the manner we know them now following the Apostolic age. Indeed, it took a few centuries for the ecclesiological "order" to which we are now accustomed (for example, the structure of deacon, presbyter, bishop; or parish, diocese, patriarchate) to be universally established. <br />
<br />
Even in the New Testament, we can witness a diversity in ministries emerging after the disappearance of the Apostles. Subsequent developments of "formal" ministries and "offices" throughout the Church were, in fact, uneven and just as diverse. It was not only the female diaconate (which never seems to have been truly "universal" in the Church) which faded away with time, but also other once-common ministries such as the "exorcist," not to mention the itinerant "prophet" (and "prophetess"?). <br />
<br />
One thing does seem clear with hindsight in the twenty-first century. For too long, though perhaps for comprehensible historical reasons, the Church "settled" on the formal, ordained ministers of deacon, presbyter, and bishop as normative. Perhaps there was no need during previous centuries to consider others, though the Church has always been served in those times by informal ministers and varied ministries. Perhaps the time has come, in light of contemporary need, to consider this normative structure and make adjustments for the well-being of the Church.<br />
<br />
Dr. Karras, preceded by many others, is certainly right to note that the life and lifestyles of women in the vast majority of the world have changed considerably, especially in the last century or so. The Church is right to consider the proper means of ministering to them and to all persons in the most effective and appropriate manner. I, for one, see the "push" for the restoration of the female diaconate as a most positive, hopeful sign no matter where the debate may ultimately lead.<br />
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i><br />Rev. David Bissiashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06643992379358484990noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3696848656863311894.post-65940227731001097042016-06-01T15:19:00.002-07:002023-07-17T22:27:54.476-07:00On Cremation and Suicide: A CommentIn a recent issue of the <i>Orthodox Observer</i>, Metropolitan Isaiah of Denver commented on two controversial issues, that of cremation and suicide. I don't know exactly what prompted the thoughts of His Eminence, but from the reaction online by various laypersons and, at least, one clergyman, his comments have struck a chord.<br />
<br />
His Eminence has found critics for his position on both issues, for various reasons. I suspect that some of those in the "blogosphere" would find fault with whatever a clergyman stated. The sole clergyman's comments were more appropriate, for His Eminence seems to disregard a position of the Holy Eparchial Synod taken some years ago in favor of the position of the Holy Church prior to and throughout much of His Eminence's life regarding suicide and funeral services.<br />
<br />
When I was ordained it <i>was</i> the position of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese (and much of the Orthodox world to my knowledge) to refrain from offering a funeral ceremony in church for persons who took their own lives. Metropolitan Isaiah is absolutely correct in his reason for this position, despite it appearing to be a rather harsh response to a tragic and heartbreaking situation for the survivors of the person who committed suicide: the funeral service presupposes that the deceased, at least in principle and ideally aspired to live according to the teachings of the Church, no matter how short in practice they may have come in doing so (we ALL fail to some degree). However, suicide is a form of homicide. To offer a funeral ceremony for someone who consciously and deliberately ended their own life in this age renders the very text of the ceremony void, as His Eminence demonstrates.<br />
<br />
The real issue is the exception that His Eminence mentions: those suffering from mental illness and cannot be held accountable for their actions have been permitted funeral ceremonies. And in accordance with earlier practice, His Eminence notes that the ceremony would be offered if the person was professionally diagnosed as mentally ill. This means that the Church, according to that practice, presumed the person was acting "in their right mind" unless proven otherwise.<br />
<br />
The problem is that the clergy of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America were informed some years ago that the presumption of motive for suicide would change. Today--and this is the certain practice of the Metropolis of Chicago--the presumption is that a suicide <i>is</i> mentally ill unless the pastor is aware otherwise. If Metropolitan Isaiah had written this, much of the criticism would be moot.<br />
<br />
In fact most suicides can be attributed to some form of mental illness, either chronic (ongoing) or acute (some medications are known to result in suicidal thoughts in some patients). Our understanding of mental disorders is far more advanced than in ancient times, or even compared to the 19th century.<br />
<br />
However, it is also a fact that some suicides occur when people are acting "rationally" or at least are not acting out due to a mental illness or disorder. There are suicides made for political reasons; there are suicides effected for religious reasons as the encounter with radical Islam demonstrate; and then there are suicides for reasons of hopelessness, fear and despair. These present a more difficult challenge.<br />
<br />
In the day of modern medicine, the phenomenon of suicide to <i>avoid</i> pain and suffering of a terminal illness is increasingly documented and even dramatized in the popular media. This is a sad reality, and many medical ethicists suggest that it may be an ethical and "rational" decision. More challenging, of course, is the mental state of someone already experiencing great pain and suffering--at what point they are acting "rationally" may be debatable.<br />
<br />
In any case the rejection of suicide by the Church has been consistent for the same essential reason cremation is rejected: our body is not our own. It is the Lord's. We do not have the "right" to do with it whatever we want.<br />
<br />
Largely due to economic reasons, cremation has become more popular among Americans in recent decades for one important reason: it is cheaper. I think there is a legitimate debate as to where the process of cremation carries the same <i>meaning</i> in contemporary culture than it may have in others, and whether there is a consciousness of <i>desecration</i>. Be that as it may, the position of the Church on the matter is rather clear: when it is a physical option (and it usually is even if not desired), burial in the ground is the practice of the Church and always has been except in extreme and rare circumstances. Financial reasons are probably not a good reason for the Church to change any practice, least of all that of such pastoral importance.<br />
<br />
Indeed, the insistence of the Church on burial and rejection of cremation today probably makes the position about the dignity and care for the body in the Orthodox tradition even more clear, especially in a day when we de-sacralize the body in so many ways: treating it as a canvas for artwork (tattoos), for ornamentation and means of self-expression (piercings and various enhancements) which in the end are nothing more or less than expressions of self-concern and vanity.<br />
<br />
In the end, it does seem somewhat paradoxical that in life we have come to pay so much attention to the body--fitness, self-expression, health--but in death, or in some cases the face of impending death, we tend to disregard the inherit dignity of this gift from our Creator. But then perhaps this is related to the relative narcissism of our age (social media postings and reality television being symptoms as well). We are indulgent of the needs of <i>our</i> bodies, but can disregard those of others (cremation, euthanasia, voluntary abortion).<br />
<br />Rev. David Bissiashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06643992379358484990noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3696848656863311894.post-81996196960150094682016-01-26T13:58:00.000-08:002016-01-26T13:58:07.694-08:00Much Ado about DiasporaAs we approach the date of the planned Great and Holy Council of Orthodox Churches, it is significant that the first item on the agenda concerns the so-called "Orthodox Diaspora," a phrase that still upsets some people as somehow demeaning or disrespectful to Orthodox Christians living outside of traditionally Orthodox lands--or, more precisely, outside the physical boundaries of the autocephalous and autonomous Orthodox Churches.<br />
<br />
There is no doubt that the word "diaspora" is used in the New Testament, in the opening verse of the First Letter of Peter ("dispersion" in translation). It is hard to argue that Saint Peter was using an insulting epithet to name those Christians to whom he was writing. Rather, he was writing to Christians who had moved beyond Jerusalem, the center of the Church at the time. Of course, this is not exactly the reason why the word is used by the leaders of the autocephalous churches today, but it is also related.<br />
<br />
When I was at seminary, during a dogmatics course, a certain Melkite Christian (a Church in the Middle East using the Byzantine liturgical rite in union with Rome) objected to the professor upon the latter's use of the word "uniate" to describe the student's church. The word "uniate," he explained, simply refers to churches using the Byzantine rite (common to all Eastern Orthodox Churches) who are in <i>union </i>with the Pope of Rome. He replied: "The Pope calls you uniates. The Orthodox call you uniates. So therefore, I do not call you uniates to be offensive; I call you uniates because you are uniates." The point is that the label itself is not offensive in and of itself. The student was offended, apparently, because of her insistence that she belonged to an Orthodox church in communion with Rome. Yet her idiosyncratic definition contrasted that of almost everyone else in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions which are <i>not </i>in communion.<br />
<br />
For Orthodox Christians born, raised and residing outside traditionally Orthodox lands, or outside the boundaries of the autocephalous churches, we are not conscious of being part of any "dispersion." Yet it is safe to say that the reality of the Orthodox Church outside traditionally Orthodox lands and outside the boundaries of the autocephalous churches <i>definitely is </i>due to a dispersion of Orthodox peoples migrating to various lands, including Western Europe, the Americas, Australia and elsewhere. From the perspective of persons living within the geographic boundaries of the autocephalous churches, the word "diaspora" simply indicates no more, and no less, than the Orthodox beyond those boundaries. There is nothing demeaning about that; it is simply a matter of perspective.<br />
<br />
"Diaspora" is <i>not</i> used to imply any moral defect among Christians, nor is it implied that Orthodox living in the so-called "diaspora" are intent on "returning" anywhere. Indeed, the fact that the autocephalous churches have included the ecclesiological and canonical issue of Orthodox living in the "diaspora" (with overlapping "jurisdictions" contrary to the spirit--and often letter--of the Holy Canons of the Church) is a clear indication that there is a desire to address the anomalous canonical issue that many Orthodox Christians living in the cultural West (and elsewhere) have sought to correct for at least a generation, if not more.<br />
<br />
The use of the word "diaspora" is, in this light, an effective and useful term. The Church--as in ancient times--requires organization and order. Following the <i>dispersion </i>of Orthodox Christians from the Christian East, it is time for the Church in all lands to be ordered according to the ecclesiological principles of our tradition. Yet this task is not easy or simple. Certainly it is not as simplistic as many self-styled "reformers" among Orthodox in the United States would suggest. <br />
<br />
Indeed, for many years, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, and by extension the Ecumenical Patriarchate, were criticized from within and without for being the most obstinate perpetuator of a "diaspora" mentality. Yet now, as we approach the Holy and Great Council, we find that in actuality, the loudest critics have often wavered. The Patriarchate of Antioch, whose Metropolitan in the United States was among the most vociferous proponents of an independent Orthodox Church in this nation, has balked on an proposal to work toward canonical regularity and the departure from "ethnic" jurisdictions. The Bulgarians, Russian Synod Abroad, Romanians, have all also suggested the time was not appropriate to order the Church in the United States (and elsewhere) based on the canonical principle of "one city, one bishop." Each has suggested a need to continue with the status quo and the perpetuation of their jurisdictions due to the needs of their adherents' ethno-cultural needs. Even the Moscow Patriarchate, which granted the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) autocephaly in 1970, has violated the principle in maintaining two (!) subordinate jurisdictions in the Americas.<br />
<br />
Of course, the "ethnic" problem which is at the root of our canonical irregularity is, in fact, directly related to the rather modern (19th century) understanding of "autocephaly" in the first place. As the planning of the Great and Holy Council illustrates, it is <i>this</i> issue that is the fundamental problem facing all Orthodox, for it permits--due to its ambiguity and foundation in nationalistic principles, itself a more "modern" phenomenon. (It is often overlooked that the ancient order of churches, what may be called "autocephalies," generally resided within <i>one</i> political entity, the [Eastern] Roman or "Byzantine" Empire.)<br />
<br />
Ironically, many of those who protest the label "diaspora" are adamant that the Orthodox in this nation be organized as an autocephalous Church precisely because the USA is an independent nation. At least from an ecclesiological and historical perspective, such arguments are weak. There may be good reasons for the Church here to be ordered in an autonomous or autocephalous manner, but not simply because the Church resides in a political entity designed by men, or because it is larger, in geographic size and in population, than some of the autocephalous churches that exist today.<br />
<br />
The whole point and mission of the Church is to disperse: to spread everywhere throughout the world, going to "all nations" (peoples). Indeed, the Church, being in the world but not of it, is on a sacred pilgrimage, and this also implies some sense of dispersion. We do plan to return to our first and only permanent "residence," which is the Kingdom of God.<br />
<br />
"Diaspora" can be perceived in a negative manner, but only with effort. Easier it is to accept the label as a badge of honor, for those Orthodox living in the dispersion have a greater opportunity to fulfill the Great Commission of our Savior.<br />
<br />Rev. David Bissiashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06643992379358484990noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3696848656863311894.post-47638982743021232872015-12-02T19:55:00.000-08:002015-12-03T09:23:44.175-08:00San Bernadino: Mindless Platitudes and PrayerOur prayers go out to the survivors and families of the victims of the terrorist attack in San Bernadino, CA. And prayers ARE an appropriate response, despite the glib and pathetic front-page story of the New York Daily News released this evening in the wake of the attack. Even as I write, the manhunt for a third suspect seems to be ongoing, though information is now a bit sketchy. Still, the Daily News has reacted in such a manner as to be insulting to persons of religious faith AND to persons of common sense (which is not so common among politicians and journalists/editors of major mass media outlets). This is not particularly new for those in the mass media who identify with liberal or progressive views. It is simply more strident.<br />
<br />
The Daily News has apparently decided to mock Republican politicians of our nation for offering prayers to victims and survivors, with the headline, "God Isn't Fixing This." Underneath the headline it suggests that the Republican politicians pictured and quoted are "cowards who could truly end gun scourge continue to hide behind meaningless platitudes." This is fallacious, mean-spirited and wrong on almost all counts.<br />
<br />
First, God fixed this. Certainly, the horrific acts of violence in our world have not ceased, but God <em>did</em> fix it by conquering death by death. The sin of the world, continue as it may, will not have any lasting effect--at least for persons of faith in Jesus Christ. Of course, this does not mean Christians should tolerate violence or any other sin. Yet sin and violence for the Christian is not to be treated by sin and violence, but by mercy, compassion, and yes, even love for the enemy. The appropriate response includes prayer, for Christians are called to unceasing prayer, and even prayer for the life of the world.<br />
<br />
Second, whether the quoted Republican politicians are cowards or not is certainly not demonstrated by the paper. Advocacy or opposition to gun control is not, itself, a mark of cowardice or courage. <br />
<br />
Third, the quoted Republicans are credited by the Daily News as being able to "truly end gun scourge..." This is also wrong. They are not able to do this. Even if these men voted to change the gun laws in this nation, the scourge of gun violence would not end. If gun sales were prohibited today, the gun scourge would continue for quite some time. Criminals are not knows as "law-abiding," and they have access to guns--even guns not sold to the general public such as automatic weapons. The Daily News' hyperbole (which means exaggeration for Daily News fans) is false.<br />
<br />
Fourth, calls to prayer, for persons of Christian faith and other traditions, are not meaningless platitudes. Suggesting so for a cheap attack on Republicans is an insult to all persons of faith, plain and simple. I actually have not seen, but presume many pro-gun control advocates in the Democratic Party will also call for prayers...including President Obama who has done so on other, similar occasions. It is fallacious (which means an argument with a false premise for Daily News fans) to suggest praying for victims and survivors has anything to do with advocacy or opposition to additional gun control legislation. Either the editors of the Daily News are themselves stupid or they assume the public is. Actually, both are probably true.<br />
<br />
Of course, the editors and author of the article (-s?) suggesting that this tragic and horrific event of terrorism (whatever the motive or demented cause, unknown at the time of writing, may be) has anything to do with gun control laws of this nation is likewise a stupid conjecture. Even if the officially reported "long guns" (rifles) were not automatic (which would be illegal already), even the President's position is that guns used for hunting and other sport purposes (generally, "long guns")would not be made illegal; shotguns could have produced the same result in the hands of maniacs. Reportedly, an explosive device was found at the scene; also illegal--but producing such things is not difficult and outlawing all possible ingredients is not even plausible!<br />
<br />
The real "meaningless platitudes" that have been uttered in the wake of this tragedy are those that suggest that more gun laws would have prevented such an attack. Here, President Obama has joined in with his opportunistic pleas for tighter gun control. Apart from the possibility that this attack was motivated, at least in part, as part of an ideology espousing terrorism as a means to an end, persons intent on killing people for any reason--but especially for terrorism (and this is a case where premeditated intent was obvious by the use of body armor by the gunmen)--will find a means of killing defenseless people (swords are used in the Middle East and North Africa, but knives or clubs can serve the purpose too). And just because it might be worth mentioning to the editors of the Daily News, it is illegal to murder people, whether motivated by extremist religious views, hate, or anger.<br />
<br />
So while politicians--of all parties and ideological concerns--will inevitably use this event for their own political gain, and citizens will be misled about the real and ultimately only solutions to the problem that breeds terrorism and mass murder (or any murder!) by persons with any number of political agendas, we should pray for those who believe mindless platitudes and distractions about gun-control in hindsight are even on point or appropriate hours after our sisters and brothers have been slaughtered.<br />
<br />
After all, if more people were praying in earnest faith to their Lord Jesus Christ, or at least for non-Christians to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, there would be less people intent on murdering.Rev. David Bissiashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06643992379358484990noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3696848656863311894.post-66995093342899656772013-08-09T16:39:00.000-07:002014-07-24T20:46:11.441-07:00A Critique of Valerie A. Karras' "Orthodox Theologies of Women and Ordained Ministry"<h2>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: x-small;">The following is a draft of a review of an article by Valerie A. Karras.</span></h2>
<h2>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: x-large;"><i>Es ist nicht einmal falsch…</i></span></h2>
<div class="MsoSubtitle">
<i><st2:personname w:st="on"><st1:givenname w:st="on">Valerie</st1:givenname>
<st1:middlename w:st="on">A.</st1:middlename> <st1:sn w:st="on">Karras</st1:sn></st2:personname>’s
“Orthodox Theologies of Women and Ordained Ministry”</i></div>
<h2>
<span style="font-size: large;">Introduction</span></h2>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The eminent physicist <st2:personname w:st="on"><st1:givenname w:st="on">Wolfgang</st1:givenname> <st1:sn w:st="on">Pauli</st1:sn></st2:personname>
reportedly once said of one paper of a young physicist, “Not only is this not
right, this is not even wrong [<i>Das ist
nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch</i>]!” In the realm of physics, hypotheses proven
wrong are of some use, if only to eliminate erroneous paths of
exploration. “Not even wrong” meant something
worse than wrong: that the effort provided no benefit whatsoever to the
scientific endeavor. In an analogous
manner, <st2:personname w:st="on"><st1:givenname w:st="on">Valerie</st1:givenname>
<st1:middlename w:st="on">A.</st1:middlename> <st1:sn w:st="on">Karras</st1:sn></st2:personname>’
article, “Orthodox Theologies of Women and Ordained Ministry,”<span class="MsoFootnoteReference"> <a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftnref1" title=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></a></span>
along with earlier writings which this article recapitulates, merits the same
comment in the area of Orthodox theological thought. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Theology, in the Eastern Orthodox tradition which Karras claims,
ideally enhances or seeks to protect an authentic encounter with the living God
within the context of the Church, the Body of Christ. Perhaps in its most basic form, it permits
one to come to an answer to the pertinent question of the Lord Himself (Matt
16:15): “Who do you say that I am?” In
this sense, theology first helps the faithful to articulate a personal answer,
avoiding the pitfalls of error, and promoting reflection in an appropriate
direction consonant with the experience of all the saints throughout the
ages. Our answer, founded on our
relationship with the <st2:personname w:st="on">Lord <st1:sn w:st="on">Jesus</st1:sn></st2:personname>,
is both personal and shared, for there is only one <st1:sn w:st="on">Jesus
Christ</st1:sn>. Secondly, and by
extension, theology also seeks to communicate the Gospel and the truth of <st1:sn w:st="on">Jesus Christ</st1:sn> to those beyond the Church in a critical
dialogue with the plausibility structures of each culture and society in which
the Church dwells through time. Thus, there is a need for critical reflection by the faithful of each generation in all places to ensure that the life of the Church <em>maintains</em> and <em>offers </em>the fullness of the truth. <br />
<br />
As for theology in
the first sense, Karras’ conclusions cannot always claim consonance with the
experience of the Church throughout the ages, and in some ways directly
challenges or contradicts it. In some cases, without thinking through the logical conclusions of her assertions, she proposes a very serious <em>break</em> with the common experience of the saints throughout the ages. <br />
<br />
In the second sense, Karras seems to reverse the process, and instead of accommodating the plausibility structures of contemporary culture to proclaim the faith she has accommodated the faith to fit into her own ideological vision formed by certain plausibility structures of her culture. Certainly, there is room within the Church for criticism of elements that may require change precisely because historical norms can come to demonstrate or communicate something <em>other</em> than that for which they were initially introduced. This is amply demonstrated by changes in a single language over time. The archaic English of the King James (or Authorized) Version of the Bible are not only sometimes distracting to the casual or unlearned reader, but may lead to confusion or misunderstanding rather than edification. Despite the appearance of excesses or potential abuse, the drive toward gender-neutral language in biblical (and liturgical) translation is one example of adaptation to contemporary need. The problem, of course, is when theological criticism (broadly defined) is not properly rooted in the ageless consciousness of the Church, and Karras often seems to call for changes that are rooted rather in the socio-political mood of her own era. In other words, instead of changing the <em>mode</em> and means by which the Church communicates and interacts with the world (in it but not of it), in order to change it in accordance with the faith in Christ, Karras often seems to be calling the Church to change so as to conform with the surrounding secular culture.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In fact, however, despite her numerous observations regarding
contemporary Church life and the title of her essay, there is nothing that really amounts
to a “theology” of women, much less a discussion of several such “theologies.” If anything, she
argues that not only would such a “theology of women” be unnecessary, it is
actually impossible since the distinction of gender is <i>contrary</i> to an ideal <i>human</i>
nature, and to draw distinctions between the genders is “sinful.” Still, regarding the ecclesiastical life of
women, the questions that Karras raises merit attention by the contemporary
Church inasmuch women within the Church actually pose them. Unfortunately, the answer she suggests—or,
often more accurately, implies—cannot be judged right or wrong based on the
arguments or evidence she presents.
Thus, <i>es ist nicht einmal falsch</i>—it
is not even wrong. However, there is
good reason to believe, based on earlier efforts, that her premises are, as <st1:sn w:st="on">Pauli</st1:sn> might declare, “utterly wrong” (<i>ganz falsch</i>) or is, as the writer <st1:sn w:st="on">Asimov</st1:sn>
quipped, “wronger than wrong.”<span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftnref2" title="">[2]</a></span></span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftnref2" title=""><!--[endif]--></a></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Prior to discussing Karras’ own perspective, it may be noted
that she gives scant attention here to two respected theologians of the twentieth
century who did endeavor to articulate a broad theological vision of gender and
sex distinction: Elizabeth Behr-Sigel and Paul Evdokimov.
Karras admits to Behr-Sigel’s influence on her thought, common enough
among contemporary Orthodox women such as <st1:givenname w:st="on">Susan</st1:givenname>
<st1:middlename w:st="on">Ashbrook</st1:middlename> <st1:sn w:st="on">Harvey</st1:sn>,
<st1:givenname w:st="on">Kyriaki</st1:givenname> <st1:sn w:st="on">Kardoyannes-Fitzgerald</st1:sn>,
and <st2:personname w:st="on"><st1:givenname w:st="on">Despina</st1:givenname> <st1:sn w:st="on">Prassas</st1:sn></st2:personname>.
In any case, Behr-Sigel’s inspirational influence on numerous Orthodox
female theologians of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries has
far exceeded the influence of her writings and positions on Orthodox Christian
practice or polity. As I will
demonstrate, Karras moves well past Behr-Sigel’s more sensitive (or tentative?)
criticisms. Behr-Sigel’s colleague, <st2:personname w:st="on"><st1:givenname w:st="on">Paul</st1:givenname> <st1:sn w:st="on">Evdokimov</st1:sn></st2:personname>,
also ventured into the discussion of the place and role of women within the Church, but
his dialogue with Jungian psychological concepts prevented any widespread influence or
acceptance, and his relatively conservative position merited a negative
response from Karras and other like-minded writers. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Karras’ ultimate assertion is that there is no “theological”
justification for the Church to continue excluding women from the ranks of the
presbyter and bishop, not to mention other ministries in the life of the
contemporary Church. To make this
assertion more attractive, Karras relies on anecdotal evidence of women’s
“subservient” position in the Church, a limited reading of patristic
authorities, false analogies, a narrow view of an Orthodox “anthropology,” and
an overly-schematized view of “history” and eschatology which is certainly
subject to dispute. If this is not
enough, she has also neglected apparently more contrary evidence from ancient
and contemporary authors and canonical sources (including Holy Scripture),
largely dismissed contemporary “hard” science and social science and, perhaps
most importantly, ignored a great deal of the liturgical-sacramental life of
the Church. The discerning reader cannot
but help notice that her argument reveals a predetermined conclusion which is
not at all supported directly and positively by the evidence she provides, and
she certainly has not provided convincing arguments to account for the more
obvious contrary evidence (such as Holy Scripture) that seems to support a
conclusion opposite of her own. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Her argument is akin to a negative proof fallacy: because a
premise has not been proven false, the premise must be true. That the Church has not clearly articulated
an indisputable “theological” reason to exclude women from the ranks of
presbyters and bishops might be admitted, but this does not mean that such a
reason does not exist. While it may seem
obvious today, it took the Church a long while to overcome Arianism and its
various heretical offspring; even the First Ecumenical Council did not fully
resolve the problem, and the Christological arguments springing from those
controversies persisted for many centuries, requiring a great deal of
theological effort. Of course, the
hierarchs gathered at the Ecumenical Councils did nothing other than affirm, in
their estimation, what was already confessed by the Church to be true, and had
been true despite the lack of specific articulation. In other words, they recognized certain
heretical teachings to be beyond the legitimate tradition of the Church as they
were inconsistent with the faith confessed “everywhere and from all time.” </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
Certainly, and contrary to Karras' implication, there have been theological arguments against the
ordination of women as presbyters and bishops, and one or more of these might
also be correct. It remains, however,
that there is yet to be a consensus on this theological (and anthropological)
question, though in practice the consensus is clear enough: women are not
ordained as presbyters and bishops in the Orthodox Christian tradition.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
To be fair, the opposite mode of reasoning would be just as
fallacious as the one demonstrated by Karras: because a premise cannot be
proven to be true does not mean that it is necessarily false. It is possible, even if most unlikely, that a
theological reason justifying the ordination of women as presbyters and bishops
may emerge as the consensus of the Church.
Although Karras fails to offer any real justification to reverse the
Church’s undisputed and consistent practice in this regard, she might one day be justified in her
views. Unfortunately, by neglecting an
assessment of so many dimensions of the Orthodox Christian tradition, her
argument remains woefully incomplete. So
for now she is not even wrong, even when, as it happens at significant points
in her article, she is right.</div>
<h2>
Being Wrong when Right</h2>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Not everything Karras posits in this article is wrong. It is important to note where she is correct
and right for the discussion regarding the role of women in the Church. Yet even here there are significant problems,
as much of what is correct is coupled with significant omission. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Karras admits that the Church never has (knowingly) ordained
a female as a presbyter and bishop.<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftnref3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
She fails to mention that such ordinations did occur, reportedly, in heretical
sects, and there were negative reactions to this in the canonical Church. Though noting that in our era other
Christian traditions do ordain women, she neglects to mention where these
traditions also diverge from Orthodoxy in other matters regarding human
sexuality (such as acceptance of openly homosexual ministers, same-sex
marriages, and so forth), and therefore fails to note that it may be that they
have a “theological” justification for ordaining women based on very different
doctrinal or anthropological presuppositions—some of which might be most incompatible
with Orthodox tradition.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Setting aside the fact that every Christian, male and
female, is “ordained” in the initiation rites of Baptism and Chrismation,<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftnref4" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
one thing that is beyond dispute today among Orthodox theologians is the fact
that women were (and can be, in theory if not yet regularly in practice)
ordained as deacons in the Orthodox Church, at least in some places and in some
eras. Karras is certainly correct to
note this, especially as it may surprise many of the faithful today. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
No Orthodox Christian observer of Church history can deny
that women were called deacons in the Church: Saint Paul refers to at least one
woman unambiguously as a deacon. Saint
John Chrysostom has extensive correspondence with a woman, Olympias, who was
named a “deacon.” Canonical and imperial
legislation deals with the role and qualifications of female deacons. Liturgical manuscripts preserve ordination
rites for female deacons. What the role
of the deacon was in the apostolic and sub-apostolic eras (not to mention the
roles of the presbyters, bishops, prophets, etc.) is less certain, not to mention geographical variation, and there
still can be a legitimate discussion about the scope and scale of the female
deacon’s ministry in later centuries.
Still, women in the apostolic and early Church were clearly <i>serving</i> in some official capacity, and
it is clear that there was a formal liturgical role, however limited and
evolving over time and within diverse regions.<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftnref5" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Because it has not been done for so long on anything nearly
approaching regularity, there has been some dispute on the manner by which
women became recognized deacons in the Orthodox Church; whether this was an
“honorary” position or an “official” order of the ministerial priesthood was,
at one time, a matter of contentious debate.
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Karras highlights the work of scholars, both Orthodox and
from other Christian traditions, who have settled that debate, at least to a
point.<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftnref6" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[6]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> Without doubt, manuscript evidence shows
that, at least somewhere and at some point in history, women were ordained
essentially in the same manner as male deacons, in a ceremony all but identical
to our current liturgical ritual during the Divine Liturgy at the Holy Altar.<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftnref7" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[7]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> Less clearly presented by Karras, if at all,
is the fact that the female diaconate does not seem to have been as “universal”
as were the orders of (male) deacons, presbyters and bishops at a relatively
early date in the Church’s history, nor does it appear that the role of female
deacons was identical everywhere throughout early Christendom. It also seems to have faded into obscurity or
obsolescence at different points in different regions. Likewise, it is not at all clear that women
deacons were always established in such positions as were their male
counterparts; in other words, it is possible that over time there existed more
than one “method” of ordaining or “appointing” female deacons, and in some
cases the “office” may have been or have become only honorary.<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftnref8" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[8]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Simply because women were ordained as deacons does not mean
that female deacons could be ordained presbyters or bishops. Karras does not, in fact, suggest this, but
she also fails to mention that the very nature of the major orders of the
sacramental priesthood in the Church (deacon, presbyter, bishop) is a very
complicated subject in itself. Even the
male diaconate in the Orthodox Church has generally become, in most cases,
liturgically ceremonial at best and a mere formality prior to ordination to the
presbyterate at worst.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/" name="_Ref301200209"></a><a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftnref9" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[9]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
It would be wrong simply to assume that ordination to the diaconate
would permit or assume ordination to the “higher” orders of the presbyter or
bishop.<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftnref10" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[10]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> Along with this is the lack of any
substantial attention to why the order of the female deacon basically
disappeared. While the implicit “common
wisdom” is that it had to do with changing cultural attitudes and gender bias,
it is likely a more complicated matter.
After all, there is no specific canonical prohibition from ordaining
women in the common canonical tradition of all Orthodox Churches.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/" name="_Ref301200222"></a><a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftnref11" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[11]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
And yet if the female diaconate declined and then vanished, the example
of the contemporary state of the “male” diaconate should also be considered,
for here the decline would have nothing to do with gender bias. Nonetheless, along with the renewal of the
diaconate as a “permanent” order of the Church among men, it may be the
appropriate time for the female deacon to once again appear among the Church’s
ministers. Karras is by no means out of
the mainstream on this matter, at least among theologians.<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftnref12" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[12]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Karras also rightly points out the paradox of gender bias
and prejudice within the Church. Yet
here again, it is intellectually dishonest to simply attribute the limitations
on female liturgical and ministry participation on the bias of men. The cultural milieu of the Churches in the
“East” obviously had a different perspective on gender roles, though even these
changed over the centuries. While we may
safely presume some level of gender bias on the part of males, not everything
that appears to us today as negative regarding the social (and ecclesial) roles
of women may have been perceived as such by women of the time (or even
today!). In traditional,
gender-segregated societies, matters are usually more complicated than in our
own contemporary “Western” culture. For
example, many women in Muslim societies prefer to be veiled even when it is not
required, and discuss the veil as a protection against lust and objectification
even if westerners might consider it to be “dehumanizing.“ Westerners have long decried the practice of
female circumcision as cruel and inhuman, but the reality is that in many of
those cultures—particularly in Africa—where it is practiced, the chief
practitioners and proponents are often women, whereas many men are not
generally in favor of it despite its portrayal as a “patriarchal” institution;
it is a complicated cultural issue.<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftnref13" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[13]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> This is not to state that there was (and is)
no gender bias or discrimination among the members of the Church, for indeed
several patristic commentators either describe it when denouncing it in whole
or in part (as Karras notes), or actually display it. Still, even among those patristic authorities
who demonstrate what might be seen today as a special sensitivity to the
“plight” of women, or explicitly expound on the “equality” of males and
females, there is no example of any authority <em>ever</em> suggesting women should be
ordained as presbyters and bishops. In
fact, only the opposite is the case when the notion of women serving is
considered at all: women do not and should not be presbyters and bishops.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Of course, while suggesting that gender bias continues due
to an apparent lack of women participating on such governing bodies at the
parochial level (parish councils) or in the administration of broader Orthodox
ecclesial structures, Karras fails to mention that, at least in the Greek
Orthodox Archdiocese of America (GOA), this “deficit” of women has nothing to
do with institutional bias or discrimination—apart, perhaps if one sees it
thus, from the exclusion of women from the ranks of presbyters and bishops. At least at the parochial level, it is
obvious that there is something different occurring. As an example, the GOA has formally allowed
women to serve on parish councils for decades.
If—and Karras provides no documentation—there is a lesser representation
of women on such councils in comparison to the male-female ratio of
parishioners, it is not due to any statutory limitations. Likewise, if Karras can rely on anecdotal
information as she apparently does, it may even be safe to state that in terms
of actual participation, attendance and activity, women outnumber men in parish
life. So if women are not serving on
(elected) parish councils in greater numbers than they do, the reasons are
likely to be complicated—but not systemically institutional.<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftnref14" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[14]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Even the “theological” discussion regarding the image of God
and women is a more complicated matter than Karras suggests, attributing this
also to gender bias. Questioning whether
women were “in the image” to the same degree as men was an exegetical exercise
among commentators trying to reconcile the creation narrative(s) of humanity
with statements by Saint Paul. As <st1:sn w:st="on">Harrison</st1:sn>, to whom Karras refers, points out, the conception
of being “in the image” by Antiochene exegetes certainly did not entail any
disparagement of female capacity for salvation, virtue, and so forth, and they
only affirm the ontological equality of male and female.<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftnref15" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[15]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> That the early Christian writers often
expressed themselves in the midst of an androcentric cultural milieu is readily
admitted. Even so, the fact is that
their exegesis still maintains a fundamental equality of males and females in <st1:sn w:st="on">Christ</st1:sn>. “Equality” or
“equal honor” does not necessarily mean “identical” in terms of function, role
or capacity to relate to the community in some manner.<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftnref16" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[16]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> It is not only anachronistic but also a bad
reading of patristic texts to presume that we can clearly recover such
“psychological motivations” as gender bias or even misogyny when these are not
explicitly stated. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
As Karras notes, it is certainly true that both Saints
Gregory of Nyssa and Maximos the Confessor have a particular eschatological
vision regarding the persistence, or perhaps non-persistence, of the division
of human beings as male and female in the fullness of God’s Kingdom. Karras appears to read both in the most
literal manner, but misses important distinctions between both authors. Nyssa admits to “speculation,” and his
position is rather consistent with the noticeable platonic or neo-platonic
influences in his theological method and premises.<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftnref17" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[17]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> Maximos, who in regard to male and female
seems to follow Nyssa closely in some respects, is perhaps a more subtle and
complex thinker. Karras is wrong to
simply equate their views, for Maximos has, in many ways, refined his
Cappadocian influences. It is one thing
to note that for Maximos the “division” between male and female is destined to
disappear in Christ, and quite another to suggest the distinction itself will
cease to exist. Division and distinction
are not interchangeable concepts in Maximos’ writings, as several of the
leading Maximian scholars have rightly observed. Indeed, one of the leading researchers
into Maximos’ anthropological thought (Thunberg) specifically rejects the
conclusions that Karras draws regarding this matter.<span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftnref18" title=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[18]</span></span></a></span></div>
<h2>
<span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 200%;">Being
Right When Wrong</span></h2>
Perhaps part of the problem in Karras’ argument is a
distinction that she is right to question but entirely wrong to dismiss. This is the conceptual distinction between
sex and gender. Now usually used
interchangeably, the initial distinction between these terms served an
important purpose: to distinguish between physiological phenomena related to
male and female (the biological differences) and social or cultural differences
that were not necessarily (or so obviously) “genetic.” <br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
By dismissing the distinction between sex and gender, Karras
prematurely but conveniently eliminates an important observation that has been
both better articulated and more frequently abused in our modern (and
post-modern) culture. The distinction
between sex and gender is an important one in both the hard and soft sciences
of our era. What we now, rather
inaccurately, refer to as the “nature-nurture” debate has become more refined
in modern anthropology, sociology and psychology, but it was not entirely
absent in ancient times—even if it was not articulated in the same manner as
today.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
One is hard pressed to refute patristic authorities who
envision the cessation of the distinction of biological sex in the age to
come. As most biologists would now
affirm, the biological distinction between male and female serves the purpose
of species reproduction (in a Christian context, procreation is a better
term). However, as biologists and at
least two patristic authorities would affirm (<st1:sn w:st="on">Chrysostom</st1:sn>
and Nyssa), species’ “multiplication” does not necessarily require the
distinction of sex, for not all species make use of sexual reproduction. Whether it be a multiplicity of angels (the
patristic consensus being that they are sexless), or amoebas, there are other
possibilities and means to “multiply,” and certainly God was free to determine
the form and “system” of human procreation.
Likewise, the patristic tradition seems to be rather consistent in
affirming procreation—in the sexual form that we know it—as a remedy against
mortality. This is commonly the context
of any exegesis of <st1:givenname w:st="on">Jesus</st1:givenname>’ reply to the
Sadducees regarding the resurrection: “they are neither married nor given into
marriage.” Yet there is also no doubt
that by “marriage” both the Evangelists and the patristic commentators see
sexual intercourse as the main content.
This is, after all, the more literal meaning of the Greek word for
marriage, <i>gamos</i>, from which we derive
the English “gamete.”<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftnref19" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[19]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> If the “content” of marriage for Saint Paul
in his Corinthian correspondence seems to be the fact that male and female are
joined into “one flesh,” it may be noted that his conception of marriage
extends beyond the (Roman and contemporary Western) conception of legal
marriage when he notes that sexual relations with a prostitute also means being
joined to her/him as “one flesh.”<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftnref20" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[20]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> At least for Saint Paul, the “oneness” of the
marital (or, in the case of prostitution, sexual) bond is related to the idea
of communion—sharing of a common existence—as we find explicitly developed in
(the later) the fifth chapter of Ephesians.<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftnref21" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[21]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Furthermore, while we may affirm the cessation of human <i>sexuality</i> in the Kingdom, we may note
that the distinction of male and female not only precedes the Fall but also is
changed following it. Therefore, there
may not be such a problem in seeing the sexual aspect of human existence as
ultimately ceasing to be relevant (or perhaps existent) in the general
resurrection, but also at the same time allowing for the distinction of male
and female to hold meaning for human existence beyond the procreative function
of each. This is where a distinction
between sex and gender, which Karras dismisses, may be useful. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Accordingly, one of the greatest deficits of Karras’
argument is her near complete non-consideration of the mystical meaning and
purpose of marriage itself. That
Christian marriage is not, in an Orthodox context anyway, strictly for the
procreation of offspring, is self-evidenced by the fact that the Church celebrates
liturgically as a sacrament (<i>mysterion</i>)
the joining of husband and wife even when the couple is incapable (apart from
miraculous means) of procreating. Of
course, one might argue that the “other” chief purpose of the “communion of
matrimony” is the avoidance of fornication (“it is better to marry than to
burn”). This would also be in line with
a great deal of patristic commentary.
Yet there are a number of “theological” problems with such a view.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
First, a view that God <i>only</i>
creates the male-female distinction in foresight of the Fall permits no
positive content to the distinction.
Rather it is relegated to serving only as a remedy against a <i>possible</i>-but-not-predestined mortality
or as a remedy against sinful passion and action (fornication). Thus there is nothing to be said for the fact
that when God creates humanity, the initial human beings are wholly distinct
though not yet divided by sin, not to mention that they are commanded to be
“fruitful and multiply.”<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftnref22" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[22]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> The distinction, if we accept the
psychosomatic unity of the human person, would include both physical and
spiritual or psychological distinctions.
The fact is that such distinctions “devolve” in the biblical narrative
into causes of division (nudity and shame), yet such a division is not itself
the act or will of God. In Maximos the
Confessor, the unity of all in <st1:sn w:st="on">Christ</st1:sn> is not
achieved, by the way, by the elimination of distinctions (created by God), but
by the transcendence of divisions (introduced by sin) to which distinctions may
lead in a sinful world. Indeed, Maximos
generally affirms that distinctions are a pre-condition of unity and communion
even as they may devolve into divisions that are the marks of sin.<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftnref23" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[23]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So there is a manner by which the apparently negative view
of sex in Maximos may be reconciled with a <i>persistence
</i>of the male-female distinction even in the age to come: the biological
purposes of sex (as known in a fallen existence) may cease, but the
psychosomatic distinctions fostered by gender difference could persist. After all, the distinction of male and female
fosters the possibility of a unique, complementary relationship between human
beings, and it is the “relational” content that the distinction provides that
may be held in positive assessment.
Thus, it is certainly possible and right to refer to the Virgin as the <i>mother</i> (a relationship unique to women)
of the Son of God, and it is by no means clear that such a relationship—founded
on a gender difference (as well as a sex difference!) ceases in the
Kingdom. Maximos the Confessor confirms
a belief that <st1:givenname w:st="on">Mary</st1:givenname> intercedes for the
faithful in the Kingdom, and nowhere suggests she is no longer a woman or a
mother, or that she will someday cease being these in relationship to her son.<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftnref24" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[24]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> This would be a repudiation of the real
content of history.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Second, the argument
based on the disappearance of the male-female distinction in the <i>eschaton</i> and the suggestion that women
could be ordained on this basis also ignores marriage in another fashion. The Church does not, nor ever has, celebrated
the joining of persons of the same sex.
If sex is ultimately irrelevant, why do several of the same patristic
authorities Karras cites fail to argue not only for the ordination of women but
condemn homosexual activity? It is not
as if homosexual activity was unknown by the early Church; in fact, there is
usually a strong condemnation of it in principle if not always in
practice. Yet if gender or sex does not
really matter, the ultimate conclusion Karras would want the reader to accept
regarding ordination, why should it matter in any other area? Indeed, it may be important to question the
fact that most Christian traditions that permit the ordination of women as
presbyters and bishops (or their equivalents in a traditions’ hierarchy) also permit
or tolerate same-sex marital unions. Of
course, Karras makes no move in exploring the logical consequences of her
rhetorical suggestion regarding the irrelevance of sex in the Kingdom, the
affect of such a view on the doctrine of marriage being only one.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
As an aside, one may also question Karras on other elements
of God’s plan for human beings vested in the “garments of skin” (a
post-lapsarian and mortal existence as we know it now). For example, only women bear and give birth
to children. Men do not. Is this sex difference simply a matter of God
“rolling the dice,” meaning that it is no more than spontaneous and rather
arbitrary choice God makes once God imposes (or permits) the consequences of
the ancestral sin? With <st1:sn w:st="on">Einstein</st1:sn>,
I do not believe God plays dice, and do not believe the order of the universe
(and humanity within it) is arbitrary even following the primordial
“Fall.” Yet here would be one example of
“inequality,” if one chooses to characterize it thus, between men and
women. Preferable would be to note that
this is a difference that arises to serve the purposes of God’s dispensation
for the world. Thus we may affirm that
there may be God-chosen distinctions between the roles of men and women in the
world, clearly manifest after the Fall in what would be a “fallen” mode, but
just as clearly created before it. In
any case, it may be hasty to conclude that such roles do not exist within the
Church by divine will.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Thus, if it is agreed that there is neither sex nor gender
in the divine nature or Persons, as Karras rightly notes, this is rather
irrelevant for an Orthodox anthropology other than to reveal a fundamental
dissimilarity between created and uncreated being. What is of consequence from an Orthodox
perspective of the Holy Trinity is not the absence of sex or gender, but rather
the hypostatic (personal) distinctions of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, all
of whom share wholly the divine nature (as consubstantial, <i>homoousioi</i>). A hypostatic
distinction between human persons who share the same (created) human nature
would involve a distinction (though not division) between the constitutive
“parts” of human nature. It is at least <i>possible</i> and perhaps likely that the
biblical narratives of human creation reveal such a distinction between,
according to the text, the only two human beings at the time, and this
“hypostatic” distinction is revealed in the “original” names of the human
beings in their personal distinction—male and female.<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftnref25" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[25]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Therefore, it seems strange that Karras ignores the
importance of the very “otherness” (<i>alterit</i><i>é</i>) she mentions elsewhere as
fundamental to human (and divine) personhood.
Karras makes note that in some of the patristic witnesses, such as the
Cappadocians, that the difference between men and women is a bodily difference,
not one of “soul.” In such a case, she
seems to imply that personal distinction between human beings is, indeed, a
physical-bodily distinction. Yet the
“original” or initial bodily distinction affirmed in the scriptural narrative,
that of male and female, is destined to disappear according to Karras (and,
admittedly, to some patristic authorities who address the subject). One may question, therefore, the basis for
personal distinction (personal identity) in human existence.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Perhaps the basis is that of unique experience and
relationships. Yet this brings us back
to a psychosomatic existence for each and every human being, which will persist
in the age to come even if certain bodily realities (such as mortality) will be
transformed in the Resurrection. And
each and every human being has experience of the world and establishes
relationships that are mediated, in some manner, by the reality of gender if
not sex (in terms of sexual activity).
Not only is this a logical conclusion from the Orthodox affirmation of
the psychosomatic unity of the human person, but also an affirmation of our
contemporary scientific understanding of gender and sex differences. Male and female bodies react to and perceive
their environments in different ways.
Subtle as it may be, even the act of running—common to males and
females—is actually experienced differently due to the difference of the male
and female skeletal structures.
Accounting for all this is certainly a most complicated matter, but
Karras does not even address the fact that human identity is conditioned by
personal history (the accumulation of human experience), and such a history is
obviously conditioned by gender. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Finally, the sacramental nature of Christian marriage is
also a complex matter that would appear to have some eschatological
significance, at least according to the contemporary marriage rite. As the Eucharist (which is the current rite’s
true and original context even if separated from it for many centuries) is an
eschatological “event,” it follows that those events celebrated in a
eucharistic context are also, in some manner, of eschatological
significance. Karras does not follow
this in her own understanding of Orthodox anthropology and liturgy in
connection with the <i>eschaton</i>. Notably as well, the eschatological vision of
the Church continually makes use of nuptial imagery: Bride and Bridegroom,
wedding banquet, and so forth. The fact
that Gregory of Nyssa, himself married, or Maximos the Confessor, a monk,
develop their anthropological reflections without (directly) taking the ritual
of matrimony into account is not surprising. In the former case, the ritual was
not well developed, and Nyssa seems at times actually to resent his marital
status; in the latter, Maximos’s chief theological works consulted by Karras
tend to be written for a monastic or ascetic audience by an author who is
hailed as an ascetic master (not to mention problems with Karras’ reading of
his work).<span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftnref26" title=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[26]</span></span></a></span></div>
<h2>
Not Right, Not Even Wrong</h2>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What Karras fails to
do is to place the question of ordaining women as presbyters and bishops within
a more coherent context accounting for the many dimensions of Orthodox
tradition (not custom) and theological boundaries. Except for reference to a long-abused, and
often mistranslated, biblical “proof-text” (<st1:givenname w:st="on">Gal</st1:givenname> 3:8), there is a
lack of serious consideration of various scriptural passages that refer to
gender or sex roles within the human community and the life of the Church. They cannot be readily dismissed or
attributed, simply, to cultural norms of their era. In fact, there may be a need to place some of
the scriptural data within a particular cultural or social context, but doing
so requires serious exegetical reflection on what is “lasting” and what is
“passing away.” Otherwise, biblical
interpretation—as a message relevant at all times and every era—becomes
tenuous.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The same is true with making use of a real and important
distinction noticed by nearly all contemporary Orthodox theologians and
pastors: that which Karras describes as between “Tradition” (capital T) and
“traditions” (small case t). It is
perhaps better to note the distinction is one between sacred tradition which
remains consistent through time and location, and those customs that have
developed to express the sacred, “apostolic” tradition passed down through the
generations. Tradition thus is the
unchanging content of Orthodoxy, while customs are somewhat malleable depending
on circumstances as the means of expressing or conveying the truth of
tradition.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
When Karras notes the custom of women abstaining (or being
directed to abstain) from liturgical participation and receiving Holy Communion
during menstruation, we may attribute this as a custom introduced into the life
of the Church since, historically, there is sufficient evidence indicating that
there was once no explicit prohibition to women partaking of the Holy Gifts for
such a reason. There is no mention of
such a prohibition in Holy Scripture. To
the contrary, as Karras correctly emphasizes, there is early evidence that
women were encouraged to ignore any consideration of menstruation in regard to
their liturgical participation (as in the <i>Didache</i>). However, there is within the canonical
tradition of the Church a prohibition of women partaking during menses. This raises another complicated issue that
Karras passes over in silence.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The canonical tradition itself is part of the sacred
tradition of the Church, since it is essentially the accumulated “guidelines”
(the meaning of “canon”) that have developed over time. True, some canons may reflect dogmatic
principles that are unchanging and therefore part of the sacred tradition of
the Church, but most are practical means of implementing the teachings of the
Church and regulating her life. The
problem is that while the canonical legislation of the Church that has
accumulated is, in most cases, authoritative, not all canons are given equal
“weight” in the canonical governance and pastoral practice of the Orthodox
Churches.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Karras wrongly compares, even implicitly, the canonical
prohibition of women partaking of Holy Communion during menstruation and the
ordination of women. First, there is no
real canonical prohibition against ordaining female deacons, as noted above, in
the canonical legislation shared as authoritative by all Orthodox
churches. Second, while Karras rightly
suggests that abstaining from Holy Communion during menstruation is a “custom,”
she does not demonstrate at all that any ordinations are “customs” in contrast
to being an element of sacred tradition.<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftnref27" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[27]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> That the Church basically stopped ordaining
women as deacons may be a custom, as would be the cessation of ordaining
married men as bishops, also a fact of history.
The latter, however, was a custom adopted into the canonical legislation
of the Church and respected as authoritative for all. It could change if the <st1:sn w:st="on">Church</st1:sn>
so decided. In light of her ultimate
point, there is no evidence that the Church ever ordained women as presbyters
and bishops, so it is a more complicated issue to determine if this fact is
only a matter of custom—and therefore able to change as she suggests—or a
matter of sacred tradition.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
History is a complicated matter itself, and Karras
schematizes history in a manner that is subject to dispute. It is not the general scheme that is really
in question, though theologians might take issue with separating too neatly the
era of the Church in history and the <i>eschaton</i>
or “post-history” since the Kingdom of God interpenetrates even our current
“time.” Nonetheless, the real problem is
Karras’ attempt to “assign” certain canonical or liturgical customs as rooted
in her scheme. For example, the
prohibition of women partaking of the Holy Gifts during menses is assigned to
an “attitude” grounded in a “postlapsarian BC” perspective, though she provides
no real evidence that the canonical prohibition articulated by <st2:personname w:st="on">Bishop <st1:sn w:st="on">Alexander</st1:sn></st2:personname> in the
third century relied on such a perspective.
In fact, the canon does not really provide any theological justification
of the matter at all. Silence, however,
does not mean that the bishop had no theological reason for his views, even if
it appears likely that his attitude about women’s “issues” does appear to be
influenced by the “patriarchal” views of his time and taboos common to the
culture. Still, if it is a matter of a
cultural phenomenon, it may be completely unrelated to any “postlapsarian BC”
perspective.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
This comes close to the heart of the matter as to why Karras
is not right, but not even wrong. For an
Orthodox theologian, it is not right to pass over or ignore so much of the
doctrinal, liturgical, sacramental, exegetical, canonical and pastoral history
of the Church to address a legitimate, contemporary question, while basing
conclusions on but a brief selection of theological treatises and writers who,
themselves, would not have been so quick to draw the conclusions Karras
does—since they nowhere even suggest her conclusions despite challenging in
many ways the social and cultural norms of their own time.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Ultimately, the question regarding the ordination of women
as presbyters and bishops is a healthy one for the contemporary Orthodox Church
to address, since it inevitably touches on so many issues of importance
today. These include our ecumenical engagements
and encounters, particularly with those Christian groups that have a very
different perspective of human sexuality and ecclesiology; an Orthodox
anthropology that needs to account for, in a critical manner, the findings and
advances in the various sciences, both hard and soft; the canonical dimension
of ecclesial life; the liturgical and
sacramental dimensions; and an Orthodox ecclesiology which has been
transplanted from its Roman, Byzantine and Imperial Russian contexts through
and into Muslim, “Western” and other socio-political contexts. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
“Thinking through faith,” the title of the volume in which
her article appears, is absolutely necessary.
It is right to “discern the sign of the times” so as to fulfill the
evangelical mission and commission of the Church in all places and in every
era, and the Church is too often treated as an artifact of former times. Questioning something such as the ordination
of women is healthy. Jumping to
conclusions without due consideration of all the dimensions of Orthodoxy is
wrong. Suggesting conclusions on only a
partial consideration of all the evidence or arguing from silence is not even
wrong.<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"> </span></div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->
<br />
<hr size="1" style="text-align: left;" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<br />
<div id="ftn1">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftn1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
<st1:givenname w:st="on">Valerie</st1:givenname> <st1:middlename w:st="on">A.</st1:middlename>
<st1:sn w:st="on">Karras</st1:sn>, “Orthodox Theologies of Women and Ordained
Ministry,” in <i>Thinking Through Faith: New
Perspective from Orthodox <st1:givenname w:st="on">Christian</st1:givenname>
Scholars</i>, eds. <st1:givenname w:st="on">Aristotle</st1:givenname> <st1:sn w:st="on">Papanikolaou</st1:sn> and <st1:givenname w:st="on">Elizabeth</st1:givenname>
<st1:middlename w:st="on">H.</st1:middlename> <st1:sn w:st="on">Prodromou</st1:sn>
(Crestwood, NY: <st2:personname w:st="on">St <st1:sn w:st="on">Vladimir</st1:sn></st2:personname>’s
Seminary Press, 2008), 113-158. Karras
has demonstrated similar views in many places before and since its publication.</div>
</div>
<div id="ftn2">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftn2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
<st1:givenname w:st="on">Isaac</st1:givenname> <st1:sn w:st="on">Asimov</st1:sn>,
<i>The Relativity of Wrong </i>(New York:
Doubleday, 1986), as quoted by <st2:personname w:st="on"><st1:givenname w:st="on">Michael</st1:givenname>
<st1:sn w:st="on">Shermer</st1:sn></st2:personname>, “Wronger than Wrong: Not
all wrong theories are equal,” <i>Scientific
American</i> (November, 2006; http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=wronger-than-wrong):
“When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical,
they were wrong. But if you think that
thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat,
then your view is wronger than both of them put together."</div>
</div>
<div id="ftn3">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftn3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
Karras, “Orthodox Theologies of Women,” 116-117. Even if, as some historians try to assert,
women were ordained in the canonical Church through disguise or other
deception, this would not undermine the canonical Church’s opposition in
principle to such ordinations.</div>
</div>
<div id="ftn4">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftn4" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
Although it is not typical to speak of initiation rites this way, the work of
(Metropolitan of Pergamon) John Zizioulas clearly justifies the idea—as he
explicitly asserts—that each member of the Church is assigned to their own
“order,” the first being that of the <i>laos</i>,
the people of God.</div>
</div>
<div id="ftn5">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftn5" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
By “liturgical” I would include assisting at the baptism of women and bringing
the Holy Gifts to women outside the Eucharistic assembly, not to mention a
clearly liturgical ordination (as I note below). It does not appear that female deacons
actually served as did their male counterparts in the Eucharist. They may have, however, assisted (as did
subdeacons) in keeping order within the women’s galleries and sections of the
congregation during the eucharistic assembly.</div>
</div>
<div id="ftn6">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftn6" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[6]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
Ibid., 144-145 (esp. fns. 44, 45). </div>
</div>
<div id="ftn7">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftn7" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[7]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
That a ceremony of ordination for female deacons, in a form parallel to that of
male deacons, has been preserved is beyond dispute. How widespread its use may have been, its
historical development, authorship and other such questions remain.</div>
</div>
<div id="ftn8">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftn8" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[8]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
The point is not to dispute positive evidence, but that Karras glosses over
complicated historical circumstances that others advocating the restoration of
the female diaconate readily admit. See,
for example, references and comments in notes 8and 9 below.</div>
</div>
<div id="ftn9">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftn9" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[9]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
On this see <st2:personname w:st="on"><st1:givenname w:st="on">John</st1:givenname>
<st1:sn w:st="on">Chryssavgis</st1:sn></st2:personname>, <i>Remembering and Reclaiming Diakonia</i> (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross
Orthodox Press, 2009), 2-5; on women deacons, 18-19. </div>
</div>
<div id="ftn10">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftn10" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[10]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
It has long been customary that persons being ordained to any of the three
“higher” orders first “pass through” the lower orders, starting with the fact
that all deacons are first appointed sub-deacons. In many cases, a sub-deacon is appointed at
the Matins (<i>Orthros</i>) on the same day
that he will be ordained a deacon at the Eucharist. Many presbyters are ordained having served as
a deacon at only one Eucharist—often the following day. </div>
</div>
<div id="ftn11">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftn11" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[11]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
See Chryssavgis, <i>Remembering and Reclaiming
Diakonia</i>, 164, n. 1; 165, n. 52, on the fact that there <i>were</i> canonical prohibitions and
restrictions (notably the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea, 325 CE, canon
19). As Chryssavgis notes here, such
canonical prohibitions did not prevent later ordinations in some places, and it
is likely that Nicea 19 was directed to a specific circumstance without setting
a general precedent. The emergence of a
female diaconate in the Coptic Church tradition—which acknowledges the canons
of I Nicea as authoritative—would seem to provide additional support (among
others) to Chryssavgis’ conclusion by a contempory “eastern” Christian
tradition.</div>
</div>
<div id="ftn12">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftn12" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[12]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>What
Karras does not state in conjunction with the historical data and her advocacy
of the restoration of the female diaconate is that the practice among Anglican
and Protestant groups of ordaining women to the presbyterate and episcopacy has
probably made it more difficult for Orthodox Church officials to countenance
such a development in fear that it may suggest to the faithful that women could
subsequently be ordained to the orders of the presbyters and bishops, or that
the reason for ordaining women would be perceived as a capitulation to
Protestant influence by more conservative elements within the Orthodox world. This would involve erroneous <i>perceptions</i> about the ordained ministry
in the Orthodox Church, but such perceptions present a pastoral challenge in
the contemporary climate.</div>
</div>
<div id="ftn13">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftn13" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[13]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
See, for example, <st2:personname w:st="on"><st1:givenname w:st="on">Francis</st1:givenname>
<st1:middlename w:st="on"><st1:sn w:st="on">A.</st1:sn></st1:middlename> <st1:sn w:st="on">Althaus</st1:sn></st2:personname>, “Female Circumcision: Rite of
Passage or Violation of Rights?” <i>International Family Planning Perspectives</i>
23, no. 3 (1997): 130-133, esp. 132 and endnotes 7, 19, 20. Typically today, the practice is often
referred to as “female genital mutilation,” but obviously only by those who
view the practice as objectionable.</div>
</div>
<div id="ftn14">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftn14" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[14]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
In fact, women have served as Parish Council members and officers, as well as
on diocesan (Metropolis) councils and the national Archdiocesan Council of the
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese and analogous bodies within other Orthodox churches
and jurisdictions in the United States and abroad.</div>
</div>
<div id="ftn15">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftn15" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[15]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
<st2:personname w:st="on"><st1:givenname w:st="on">Verna</st1:givenname> <st1:sn w:st="on">Harrison</st1:sn></st2:personname>, “Women, Human Identity, and the
Image of God: Antiochene Interpretations,” <i>Journal
of Eastern Christian Studies</i> 9, no. 2 (2001): 205-249; here, 207,
247-248. <st1:sn w:st="on">Harrison</st1:sn>
notes that for each of the Antiochian authors she discusses (Diodore of Tarsus,
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret) salvation of women is never the issue, only
whether or not women were created in the image of God, and thus this is an
exegetical peculiarity. She also notes
that all three were eventually condemned for heretical views—though not
specifically for these particular exegetical opinions.</div>
</div>
<div id="ftn16">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftn16" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[16]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
Karras, “Orthodox Theologies of Women,” 130, fn. 34, considers the accurate translation of the
Greek <i>isotimos</i> as “equal in honor” to
be “unfortunate,” preferring that it simply be rendered “equal” as she does in
her translation of the word (p. 130). As
Karras rightly notes, the Greek <i>isos</i>,
“equal” is not normally used for unique persons. So the question remains why Karras <i>prefers</i> referring to unique persons (or,
in the case, genders) in such manner. <st1:sn w:st="on">Chrysostom</st1:sn> notes that male and female are <i>different</i> but worthy of the same
honor. Certainly for <st1:sn w:st="on">Chrysostom</st1:sn>,
not to mention perhaps the greater mass of humanity, male and female were
neither identical nor equal in all things.
Furthermore, two persons can be equally dishonored or dishonorable!</div>
</div>
<div id="ftn17">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftn17" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[17]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
See the preface to Nyssa’s <i>On the
Creation of Man</i>, and the introduction to his <i>On the Soul and Resurrection</i>.</div>
</div>
<div id="ftn18">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftn18" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[18]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
And Thundberg (<i>Microcosm and Mediator</i>
) is not alone. In fact, the notion of
communion and unity in Maximos (the opposite of division) presupposes
distinction, not the eradication of it.
The eradication or abolishment of distinction creates not communion, but
<i>identity</i> (sameness).</div>
</div>
<div id="ftn19">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftn19" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[19]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
The “sexual” content of marriage may be one reason why Chrysostom denies Adam
and Eve were “married” prior to the Fall—there were no specifically <i>sexual</i> relations in the form we know it
now.</div>
</div>
<div id="ftn20">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftn20" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[20]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
</div>
</div>
<div id="ftn21">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftn21" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[21]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
Questions of authorship for Ephesians are irrelevant to this point. The same idea is seminally found in the
Corinthian correspondence.</div>
</div>
<div id="ftn22">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftn22" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[22]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
In the LXX of Gen 1, the expression may be translated (as apparently understood
by Irenaeus of Lyons and others) as “grow/mature and multiply.” Admitting that sexual reproduction (as noted
above) might not be the only means for human “multiplication” in a prelapsarian
setting (hypothetically), it would appear that this is a task set before the first
human beings, male and female, to accomplish together. </div>
</div>
<div id="ftn23">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftn23" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[23]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
Communion is predicated on distinctions; identity would lead to <i>narcissim</i> and self-love (<i>philautia</i>), the opposite of authentic
love for an “other.”</div>
</div>
<div id="ftn24">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftn24" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[24]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
Maximos obviously could not venture beyond the definitions of the Third
Ecumenical Council that defined <st1:givenname w:st="on">Mary</st1:givenname>
as <i>Theotokos</i>. It should be noted that Maximos does,
however, suggest that men too become “birth-givers” of <st1:sn w:st="on">Christ</st1:sn>
in a spiritual manner, though not a literal manner!</div>
</div>
<div id="ftn25">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftn25" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[25]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
“Man” (<st1:givenname w:st="on"><i>Adam</i></st1:givenname>)
and “Woman” are the first “names” offered to the human beings in Genesis
2. The name “Man” (or human; Hebrew: <st1:givenname w:st="on"><i>Adam</i></st1:givenname>) is
stated by God for the <i>species</i>. The name “woman” is uttered by the
first-formed human being upon his discovery of her following her creation and
is, of course, predicated on her personal distinction “from the man.”</div>
</div>
<div id="ftn26">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftn26" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[26]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
It may also be noted that Nyssa’s apparent “contempt” for marriage (or, perhaps
better stated, his disappointment at not pursuing the ascetic/monastic ideal)
may only be a literary pretense due to the rather obvious “imitation” of
Platonic ideals where such passages occur.
Likewise, in his correspondence, Maximos nowhere criticizes marital life
to those living in the world outside the monastic milieu.</div>
</div>
<div id="ftn27">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Father/Documents/DGB/Papers/Es%20ist%20nicht%20einmal%20falsch%20version%202.docx" name="_ftn27" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[27]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
Again, the reality of Holy Orders (and their history) is a complicated
ecclesiological issue, for it is evident that the tri-partite distinction of
bishop-presbyter-deacon is one that emerges (very early) following the initial
foundation of the churches by the Apostles.
The point is that there was once a time when these orders did not exist
in the life of the Church. The question
then becomes whether this “scheme” is the only possible one for the
organization and order of the Church.</div>
</div>
</div>
Rev. David Bissiashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06643992379358484990noreply@blogger.com0