Right now, we are called referred to as the choir, but we exceed the roles that a choir would do. All those who oppose the word "deaconess" in this manner, you are giving the word too much power. I understand where you're coming from, but this is not the issue.
Hey guys, I have done things that a priest does, so you can start calling me Fr. Ilovesaintmark.
I sat in the presence of 10 bishops two weeks ago, so you can call me Anba Ilovesaintmark.
My dear, you are overreaching in a silly way. If it sounds like I am patronizing you, I am. I do not deny it. In a way I am trying to make levity of the level ascribed to this fantasy.
Please do not be a nidus for more attack and penetrance of wrong into the Coptic Church.
[quote author=GODlovesme link=topic=10503.msg127492#msg127492 date=1295496560] How about the hymns classes that some girls can't attend? (yeah...i've witnessed this) and your point is? i am in the Seraphim Chorus....not everyone comes in the chorus as he or she(yes we have girls in the chorus) wishes but there are rules to be followed and a test to be taken......how can men be sexist against their own gender?!
...how about the fact that I was told to remain silent just because my voice was too loud and I couldn't make it softer (woops! my bad...I just stopped singing in church altogether)!
hmmm, that is not because you're a girl but because you are LOUd covering everyone else voice.....their must be harmony in singing. if you can't hear the person on your right or left than you are tooo loud. if you don't see that in your church deacons than i am sorry...but that doesn't mean you make it worst.
How about when there's grown men who can't read Arabic, English, or Coptic standing there reading the readings and looking look complete retards because they can't pronounce anything? How about the idiots who make constant fools of themselves by taking pride that they are deacons and trying to interpret the Bible to show off to girls and when I read the Sayings of the Fathers are completely against it? How about when I was younger and my parents always focused on my brother for the hymns even though I knew and absorbed a lot more than he did?
than it's their sin.......they have to worry about it....the priest their fathers or other deacons their brothers. you can be nice an tell the priest kindly.
But then again...this is just my pride speaking...I should remain silent and allow men who cannot read and interpret Scripture properly lead the church...I should be satisfied to remain silent due to my ever-increasing ignorance.
if it's your own pride than you have to deal with it.......it must not become the generality that will destroy our Church from the inside out.
[quote author=AnnaSimone link=topic=10503.msg127493#msg127493 date=1295496657] epchois_nai_nan (And those who are interested) --- Currently, there are those who are trying to to reinstate an official rank, preferably that of epsaltos at first, in the Southern Diocese. But this may take a long while so we serve to do what we can now.
What john said concern deacons and not anyone else...and the "reinstate" of the rank was for deacons and NOTHING ELSE....and it was done around 40 yrs ago that it's not discussed anymore.
[quote author=GODlovesme link=topic=10503.msg127496#msg127496 date=1295496893] That's not the same as church service.
we don't serve the Church.....we serve GOd.....the LORd of the house and not the house of the LORd.....learn this. if we don't understand the basic understanding of service how are we supposed to do ANYTHING acceptable before God?!
[quote author=AnnaSimone link=topic=10503.msg127498#msg127498 date=1295497175] Right now, we are called referred to as the choir, but we exceed the roles that a choir would do. All those who oppose the word "deaconess" in this manner, you are giving the word too much power. I understand where you're coming from, but this is not the issue.
I issue is that you are corrupting a rank in Church.
We are not giving a word too much power, mina posted the roles of a deaconess and its requirements. You guys are not following them totally. At this point in time, your main role is to sing as the choir(i still don't think you guys should wear anything at all, no reason to have a "tonya" and bless it when you aren't serving the alter or assisting in the sacrament), so you cannot say you are a deaconess. When the roles listed become your primary roles and you in fact serve the way it is described you should then the term is correctly stated.
Let me step down from my nasty tone, and speak to you in the same reasonable tone that you just utilized. The Church does care about girls--deeply.
The issue revolves upon the aspect of each person reaching internally for their talents and presenting them to God as a sacrifice. Not everyone can be a priest, nor deacon, or monk/nun. Sometimes a guy will ponder in their mind that they are set for the monastery. They will even venture to the monastery as a novice, only to give up in two weeks. Does it mean that person doesn't have a role in the Church? Does it mean that God has rebuffed him? No, it just means he is not a monk.
My priest, told me, in no uncertain terms: "you are not a priest, nor should you ever consider being a priest, nor allow any bishop into persuading you into being a priest." If I were not tuned into my priest's words, I would have taken it as an insult, but I took it as a garner of his insight into my being and my talents. I trust him as my father. He is looking out for my physical and spiritual well-being.
I cannot tell you specifically what your ministry should be, or even where your talents lay. That is a journey. It is the journey of life and in seeking the Presence of God.
I can see where you would be bothered by the scenario that you presented. I would be also. This may be a facet for you to develop such a class.
I will also give a follow-up to your previous comment about the boys "showing-off". That is a reason for separating the two genders. There are too many hormones in the teenage years. It would be difficult to maintain discipline and concentration in such settings. I'm sure you have gone on Church trips and see the effect of the "mixing". In something as critical as learning the "prayer" in the "chant", hormones do not help matters.
I am not condoning any exclusionary aspect, but I think that has to be entered as a thought and consideration.
Believe me, I have seen girls and young ladies, devoutly serving that would place shame on zit-faced guys with a Rock star mentality.
I'm not sure how to quote people but this was from jydeacon: At this point in time, your main role is to sing as the choir(i still don't think you guys should wear anything at all, no reason to have a "tonya" and bless it when you aren't serving the alter or assisting in the sacrament), so you cannot say you are a deaconess.
You're reasoning doesn't make sense. If those were the only reasons why someone should be able to wear a tonya, the many deacons that serve God by singing outside the altar, and those who are readers, should not wear tonyas. And what does it matter, if we wear one or not. I'm positive I am not defying the faith by wearing one.
And I thought we already established the differences between those terms? Let's not argue for the sake of arguing.
This post was just to let those know that were interested that there is something out there that could be possible for them since it isn't disappearing any time soon. This site is all about outreach and the spreading of knowledge and that's what I am attempting to do. Thank you for everyone sharing their opinions.
What I said in parenthesis was a side note. I have no issue with you guys dressing a like or wearing nice outfits but a tonya is for liturgical service. You guys don't serve in liturgies. There are many significances to wearing the tonyas, its not just to put something on for fun. The readers, are reading and participating and assisting in the service. We already went over the psaltos, im not going to repeat myself.
[quote author=AnnaSimone link=topic=10503.msg127511#msg127511 date=1295499133] You're reasoning doesn't make sense. If those were the only reasons why someone should be able to wear a tonya, the many deacons that serve God by singing outside the altar, and those who are readers, should not wear tonyas. And what does it matter, if we wear one or not. I'm positive I am not defying the faith by wearing one.
The only reason that one might were a tonya(liturgical vestment) is to serve as a clergy man in the liturgy. Clergy men are: deacons, priests and bishops. That's why there vestment must be blessed before a service.
Real deaconesses (which i like to define as "nuns who live in the word as i was taught by priests and servants) never wear liturgical vestments. Nuns in convents never were vestments even though they do tasbeha every day by themselves and do many of the things a chorus does outside the sanctuary.
You are not defying the faith, but you are helping with harmful precedence to enter the Church that allow for a deeper penetrance of harm. I do not think you have a full scope of the matter, and the regard for harm that may come of things.
Ponder this: do the nuns of the convents enter into such role playing? They have received heavy discipline and spiritual nurture far beyond any that you have yet to encounter.
They have priests come serve them with limited male presence. They sing as choirs in the manner of the Rites of the Sacraments, but they do not assume any title or order other than in their monastic vows.
I do have great objection to your misrepresentation in terms of trying to create a propagate a wave that can somehow lift into a tidal wave of acceptance of a folly and fantasy. Experiments of this type were tried in the Northeast. They are local experiments, and do not work. They are not condoned by the Holy Synod--that is a fact.
Why does everything all of a sudden have to make sense to us for us to accept it?
Women are not excluded from the sacramental life. They can participate in each sacrament but in a more limited role of congregant instead of assistant to the priest. Why is this wrong? What happened to being happy with the talents and services God chose for us. The church as a mother, saw fit that these roles were kept for males. Why after hundreds of years are we trying to change these roles? Wearing tonya's (for clergy) has a lot of significance. They go back to the Old testament and the vestments that God himself designed for the priests.
Girls can learn hymns and participate as part of the congregation just as the men standing in the congregation participate as well. Not everyone is called to be part of the deaconate just as not everyone can be a priest, monk or nun. Women aren't meant to assist the liturgy and lead in churches for w/e reason. Its that simple. It doesn't make women lesser or anything to men. It just means they have different roles. Can a father breast feed a new born? Can a man give birth? Is a father a mom and a mom a father? No, each person has their role. During the period where a baby needs the mom physically for nourishment and care, does it make the father role less important? No it doesn't. Im sure you get my point and where im going with this.
An Psaltos is not a deacon in male or female gender.
I would also say that you should scroll down to some of Godlovesme subsequent comments.
I believe some of the disillusion of the women and their sense of displacement is related specifically to the rock stars and their improper conduct in the Liturgy.
What makes you think this rock star mentality can be suppressed in the girls/ladies, when it has not been mastered for the boys/men? I have a feeling that the breeding of this mentality will only worsen.
It makes me nauseous as it is, and there is no antacid that is going to help with the bilious taste of it all.
epchois_nai_nan, i can't comment in every single sentence you said but i have to say this: There are certain things that are set in our Church. One of the them is Priesthood is only for men....NOT ANY MEN, but specific ones. Not every man you meet is a deacon or a priest. does that mean that man are being sexist against their own gender?! NO!!! This shows exactly the way our Church is set.
We need to seek the Kingdom of heaven........ a pope, a bishop, a priest or a deacon do NOT have a priority of getting there. On the contrary it harder for them because with power comes responsibility and, as i believe, burden of some kind. if a girl or a man seek something different than all is done in VAIN from the beginning of that evil thought set by the devil to action taken.
For those who don't know...A little history on the Psaltos, it was not an original rank. But since there was a lack of knowledge in hymns and the rites among the laity, this rank was instituted as an effort to preserve the hymns and so that someone can keep the liturgy moving along. Service and dedication to the church become rare as well, so there was no depth in the deaconate, so majority of "deacons" were psaltos blending the duties of the ranks.
There are certain things that are set in our Church. One of the them is Priesthood is only for men....NOT ANY MEN, but specific ones. Not every man you meet is a deacon or a priest. does that mean that man are being sexist against their own gender?! NO!!! This shows exactly the way our Church is set.
But women are passed up for consideration completely. That is where the objection lies.
but that is not how the Church is set up. That's not what the Bible says and how we should live our Christian life. The Bible says no divorce but you have people who give you logical reasons for one but it can't be Biblical. Now you are objecting another full concept that is out of our realm in this post..........read are books about this issue and i suggest you search and read.
We need to seek the Kingdom of heaven........ a pope, a bishop, a priest or a deacon do NOT have a priority of getting there. On the contrary it harder for them because with power comes responsibility and, as i believe, burden of some kind. if a girl or a man seek something different than all is done in VAIN from the beginning of that evil thought set by the devil to action taken.
This is not about getting to Heaven, it is about the gift which God gave to mankind within the framework of the Church. I have trouble believing that God intended that men have a monopoly over this gift. Older generations do not have this problem because their culture did not address the issue. Today's culture does.
There goes your first mistake (sorry to be that judgmental)...but the second that you stray from the main goal, the second everything breaks away. EVERYTHING we do in our life must somehow, directly or indirectly, be part of us getting to the Kingdom of the heavens. The true ultimate gift we gained is the Holy Spirit through whom we get the rest of the gifts: grace, salvation, redemption...etc. Priesthood is a gift that God Himself grants to those He chooses. He chooses men to be a likeness of Him, the High Priest on the order of Melchizedek, to be on earth to lead His flock to the right path to Him. He didn't downgrade women in fact He was incarnated of one, full of grace, highest in virtue, love and grace not only on earth but IN HEAVEN also.
As it is always said in our Church, concentrating fully on one part of the picture and not the whole picture when needed, causes us to forget certain things that we must know.
Consider the fact that a woman was created from the side of Adam close to his heart to be equal to him in the eyes of God. Consider how a human life can't be created with out both of them....not one of each and not both of the same.
Now to talk about the culture problem..........culture changes but why should that change us as much? We must adapt to some certain extent....that extent is placed by the Bible and the Church. No matter how much the world changes, it must NOT change us. As i have just said before, you take away your eyes from the goal, Heaven, you lose sight of it easily and act as it doesn't exist in a world that fashions you more than you change it. (when i say "you" i refer to everyone and not a specific person.)
So epchois_nai_nan, plz help me understand your point of view, are you saying that you want the Coptic Orthodox Church to have women priest and bishops?
Let me offer some compelling warnings of these liberal trends, feminism, and the deleterious effect. I will give three examples from three concurrent scenarios from different traditions, including two from a Sister Oriental Church. Liberalism has no place in the Church.
Example #1:
The Episcopalian Church in the United States (the local Anglican Tradition in the United States). I won't go into too much detail but you can see the progression and the infestation which carried forward into the rest of the Anglican Traditions throughout the world.
Female Deacons ===> Female Priests====> opened the door for homosexual deacons ====> homosexual priests ====> female bishops =====> homosexual bishops.
You can all do your due diligence and follow the historical sequence. It is quite well outlined in any sources you may search.
Example #2:
The Declaration of the reposed Supreme Catholicos of All Armenians, Lord Karekin I, which was unopposed by the Holy Synod of Etchmiadzin, of "anyone baptized in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" be accepted as a Christian, regardless of who baptized him or how and inclusive of any denomination. This opened the door to many cataclysmic issues within the Armenian Church for which they are struggling to deal with as a mess. Unfortunately, the succeeding Catholicos, Karekin II, has quietly upheld this nonsense.
This ill-begotten tenet was developed as a result of influence from parallel function with the Episcopalian Church in the United States. As background, Karekin I, was originally an Archbishop under the Antelias jurisdiction in New York, before being made Catholicos over the House of Cilicia, and later becoming Supreme Catholicos in Etchmiadzin. He was heavily influenced by the liberalism of the Episcopalians during his tenure in New York City. He attend academic enterprise at their seminaries and was influenced even more.
Example #3:
This scenario I lived through, experienced, and was involved in the timeline.
St. Nersess Armenian Seminary was started by the thrice blessed Archbishop of memory Tiran Nersoyan. It was to be a training ground for Armenian clergy, with the thought of breaking from the influence of the Episcopalian training that Armenian clergy were getting.
In the late 80's there was an attempt to allow women to be admitted for studies in order to foster training and allow for talents and studies to be perpetuated throughout the Diocese and the local parishes. A certain woman from one of the Northern Armenian parishes was nominated, by her priest, to enter studies at St. Nersess. She felt, wrongly and erroneously, that this was a key moment for her and that she was being given the green light to become the first Armenian female priest. This concept was in parallel to what was happening in the Episcopalian Church of allowing for the first Episcopalian female priest.
She went through her studies, and graduated and then she started a campaign to being ordained as a priest. It caused great strife within this parish and within the entire Diocese. Ultimately, under Archbishop Torkom Manoogian (who later became the current Armenian Patriarch of Jerusalem) and Archbishop Khajag Barsamian (the current Archbishop of the Eastern Armenian Diocese in the USA) this was not allowed to proceed as a campaign. This caused much grief, fights, and outright bitterness with factions and dissention in Armenian parishes throughout the Diaspora. There were claims and suppositions about supposed back door deals that were not honored.
A good number of people left the Armenian Church to become members of the Episcopalian Church. This woman of mention, left and became an Episcopalian female priest.
Let us fast forward to the middle 90's at an ordination of an Armenian male priest at a parish in Northern New York. This same woman, who was a co-seminarian to this particular deacon, and a friend from the same common parish of growing up, was invited to attend the ordination. I was present at this ordination and participated in different ways. Archbishop Khajag was to carry out the ordination. She presented herself with the Episcopalian "vestments" and asked to vest and be in the procession. She was granted this request. She was not allowed to participate in the service in any manner, but certainly her presence and attire was stirring a lot of murmuring and rumor during the service. It was a major distraction.
Moreover, she presented herself for Holy Communion at the end. Unfortunately, the Archbishop, himself, offered her the Eucharist in her mouth. I believe he was not looking for any bad encounters. What was even more upsetting was that an Irish Catholic Congressman was also granted the Eucharist, because he has been "a friend to the Armenian cause through the United States Congress". This act was in concordance with the second example I gave.
Clearly, the small actions can permeate through a Church on a parish basis, later to a Diocesan level, and even fully to the Church on a worldwide basis. I believe the terms that would be proper are: parasitic and cancerous. One also realizes that when parasitic and cancerous processes are not checked and cured they become a destruction of the Body. This is the process that the Armenian Church is dealing with throughout Its expanse in the World--among other things.
AnnaSimone, you have no right to reach with conquering terms of: "deaconess", 'we will eventually achieve', 'this cannot be stopped'. They all breed an arrogance that can have destructive consequences. I urge everyone to voice objection to the nonsense of promoting any feminism, no different than objection to chauvenism, in the Body of the Church. My dear, you are misguided in your thoughts and you are helping to promote the cause of Satan against the Church.
A CHOIR IS ONE THING, TONIAS AND INCORRECT TITLES FOR WOMEN IN THE CHURCH, ARE UNACCEPTABLE AND INCORRECT.
I URGE EVERY FEMALE, NO DIFFERENT THAN ANY MALE, TO SEEK OUT THE KINGDOM OF GOD, THEIR GOOD PRESENCE IN THE MINISTRY AND THE BODY OF THE CHURCH, AND TO NOT INFLATE THEIR EGO OR THEIR CONDUCT BEYOND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SACRAMENTS OF THE CHURCH. DO NOT BE AN INSTRUMENT FOR SATAN.
One of the cute sayings that are learned in history classes is: "Those who do not heed the lessons of history are doomed to repeat its mistakes."
I think the answer is a lot simpler than you guys are making it..... if you look at all the priests and bishops of the world what is the one thing that they all have in common?
Give up?
BEARDS!
That's why women aren't allowed to be in the clergy
Let's not go there with the beards. If you value your life, stay away from comments like that particular. You are stirring a hornets nest and you do not have on any protective gear.
I think you should plead insanity before you get hammered.
I must say that I am concerned to read that any Orthodox Christian thinks that the Church should change to suit the culture. We are not talking about enculturation in regard to some of the things that are being said, but the subversion of the Church.
Let me speak as an Englishman, the son of Englishmen, and from families rooted in this English culture for the past 1000 years. It is no part of the English culture to insist that the liturgical service of the Church be shared with any who claim it for themselves. This is a novelty, and an aspect of the anti-Christian culture of self which has been allowed to flourish in the last century and which has nothing to do with traditional English culture. For 2000 years there have been no women priests in England. It is NOT our culture.
When I see a woman dressed as a priest I do not feel, as an Englishman, a great sense of comfort that Christians are responding to the present culture, rather I have a great sense of dissonance. Something feels very wrong, and is wrong. Nearly all of the women who are Anglican clergy seem to me to view the Church as a business, as a career, as an organisation in which they should be able to aspire as high as they choose. But the Church is not an organisation.
The Church should always be counter-cultural. Addressing the world in a language that can be understood but not changing the substance of the message. There are undoubtedly young folk in the Church who would like it to be more like the aggessively anti-Christian culture they inhabit for much of the week, but this rather exposes the spiritual sickness with which many of us are infected than describes an essential problem with the Church.
To suggest that the theological basis of the Church be subverted by supposed pastoral concerns is to radically misunderstand the mission of the Church. It is never to help people be happy and content in the culture they find themselves in, it is to provoke, inspire and facilitate the subversion of the false culture of the world by the true divine culture of the Church.
Most young people in the world have early relationships which are often of a sexual nature. This is how the world around acts. Undoubtedly many of the chaste Coptic Orthodox find themselves the subject of laughter, teasing and even bullying. But should the Church say 'It is better to have casual relationships as every non-Christian does, than to insist on the teaching of the Church'? Most young people in the Western culture around us drink and smoke, do drugs, watch pornography. But the Apostle St Paul is clear. He says,
1 Peter 4:3-4 For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries: Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you:
This is how much of the culture around us behaves, and St Paul was not ignorant at all of the sense of being considered strange. BUT HE DOES NOT COMPROMISE. He does not say, 'Well we don't want people laughing at us'. He doesn't say, 'Well we don't want to be at odds with the culture around us'. Nor should we abandon the treasure of the spiritual life for the worthless baubles that satisfy those whose eyes are on the ground, on earthly things, and not on the heavens. If there are young people who think that there should be an accomodation then they need to be corrected, not encouraged. The Church cannot try to 'hold on' to young people at all costs. In the end some will not wish to be Orthodox and will leave. But the Church must preserve its integrity to that it is always here for people to turn to, and return to.
Let me make some personal, rather than dogmatic, comments.
I DO BELIEVE that the present state of the diaconate is not helpful and is in some places disfunctional. The diaconate IS NOT A REWARD FOR BEING BORN MALE! It is a gift of service of the most dangerous and awesome kind, and the reason many young males are spiritually sick is because they do not value this gift of service, and approach the altar unworthily.
I DO BELIEVE that the male choir, not those signing proper diaconal responses, should not be seen as part of the Diaconate, but should be named and known as a choir. The role of the choir, it seems to me, is to facilitate, support and encourage the participation of the whole of the congregation in singing those parts belonging to the congregation. I DO BELIEVE that there is scope for female choristers. Many other Orthodox Churches have such, and this does not endanger the proper role of the liturgical diaconate. Many Orthodox Churches have, by necessity, an all female choir because there are no males who can or will fulfill the responsibility of encouraging and supporting the congregation in worship. I DO BELIEVE that perhaps if choristers, male and female, wore a choristers robe that was not a Tonia then this might make the distinction clearer. If the choir serves the whole congregation then it is clear that choir lessons should be open to all, since the aim should not be to elevate a small group of people, but to enable all to participate in the worship proper to the laity.
I DO BELIEVE that there should be fewer members of the proper diaconate (where there are already too many), and that there should be great discipline and discernment in advancing deacons through the ranks, and in maintaining order among those who do serve thus. The priest needs to know that when he is standing at the altar he can entirely rely on those who serve him and serve with him. If someone is not needed then they should not be in the altar. There should be no possibility of being bored and losing attention.
I DO BELIEVE that most Orthodox women are not concerned about becoming deacons. None of the women I minister too are seeking to take on a liturgical role, yet I could not serve as a priest without their unstinting service. When a visitor comes in they are the first to welcome the person, provide a service book, even lead them through the liturgy. When I arrive at Church it is already perfectly prepared for the worship because of the deacons in the altar and the brothers and sisters who have taken care of the place of the laity. When I lead a Bible Study males and females attend and participate fully. When I bless a house I am accompanied by males and females. When we discuss the practical matters of the Church, such as decoration etc, males and females equally participate in the conversations. When we arrange a buffet lunch or any other kind of hospitality I depend very much on the skills and advice of the sisters of the congregation while the brethren submit to the instructions of their sisters in such matters. When one of my congregation had his mother staying for a couple of months she was very regular at the liturgy though she did not speak English, nor did I speak her own language. When I gave the peace I honoured her age and faithfulness by greeting her first among the laity.
I DO BELIEVE that there is a life time of service which belongs to the laity (I am including male choir members) if we are willing to be obedient. Much of it is a hidden and humble service. Are we willing to accept such a calling? Or must we be recognised beyond the priest and senior deacons who perhaps know some of what we do in service? The Church does not exist only at the Liturgy. Most of the time we are not IN Church yet we must still BE the Church. I would rather a young chorister visited the poor, the infirm and elderly than knew all the responses perfectly. (It is no bad thing to be found doing both). This would be a better basis for setting him apart as a Reader than the fact that he is male.
I DO BELIEVE that the laity (and choir) needs to discover its true role. It is not to watch the service of the Priest and deacons. It is not to be consumers (or suppliers) of worship. We are to participate in the liturgy, and we are to be so nourished by receiving Christ our true God in the eucharist that we are enabled by the grace of God to continue this liturgy in the world.
To be a servant of the altar is a wonderful and dangerous thing. But I would rather not serve at the altar ever again than think that my service was restricted only to ministry in the Church building on a Sunday morning. Far from it. My priestly ministry has as one aim the 'ordination', as it were, of all the faithful for their own priestly ministry in their families, work-places, schools etc etc. The particular priesthood of those like myself is to enable and facilitate the wider and universal priesthood of all the faithful. The particular diaconate of a few is to enable the diaconal ministry of all.
If there are males who have been ordained as singers and to the diaconate and they act unworthily then this does not diminish the orders of the Church, it merely exposes a need for the Church to exercise discipline. If there are younger women who do not feel they have a ministry then this does not mean that the Church is deficient, or even worse is sexist, it merely means that these women require a better education in the ministry of all the laity. It might also mean that the older women in the Church need to more manifestly consider the responsibility they themselves have to mentor the younger women.
I am not a big fan of the homogenous principle in Church life. There is some value in it for Sunday School, but generally speaking there is ONE Church and we all need to participate in it. Therefore I am not comfortable with the idea of young women starting a 'diaconal' group, or even a choir. There ARE theological and ecclesial issues which must always be considered. We should not start a group just for the sake of having another group. What is the problem we are trying to address?
Qi. Only males seem allowed to sing in the choir?
Ai. We know that most other Orthodox Churches allow women choristers. Therefore it is a practical matter if the Synod chooses, and not a matter of faith.
Qii. How are females to be ordained to the choir?
Aii. There should be prayers for anyone serving in the Church in any way. But generally the choir is not a rank of the deacons. Therefore allowing females to join the choir, or a female choir, is not a matter of diaconal ordination, but of blessing for any service.
[I would say that if there was a group of people who took on the responsibility for cleaning the Church or any other regular commitment of service their service should also be blessed. This is not an ordination.]
Qiii. Why should females not be called deaconesses unless they are truly older women consecrated in such a way?
Aiii. I would answer by saying that there are perhaps many males who should not be called deacons because they are not properly so. The ministry of a true deacon, of the various ranks, should be difficult to reach and be the result of years of proven service, just as in the case of the deaconess, although the age of a deaconess is usually older. To be even a Reader should be the fruit of service and should be a ministry held with fear.
We need to understand that most males are not properly deacons, even fewer are priests, and a tiny number are bishops. It is the tiny minority of the body of the faithful who have such a liturgical ministry. Yet the work of the laity goes on every day and requires an army of servants and lifetimes of service inside the Church building and outside.
A male Orthodox has to ask himself, what will I do if I am never asked to become a Reader? Will I do nothing? Does it mean I have no service? Or does it mean that I should continue to occupy myself with the humble service of the poor, the infirm, the young, the over-worked, the tired, the doubting etc etc. Should I continue to do whatever is made known to me, and help the deacons and priest in whatever way I can?
THE CHURCH DOES NOT NEED MORE DEACONS. It needs more faithful laity and completely humble deacons.
This morning I was praying the Agpeya. I noted how the hour of Prime says nothing about liturgical orders in the Church, it says nothing about male and female. The spiritual practice of prayer unites us all absolutely, whether we are Pope, Bishop, Priest, Deacon, Chorister, Laity. Generally speaking there are no special prayers for priests. (I know there are of course). But I mean that I do not turn to the suppliment to Prime and pray, 'Lord, I thank you that you have not made me as other men, but have recognised my outstanding qualities and made me the boss of everyone!'. THIS IS NOT IN THE AGPEYA.
On the contrary we are ALL on the same spiritual journey. It requires great humility. It even requires putting up with people in authority we disagree with. It is almost always better to be obedient than to be right. This means it is better to let someone else do something badly than insist we do it correctly. It is not at all good that a 5 year old should be reading a lection. Not good at all. The ministry of Reader in the Church is a serious one for serious and committed men who have proved themselves. It was a matter of life and death in the past when they had responsibility for the welfare of the books and could be arrested and martyed for keeping them safe. But it is better to listen to the 5 year old and glorify God that even children who can barely read can glorify God than to harbour any corrosive feelings inside.
DO NOT BE DECEIVED. There is no difference between a young woman wishing she could be a deacon and be noticed, than for a young man to wish he could be a deacon and be noticed, or a priest and be noticed. When our beloved and glorious Father among the Saints, the Light of the East, St Severus, was in exile in Egypt he worshipped standing behind a pillar so that no-one would see him. Once the priest praying the liturgy was appalled to discover that the Lamb had disappeared during his prayers. He knew that there was some problem with his service. It was revealed to him by an angel that St Severus the Patriarch was in the monastic congregation and he should offer the sacrifice rather than the priest-monk. There was no more important nor famous Christian in his age. Yet he was dressed humbly in common garb, and kept himself hidden, rather than draw attention to himself.
This is the example we should all follow. I am not an example by any means. But when I celebrate with many other priests I prefer to stay at the back. Who am I that I should participate at all. This is perhaps the attitude we all need to develop in ourselves, and myself more than most. Who am I? Why do I think I should have any title in the Church.
LET ME SAY that the hour you spend, UNKNOWN to all others, sitting with the elderly woman who can't get out to Church, and then cleaning her house, and doing her shopping. That hour is worth more than any amount of beautiful singing. It is worth more than standing by the priest and passing him the censer. The reality of being a SERVANT of others is worth more than the empty title of DEACON - if it is an empty title.
WE ARE ALL DEACONS AND WE ARE ALL DEACONESSES. So to the extent this is truth, let us get on with the service and not worry about the title.
It is probably axiomatic that if anyone wants to be the Prime Minister or President then they disqualify themselves for that role by their desire. But it seems to me that if anyone wants to be 'up the front' then they should not be placed in such a position. We deceive ourselves so easily. 'I only want to be a X for the sake of the Church'. Really? Is God not able to order His Church as He wills or does He need our people management skills? When a man is made a bishop he is dragged into the Church, and in many cases it has been entirely a matter of dragging him in. Who am I? How can I demand a name and a title?
What is the title St Paul took for himself?
THE CHIEF OF SINNERS
All of us, male and female, need to start from such a premise. Even St Elisabeth cried out..
Luke 1:43 Why should this happen to me, to have the mother of my Lord visit me!
and St Peter cried out..
Luke 5:8 Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord.
On what basis then, can any of us insist on any ministry or any title. If you would be great, then become the servant of all. Gain a true name for yourself. This is not a matter of organisation, or activism, or quotas. It is a reward for true service. Let us read about Dorcas,
Acts 9:36-39 Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named Tabitha, which by interpretation is called Dorcas: this woman was full of good works and almsdeeds which she did. And it came to pass in those days, that she was sick, and died: whom when they had washed, they laid her in an upper chamber. And forasmuch as Lydda was nigh to Joppa, and the disciples had heard that Peter was there, they sent unto him two men, desiring him that he would not delay to come to them. Then Peter arose and went with them. When he was come, they brought him into the upper chamber: and all the widows stood by him weeping, and shewing the coats and garments which Dorcas made, while she was with them.
Whatever title we have in the Church, will people weep for us when we are gone? Will they show with pride all the good works we have done while we served faithfully? THIS IS WHAT MATTERS.
May we all become true servants, of God and of each other, and of all in need. Nothing else matters. The exact performance of the liturgy and all of the hymns is no substitute for humble service. Sisters, do not be deceived. Do not hanker after something that is of no value, a mere name. Seek first the Kingdom of God. Become the deaconess in truth and in your youth that you might wish to be ordained as in your age. Don't get things the wrong way round. A title does not make a servant. A true servant honours the title, bad servant dishonours it.
Just to comment on Fr. Peter's point for those who clean and are consecrated to that task. In the Armenian Church they have the position of "Tbir" for which they are consecrated and are given the task of cleaning the Church. They are actually given straw brooms by the Bishop that does the consecration.
The Armenian tradition you describe sounds wonderful. I think this is one reason that it is important that we have warm fellowship with the other communities in the Orthodox communion so that we see how things like service are blessed and encouraged.
Comments
I sat in the presence of 10 bishops two weeks ago, so you can call me Anba Ilovesaintmark.
My dear, you are overreaching in a silly way. If it sounds like I am patronizing you, I am. I do not deny it. In a way I am trying to make levity of the level ascribed to this fantasy.
Please do not be a nidus for more attack and penetrance of wrong into the Coptic Church.
How about the hymns classes that some girls can't attend? (yeah...i've witnessed this)
and your point is?
i am in the Seraphim Chorus....not everyone comes in the chorus as he or she(yes we have girls in the chorus) wishes but there are rules to be followed and a test to be taken......how can men be sexist against their own gender?! hmmm, that is not because you're a girl but because you are LOUd covering everyone else voice.....their must be harmony in singing. if you can't hear the person on your right or left than you are tooo loud. if you don't see that in your church deacons than i am sorry...but that doesn't mean you make it worst. than it's their sin.......they have to worry about it....the priest their fathers or other deacons their brothers. you can be nice an tell the priest kindly. if it's your own pride than you have to deal with it.......it must not become the generality that will destroy our Church from the inside out.
[quote author=AnnaSimone link=topic=10503.msg127493#msg127493 date=1295496657]
epchois_nai_nan (And those who are interested) ---
Currently, there are those who are trying to to reinstate an official rank, preferably that of epsaltos at first, in the Southern Diocese. But this may take a long while so we serve to do what we can now.
What john said concern deacons and not anyone else...and the "reinstate" of the rank was for deacons and NOTHING ELSE....and it was done around 40 yrs ago that it's not discussed anymore.
[quote author=GODlovesme link=topic=10503.msg127496#msg127496 date=1295496893]
That's not the same as church service.
we don't serve the Church.....we serve GOd.....the LORd of the house and not the house of the LORd.....learn this. if we don't understand the basic understanding of service how are we supposed to do ANYTHING acceptable before God?!
[quote author=AnnaSimone link=topic=10503.msg127498#msg127498 date=1295497175]
Right now, we are called referred to as the choir, but we exceed the roles that a choir would do. All those who oppose the word "deaconess" in this manner, you are giving the word too much power. I understand where you're coming from, but this is not the issue.
I issue is that you are corrupting a rank in Church.
Let me step down from my nasty tone, and speak to you in the same reasonable tone that you just utilized. The Church does care about girls--deeply.
The issue revolves upon the aspect of each person reaching internally for their talents and presenting them to God as a sacrifice. Not everyone can be a priest, nor deacon, or monk/nun. Sometimes a guy will ponder in their mind that they are set for the monastery. They will even venture to the monastery as a novice, only to give up in two weeks. Does it mean that person doesn't have a role in the Church? Does it mean that God has rebuffed him? No, it just means he is not a monk.
My priest, told me, in no uncertain terms: "you are not a priest, nor should you ever consider being a priest, nor allow any bishop into persuading you into being a priest." If I were not tuned into my priest's words, I would have taken it as an insult, but I took it as a garner of his insight into my being and my talents. I trust him as my father. He is looking out for my physical and spiritual well-being.
I cannot tell you specifically what your ministry should be, or even where your talents lay. That is a journey. It is the journey of life and in seeking the Presence of God.
I agree with most of Godlovesme's descriptives about the guys, but it does not justify this fantasy presented by AnnaSimone.
I can see where you would be bothered by the scenario that you presented. I would be also. This may be a facet for you to develop such a class.
I will also give a follow-up to your previous comment about the boys "showing-off". That is a reason for separating the two genders. There are too many hormones in the teenage years. It would be difficult to maintain discipline and concentration in such settings. I'm sure you have gone on Church trips and see the effect of the "mixing". In something as critical as learning the "prayer" in the "chant", hormones do not help matters.
I am not condoning any exclusionary aspect, but I think that has to be entered as a thought and consideration.
Believe me, I have seen girls and young ladies, devoutly serving that would place shame on zit-faced guys with a Rock star mentality.
At this point in time, your main role is to sing as the choir(i still don't think you guys should wear anything at all, no reason to have a "tonya" and bless it when you aren't serving the alter or assisting in the sacrament), so you cannot say you are a deaconess.
You're reasoning doesn't make sense. If those were the only reasons why someone should be able to wear a tonya, the many deacons that serve God by singing outside the altar, and those who are readers, should not wear tonyas. And what does it matter, if we wear one or not. I'm positive I am not defying the faith by wearing one.
And I thought we already established the differences between those terms? Let's not argue for the sake of arguing.
This post was just to let those know that were interested that there is something out there that could be possible for them since it isn't disappearing any time soon. This site is all about outreach and the spreading of knowledge and that's what I am attempting to do. Thank you for everyone sharing their opinions.
You're reasoning doesn't make sense. If those were the only reasons why someone should be able to wear a tonya, the many deacons that serve God by singing outside the altar, and those who are readers, should not wear tonyas. And what does it matter, if we wear one or not. I'm positive I am not defying the faith by wearing one.
The only reason that one might were a tonya(liturgical vestment) is to serve as a clergy man in the liturgy. Clergy men are: deacons, priests and bishops.
That's why there vestment must be blessed before a service.
Real deaconesses (which i like to define as "nuns who live in the word as i was taught by priests and servants) never wear liturgical vestments. Nuns in convents never were vestments even though they do tasbeha every day by themselves and do many of the things a chorus does outside the sanctuary.
You are not defying the faith, but you are helping with harmful precedence to enter the Church that allow for a deeper penetrance of harm. I do not think you have a full scope of the matter, and the regard for harm that may come of things.
Ponder this: do the nuns of the convents enter into such role playing? They have received heavy discipline and spiritual nurture far beyond any that you have yet to encounter.
They have priests come serve them with limited male presence. They sing as choirs in the manner of the Rites of the Sacraments, but they do not assume any title or order other than in their monastic vows.
I do have great objection to your misrepresentation in terms of trying to create a propagate a wave that can somehow lift into a tidal wave of acceptance of a folly and fantasy. Experiments of this type were tried in the Northeast. They are local experiments, and do not work. They are not condoned by the Holy Synod--that is a fact.
Why does everything all of a sudden have to make sense to us for us to accept it?
Women are not excluded from the sacramental life. They can participate in each sacrament but in a more limited role of congregant instead of assistant to the priest. Why is this wrong? What happened to being happy with the talents and services God chose for us. The church as a mother, saw fit that these roles were kept for males. Why after hundreds of years are we trying to change these roles? Wearing tonya's (for clergy) has a lot of significance. They go back to the Old testament and the vestments that God himself designed for the priests.
Girls can learn hymns and participate as part of the congregation just as the men standing in the congregation participate as well. Not everyone is called to be part of the deaconate just as not everyone can be a priest, monk or nun. Women aren't meant to assist the liturgy and lead in churches for w/e reason. Its that simple. It doesn't make women lesser or anything to men. It just means they have different roles. Can a father breast feed a new born? Can a man give birth? Is a father a mom and a mom a father? No, each person has their role. During the period where a baby needs the mom physically for nourishment and care, does it make the father role less important? No it doesn't. Im sure you get my point and where im going with this.
An Psaltos is not a deacon in male or female gender.
I would also say that you should scroll down to some of Godlovesme subsequent comments.
I believe some of the disillusion of the women and their sense of displacement is related specifically to the rock stars and their improper conduct in the Liturgy.
What makes you think this rock star mentality can be suppressed in the girls/ladies, when it has not been mastered for the boys/men? I have a feeling that the breeding of this mentality will only worsen.
It makes me nauseous as it is, and there is no antacid that is going to help with the bilious taste of it all.
There are certain things that are set in our Church. One of the them is Priesthood is only for men....NOT ANY MEN, but specific ones. Not every man you meet is a deacon or a priest. does that mean that man are being sexist against their own gender?! NO!!! This shows exactly the way our Church is set.
We need to seek the Kingdom of heaven........ a pope, a bishop, a priest or a deacon do NOT have a priority of getting there. On the contrary it harder for them because with power comes responsibility and, as i believe, burden of some kind. if a girl or a man seek something different than all is done in VAIN from the beginning of that evil thought set by the devil to action taken.
There are certain things that are set in our Church. One of the them is Priesthood is only for men....NOT ANY MEN, but specific ones. Not every man you meet is a deacon or a priest. does that mean that man are being sexist against their own gender?! NO!!! This shows exactly the way our Church is set.
But women are passed up for consideration completely. That is where the objection lies.
but that is not how the Church is set up. That's not what the Bible says and how we should live our Christian life. The Bible says no divorce but you have people who give you logical reasons for one but it can't be Biblical. Now you are objecting another full concept that is out of our realm in this post..........read are books about this issue and i suggest you search and read. There goes your first mistake (sorry to be that judgmental)...but the second that you stray from the main goal, the second everything breaks away. EVERYTHING we do in our life must somehow, directly or indirectly, be part of us getting to the Kingdom of the heavens. The true ultimate gift we gained is the Holy Spirit through whom we get the rest of the gifts: grace, salvation, redemption...etc. Priesthood is a gift that God Himself grants to those He chooses. He chooses men to be a likeness of Him, the High Priest on the order of Melchizedek, to be on earth to lead His flock to the right path to Him. He didn't downgrade women in fact He was incarnated of one, full of grace, highest in virtue, love and grace not only on earth but IN HEAVEN also.
As it is always said in our Church, concentrating fully on one part of the picture and not the whole picture when needed, causes us to forget certain things that we must know.
Consider the fact that a woman was created from the side of Adam close to his heart to be equal to him in the eyes of God.
Consider how a human life can't be created with out both of them....not one of each and not both of the same.
Now to talk about the culture problem..........culture changes but why should that change us as much? We must adapt to some certain extent....that extent is placed by the Bible and the Church. No matter how much the world changes, it must NOT change us. As i have just said before, you take away your eyes from the goal, Heaven, you lose sight of it easily and act as it doesn't exist in a world that fashions you more than you change it. (when i say "you" i refer to everyone and not a specific person.)
are you saying that you want the Coptic Orthodox Church to have women priest and bishops?
Example #1:
The Episcopalian Church in the United States (the local Anglican Tradition in the United States). I won't go into too much detail but you can see the progression and the infestation which carried forward into the rest of the Anglican Traditions throughout the world.
Female Deacons ===> Female Priests====> opened the door for homosexual deacons ====> homosexual priests ====> female bishops =====> homosexual bishops.
You can all do your due diligence and follow the historical sequence. It is quite well outlined in any sources you may search.
Example #2:
The Declaration of the reposed Supreme Catholicos of All Armenians, Lord Karekin I, which was unopposed by the Holy Synod of Etchmiadzin, of "anyone baptized in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" be accepted as a Christian, regardless of who baptized him or how and inclusive of any denomination. This opened the door to many cataclysmic issues within the Armenian Church for which they are struggling to deal with as a mess. Unfortunately, the succeeding Catholicos, Karekin II, has quietly upheld this nonsense.
This ill-begotten tenet was developed as a result of influence from parallel function with the Episcopalian Church in the United States. As background, Karekin I, was originally an Archbishop under the Antelias jurisdiction in New York, before being made Catholicos over the House of Cilicia, and later becoming Supreme Catholicos in Etchmiadzin. He was heavily influenced by the liberalism of the Episcopalians during his tenure in New York City. He attend academic enterprise at their seminaries and was influenced even more.
Example #3:
This scenario I lived through, experienced, and was involved in the timeline.
St. Nersess Armenian Seminary was started by the thrice blessed Archbishop of memory Tiran Nersoyan. It was to be a training ground for Armenian clergy, with the thought of breaking from the influence of the Episcopalian training that Armenian clergy were getting.
In the late 80's there was an attempt to allow women to be admitted for studies in order to foster training and allow for talents and studies to be perpetuated throughout the Diocese and the local parishes. A certain woman from one of the Northern Armenian parishes was nominated, by her priest, to enter studies at St. Nersess. She felt, wrongly and erroneously, that this was a key moment for her and that she was being given the green light to become the first Armenian female priest. This concept was in parallel to what was happening in the Episcopalian Church of allowing for the first Episcopalian female priest.
She went through her studies, and graduated and then she started a campaign to being ordained as a priest. It caused great strife within this parish and within the entire Diocese. Ultimately, under Archbishop Torkom Manoogian (who later became the current Armenian Patriarch of Jerusalem) and Archbishop Khajag Barsamian (the current Archbishop of the Eastern Armenian Diocese in the USA) this was not allowed to proceed as a campaign. This caused much grief, fights, and outright bitterness with factions and dissention in Armenian parishes throughout the Diaspora. There were claims and suppositions about supposed back door deals that were not honored.
A good number of people left the Armenian Church to become members of the Episcopalian Church. This woman of mention, left and became an Episcopalian female priest.
Let us fast forward to the middle 90's at an ordination of an Armenian male priest at a parish in Northern New York. This same woman, who was a co-seminarian to this particular deacon, and a friend from the same common parish of growing up, was invited to attend the ordination. I was present at this ordination and participated in different ways. Archbishop Khajag was to carry out the ordination. She presented herself with the Episcopalian "vestments" and asked to vest and be in the procession. She was granted this request. She was not allowed to participate in the service in any manner, but certainly her presence and attire was stirring a lot of murmuring and rumor during the service. It was a major distraction.
Moreover, she presented herself for Holy Communion at the end. Unfortunately, the Archbishop, himself, offered her the Eucharist in her mouth. I believe he was not looking for any bad encounters. What was even more upsetting was that an Irish Catholic Congressman was also granted the Eucharist, because he has been "a friend to the Armenian cause through the United States Congress". This act was in concordance with the second example I gave.
Clearly, the small actions can permeate through a Church on a parish basis, later to a Diocesan level, and even fully to the Church on a worldwide basis. I believe the terms that would be proper are: parasitic and cancerous. One also realizes that when parasitic and cancerous processes are not checked and cured they become a destruction of the Body. This is the process that the Armenian Church is dealing with throughout Its expanse in the World--among other things.
AnnaSimone, you have no right to reach with conquering terms of: "deaconess", 'we will eventually achieve', 'this cannot be stopped'. They all breed an arrogance that can have destructive consequences. I urge everyone to voice objection to the nonsense of promoting any feminism, no different than objection to chauvenism, in the Body of the Church. My dear, you are misguided in your thoughts and you are helping to promote the cause of Satan against the Church.
A CHOIR IS ONE THING, TONIAS AND INCORRECT TITLES FOR WOMEN IN THE CHURCH, ARE UNACCEPTABLE AND INCORRECT.
I URGE EVERY FEMALE, NO DIFFERENT THAN ANY MALE, TO SEEK OUT THE KINGDOM OF GOD, THEIR GOOD PRESENCE IN THE MINISTRY AND THE BODY OF THE CHURCH, AND TO NOT INFLATE THEIR EGO OR THEIR CONDUCT BEYOND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SACRAMENTS OF THE CHURCH. DO NOT BE AN INSTRUMENT FOR SATAN.
One of the cute sayings that are learned in history classes is: "Those who do not heed the lessons of history are doomed to repeat its mistakes."
Give up?
BEARDS!
That's why women aren't allowed to be in the clergy
Let's not go there with the beards. If you value your life, stay away from comments like that particular. You are stirring a hornets nest and you do not have on any protective gear.
I think you should plead insanity before you get hammered.
Just some brotherly advice.
Let me speak as an Englishman, the son of Englishmen, and from families rooted in this English culture for the past 1000 years. It is no part of the English culture to insist that the liturgical service of the Church be shared with any who claim it for themselves. This is a novelty, and an aspect of the anti-Christian culture of self which has been allowed to flourish in the last century and which has nothing to do with traditional English culture. For 2000 years there have been no women priests in England. It is NOT our culture.
When I see a woman dressed as a priest I do not feel, as an Englishman, a great sense of comfort that Christians are responding to the present culture, rather I have a great sense of dissonance. Something feels very wrong, and is wrong. Nearly all of the women who are Anglican clergy seem to me to view the Church as a business, as a career, as an organisation in which they should be able to aspire as high as they choose. But the Church is not an organisation.
The Church should always be counter-cultural. Addressing the world in a language that can be understood but not changing the substance of the message. There are undoubtedly young folk in the Church who would like it to be more like the aggessively anti-Christian culture they inhabit for much of the week, but this rather exposes the spiritual sickness with which many of us are infected than describes an essential problem with the Church.
To suggest that the theological basis of the Church be subverted by supposed pastoral concerns is to radically misunderstand the mission of the Church. It is never to help people be happy and content in the culture they find themselves in, it is to provoke, inspire and facilitate the subversion of the false culture of the world by the true divine culture of the Church.
Most young people in the world have early relationships which are often of a sexual nature. This is how the world around acts. Undoubtedly many of the chaste Coptic Orthodox find themselves the subject of laughter, teasing and even bullying. But should the Church say 'It is better to have casual relationships as every non-Christian does, than to insist on the teaching of the Church'? Most young people in the Western culture around us drink and smoke, do drugs, watch pornography. But the Apostle St Paul is clear. He says,
1 Peter 4:3-4 For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries: Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you:
This is how much of the culture around us behaves, and St Paul was not ignorant at all of the sense of being considered strange. BUT HE DOES NOT COMPROMISE. He does not say, 'Well we don't want people laughing at us'. He doesn't say, 'Well we don't want to be at odds with the culture around us'. Nor should we abandon the treasure of the spiritual life for the worthless baubles that satisfy those whose eyes are on the ground, on earthly things, and not on the heavens. If there are young people who think that there should be an accomodation then they need to be corrected, not encouraged. The Church cannot try to 'hold on' to young people at all costs. In the end some will not wish to be Orthodox and will leave. But the Church must preserve its integrity to that it is always here for people to turn to, and return to.
Let me make some personal, rather than dogmatic, comments.
I DO BELIEVE that the present state of the diaconate is not helpful and is in some places disfunctional. The diaconate IS NOT A REWARD FOR BEING BORN MALE! It is a gift of service of the most dangerous and awesome kind, and the reason many young males are spiritually sick is because they do not value this gift of service, and approach the altar unworthily.
I DO BELIEVE that the male choir, not those signing proper diaconal responses, should not be seen as part of the Diaconate, but should be named and known as a choir. The role of the choir, it seems to me, is to facilitate, support and encourage the participation of the whole of the congregation in singing those parts belonging to the congregation. I DO BELIEVE that there is scope for female choristers. Many other Orthodox Churches have such, and this does not endanger the proper role of the liturgical diaconate. Many Orthodox Churches have, by necessity, an all female choir because there are no males who can or will fulfill the responsibility of encouraging and supporting the congregation in worship. I DO BELIEVE that perhaps if choristers, male and female, wore a choristers robe that was not a Tonia then this might make the distinction clearer. If the choir serves the whole congregation then it is clear that choir lessons should be open to all, since the aim should not be to elevate a small group of people, but to enable all to participate in the worship proper to the laity.
I DO BELIEVE that there should be fewer members of the proper diaconate (where there are already too many), and that there should be great discipline and discernment in advancing deacons through the ranks, and in maintaining order among those who do serve thus. The priest needs to know that when he is standing at the altar he can entirely rely on those who serve him and serve with him. If someone is not needed then they should not be in the altar. There should be no possibility of being bored and losing attention.
I DO BELIEVE that most Orthodox women are not concerned about becoming deacons. None of the women I minister too are seeking to take on a liturgical role, yet I could not serve as a priest without their unstinting service. When a visitor comes in they are the first to welcome the person, provide a service book, even lead them through the liturgy. When I arrive at Church it is already perfectly prepared for the worship because of the deacons in the altar and the brothers and sisters who have taken care of the place of the laity. When I lead a Bible Study males and females attend and participate fully. When I bless a house I am accompanied by males and females. When we discuss the practical matters of the Church, such as decoration etc, males and females equally participate in the conversations. When we arrange a buffet lunch or any other kind of hospitality I depend very much on the skills and advice of the sisters of the congregation while the brethren submit to the instructions of their sisters in such matters. When one of my congregation had his mother staying for a couple of months she was very regular at the liturgy though she did not speak English, nor did I speak her own language. When I gave the peace I honoured her age and faithfulness by greeting her first among the laity.
I DO BELIEVE that there is a life time of service which belongs to the laity (I am including male choir members) if we are willing to be obedient. Much of it is a hidden and humble service. Are we willing to accept such a calling? Or must we be recognised beyond the priest and senior deacons who perhaps know some of what we do in service? The Church does not exist only at the Liturgy. Most of the time we are not IN Church yet we must still BE the Church. I would rather a young chorister visited the poor, the infirm and elderly than knew all the responses perfectly. (It is no bad thing to be found doing both). This would be a better basis for setting him apart as a Reader than the fact that he is male.
I DO BELIEVE that the laity (and choir) needs to discover its true role. It is not to watch the service of the Priest and deacons. It is not to be consumers (or suppliers) of worship. We are to participate in the liturgy, and we are to be so nourished by receiving Christ our true God in the eucharist that we are enabled by the grace of God to continue this liturgy in the world.
To be a servant of the altar is a wonderful and dangerous thing. But I would rather not serve at the altar ever again than think that my service was restricted only to ministry in the Church building on a Sunday morning. Far from it. My priestly ministry has as one aim the 'ordination', as it were, of all the faithful for their own priestly ministry in their families, work-places, schools etc etc. The particular priesthood of those like myself is to enable and facilitate the wider and universal priesthood of all the faithful. The particular diaconate of a few is to enable the diaconal ministry of all.
If there are males who have been ordained as singers and to the diaconate and they act unworthily then this does not diminish the orders of the Church, it merely exposes a need for the Church to exercise discipline. If there are younger women who do not feel they have a ministry then this does not mean that the Church is deficient, or even worse is sexist, it merely means that these women require a better education in the ministry of all the laity. It might also mean that the older women in the Church need to more manifestly consider the responsibility they themselves have to mentor the younger women.
I am not a big fan of the homogenous principle in Church life. There is some value in it for Sunday School, but generally speaking there is ONE Church and we all need to participate in it. Therefore I am not comfortable with the idea of young women starting a 'diaconal' group, or even a choir. There ARE theological and ecclesial issues which must always be considered. We should not start a group just for the sake of having another group. What is the problem we are trying to address?
Qi. Only males seem allowed to sing in the choir?
Ai. We know that most other Orthodox Churches allow women choristers. Therefore it is a practical matter if the Synod chooses, and not a matter of faith.
Qii. How are females to be ordained to the choir?
Aii. There should be prayers for anyone serving in the Church in any way. But generally the choir is not a rank of the deacons. Therefore allowing females to join the choir, or a female choir, is not a matter of diaconal ordination, but of blessing for any service.
[I would say that if there was a group of people who took on the responsibility for cleaning the Church or any other regular commitment of service their service should also be blessed. This is not an ordination.]
Qiii. Why should females not be called deaconesses unless they are truly older women consecrated in such a way?
Aiii. I would answer by saying that there are perhaps many males who should not be called deacons because they are not properly so. The ministry of a true deacon, of the various ranks, should be difficult to reach and be the result of years of proven service, just as in the case of the deaconess, although the age of a deaconess is usually older. To be even a Reader should be the fruit of service and should be a ministry held with fear.
We need to understand that most males are not properly deacons, even fewer are priests, and a tiny number are bishops. It is the tiny minority of the body of the faithful who have such a liturgical ministry. Yet the work of the laity goes on every day and requires an army of servants and lifetimes of service inside the Church building and outside.
A male Orthodox has to ask himself, what will I do if I am never asked to become a Reader? Will I do nothing? Does it mean I have no service? Or does it mean that I should continue to occupy myself with the humble service of the poor, the infirm, the young, the over-worked, the tired, the doubting etc etc. Should I continue to do whatever is made known to me, and help the deacons and priest in whatever way I can?
THE CHURCH DOES NOT NEED MORE DEACONS. It needs more faithful laity and completely humble deacons.
This morning I was praying the Agpeya. I noted how the hour of Prime says nothing about liturgical orders in the Church, it says nothing about male and female. The spiritual practice of prayer unites us all absolutely, whether we are Pope, Bishop, Priest, Deacon, Chorister, Laity. Generally speaking there are no special prayers for priests. (I know there are of course). But I mean that I do not turn to the suppliment to Prime and pray, 'Lord, I thank you that you have not made me as other men, but have recognised my outstanding qualities and made me the boss of everyone!'. THIS IS NOT IN THE AGPEYA.
On the contrary we are ALL on the same spiritual journey. It requires great humility. It even requires putting up with people in authority we disagree with. It is almost always better to be obedient than to be right. This means it is better to let someone else do something badly than insist we do it correctly. It is not at all good that a 5 year old should be reading a lection. Not good at all. The ministry of Reader in the Church is a serious one for serious and committed men who have proved themselves. It was a matter of life and death in the past when they had responsibility for the welfare of the books and could be arrested and martyed for keeping them safe. But it is better to listen to the 5 year old and glorify God that even children who can barely read can glorify God than to harbour any corrosive feelings inside.
DO NOT BE DECEIVED. There is no difference between a young woman wishing she could be a deacon and be noticed, than for a young man to wish he could be a deacon and be noticed, or a priest and be noticed. When our beloved and glorious Father among the Saints, the Light of the East, St Severus, was in exile in Egypt he worshipped standing behind a pillar so that no-one would see him. Once the priest praying the liturgy was appalled to discover that the Lamb had disappeared during his prayers. He knew that there was some problem with his service. It was revealed to him by an angel that St Severus the Patriarch was in the monastic congregation and he should offer the sacrifice rather than the priest-monk. There was no more important nor famous Christian in his age. Yet he was dressed humbly in common garb, and kept himself hidden, rather than draw attention to himself.
This is the example we should all follow. I am not an example by any means. But when I celebrate with many other priests I prefer to stay at the back. Who am I that I should participate at all. This is perhaps the attitude we all need to develop in ourselves, and myself more than most. Who am I? Why do I think I should have any title in the Church.
LET ME SAY that the hour you spend, UNKNOWN to all others, sitting with the elderly woman who can't get out to Church, and then cleaning her house, and doing her shopping. That hour is worth more than any amount of beautiful singing. It is worth more than standing by the priest and passing him the censer. The reality of being a SERVANT of others is worth more than the empty title of DEACON - if it is an empty title.
WE ARE ALL DEACONS AND WE ARE ALL DEACONESSES. So to the extent this is truth, let us get on with the service and not worry about the title.
It is probably axiomatic that if anyone wants to be the Prime Minister or President then they disqualify themselves for that role by their desire. But it seems to me that if anyone wants to be 'up the front' then they should not be placed in such a position. We deceive ourselves so easily. 'I only want to be a X for the sake of the Church'. Really? Is God not able to order His Church as He wills or does He need our people management skills? When a man is made a bishop he is dragged into the Church, and in many cases it has been entirely a matter of dragging him in. Who am I? How can I demand a name and a title?
What is the title St Paul took for himself?
THE CHIEF OF SINNERS
All of us, male and female, need to start from such a premise. Even St Elisabeth cried out..
Luke 1:43 Why should this happen to me, to have the mother of my Lord visit me!
and St Peter cried out..
Luke 5:8 Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord.
On what basis then, can any of us insist on any ministry or any title. If you would be great, then become the servant of all. Gain a true name for yourself. This is not a matter of organisation, or activism, or quotas. It is a reward for true service. Let us read about Dorcas,
Acts 9:36-39 Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named Tabitha, which by interpretation is called Dorcas: this woman was full of good works and almsdeeds which she did. And it came to pass in those days, that she was sick, and died: whom when they had washed, they laid her in an upper chamber. And forasmuch as Lydda was nigh to Joppa, and the disciples had heard that Peter was there, they sent unto him two men, desiring him that he would not delay to come to them. Then Peter arose and went with them. When he was come, they brought him into the upper chamber: and all the widows stood by him weeping, and shewing the coats and garments which Dorcas made, while she was with them.
Whatever title we have in the Church, will people weep for us when we are gone? Will they show with pride all the good works we have done while we served faithfully? THIS IS WHAT MATTERS.
May we all become true servants, of God and of each other, and of all in need. Nothing else matters. The exact performance of the liturgy and all of the hymns is no substitute for humble service. Sisters, do not be deceived. Do not hanker after something that is of no value, a mere name. Seek first the Kingdom of God. Become the deaconess in truth and in your youth that you might wish to be ordained as in your age. Don't get things the wrong way round. A title does not make a servant. A true servant honours the title, bad servant dishonours it.
Father Peter
answered about it.
1. Can women hold or have ever held positions of authority such as deaconess or priest-ess in your church?
http://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=754&catid=442
2. Why cant girls become deacons like boys?
http://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=1143&catid=442
Im sure these are already answered here but i just wanted to add them just in case :)
Just to comment on Fr. Peter's point for those who clean and are consecrated to that task. In the Armenian Church they have the position of "Tbir" for which they are consecrated and are given the task of cleaning the Church. They are actually given straw brooms by the Bishop that does the consecration.
The Armenian tradition you describe sounds wonderful. I think this is one reason that it is important that we have warm fellowship with the other communities in the Orthodox communion so that we see how things like service are blessed and encouraged.
Father Peter