Skip to the content
Icon of Christ
› ›

HG Anba Serapion on Female Liturgical Choirs

2»

Comments

  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    I think it is the lack of any theological or logical reason that has reduced the diaconate into what it is. If we want to elevate the diaconate, then we have to find a solid theological foundation for the clerical rank. 
  • cyril
    +1
  • Amoni
    qawe said:

    I only say this because what if we were (hypothetically) granting the male chanters to perform some of the duties of the priest.  Should the female chanters be allowed to do the same? Of course not.  Also, this 'maleness' and 'femaleness' argument above doesn't stack up because this would then justify the ordination of women to the priesthood.  And if that is the logical conclusion of what you are suggesting, then better to come out and say it directly, as opposed to intellectually dishonestly leading us all down a slippery slope to Episcopalianism.

    No qawe, this is not an argument for female priesthood. The point of the maleness/femaleness argument above is simply this: every liturgical "rank" (ordained or otherwise) carries with it a theological message. All the actions and roles of the liturgy are charged with symbolism. Now, some of these roles ought to be limited based on gender: priesthood, for example, is a male role, and should never be otherwise, because Christ is the Groom to the Church's Bride. But roles like chanting and reading the Scripture are not bound to genders; to suggest that they are (which is the implicit suggestion of the current state of things) is to corrupt the Orthodox teaching on maleness and femaleness, and endorse an unnecessary devaluation of femaleness, reminiscent of Tertullian's bizarre gender theology.

    If having female chanters and readers really did lead logically to female priesthood, then the Armenians and Syrians ought to have ordained female priests long ago. They did not, because they, unlike the Copts, have a well-articulated gender theology (e.g. http://syriacstudies.com/AFSS/Syriac_Articles_in_English/Entries/2007/10/11_Jacob_of_Saruge_on_Ephrem_and_the_Singing_Women_-_-_Dr._Kathleen_McVey.html) that explains why chanting/reading Scripture are good expressions of the female vocation.

    Here, for example, is what St. Jacob of Saruge said of the female role of praising: " [It is] as if these [words] were spoken by Moses

    to the young women whom he summoned to give glory:

    "Let you also not be reserved today with respect to praise.

    Beat the tambourines before the Savior Who freed His people.

    Not for men alone was salvation at the sea

    so that they alone should give glory to the One Who saved them.

    At the sea you crossed over with your brothers and your fathers.

    Shout out praise with them in a loud voice. "

  • qawe
    edited November 2014
    @Amoni

    I actually agree with everything you've written.

    But I wonder whether you actually believe this: "priesthood, for example, is a male role, and should never be otherwise"?
    I don't expect you to admit this publically since it would undermine your case, however, given the views of several prominent Orthodox theologians that there are no clear "theological" impediments to female ordination, I wonder how much of this is sincere belief as opposed to astute tactics ;)  You seemingly have a liberal outlook (I personally support Bishop Serapion's move but, as I have a conservative outlook, did not get overexcited and feel the need to start this thread) and this is the reason for my doubts about the above quotation's sincerity.

    This is what I mean by a slippery slope: not that A logically leads to B, but rather that many (most?) supporters of A also support B (albeit tentatively) due to their insatiable lust for 'progress'.

    A case in point:
    "within the Coptic Orthodox church where the existing customs and practices of ordaining lay men deacons into lower orders of the diaconate contradict Canon Laws that prohibit lay men from approaching the altar" Source: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Women-Deacons-in-the-Coptic-Orthodox-Church/645153102218073?sk=info
    It is unclear whether they are talking about women simply communing in the altar (OK as economia) or saying the deacon's responses (not OK).  This lack of clarity alarms me.  These people want lay women to be allowed to carry out the same functions as male deacons (real ones), or at least those that lay men are permitted to carry out.  This is a slippery slope, as I have pointed out above: lay women should only be able to carry out the historical functions of female deacons.  These feminists don't seem too concerned about this slippery slope.
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    Dear Rem,

    Thank you for the post.  Let me put your questions another way, the way we see it practiced today.  Do we really need altar servers?  Can't just the bishop or presbyter be in the altar alone and do everything by himself while we hymn to God?  Or let's put it even further.  Why do we need bishops?  Why does Christ just not say that we can celebrate the Eucharist and chrismate under the authority of every male?  You see, if I ask the question why this is necessary, then pretty much, I think this seems to stand poorly for the sacraments and for our ecclesiology.  It seems to me it's necessary because that's the way the Apostles structured it by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and that's the way I want to structure it as well because they did so.  That's the way St. Ignatius structured it, that if we do not have deacons then there can be no Church, as he said, "And do ye reverence them [the deacons] as Christ Jesus, of whose place they are the keepers, even as the bishop is the representative of the Father of all things, and the presbyters are the sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the apostles of Christ. Apart from these there is no elect Church, no congregation of holy ones, no assembly of saints." (epistle to Trallians)

    I have contemplated what it means to be a deacon.  This is my personal opinion and contemplation, not a theological fact that is established.  If it truly means that they represent Christ, then it means that every lay person should aspire to that level, at least in behavior.  To serve others is the job of all Christians, and deacons do it best.  A lot of people that assisted Paul have been called "diaconon", male or female.  And Christ himself came as a "diaconon" to others, not to have others be "dianonon" to Him.  And so when we serve, we take the place of Christ.  And so even a bishop or presbyter by heart is a "deaconon" as well in spiritual terms.  But the presbyters and bishops seem to have been set aside for another purpose in the Church.  One would represent the Apostles and the other would represent the Father.  In the Didascalia, they even made a distinction between male deacons and female deacons, the former represents Christ and the latter represents the Holy Spirit.  Either way, there is already in the early Church a seeking to make icons of the liturgical roles of the Church.  And when St. Ignatius says, "without these there is no Church", I wonder, "then what happened?"  If they took it so seriously that this is what should be the division, why did we become so slack on it?  And if it's okay to be slack, why not question the necessity of everything else in our ranks and everything that we do?  Does God really care how we organize ourselves?  That is a question that plagues us at the moment.  At least in my strict traditionalist standards, I would hope that this can be answered sufficiently, that we practice in obedience to what the Apostles established humbly until the second coming of our Lord, when all of these icons of our sacramental and priestly practices are revealed in their fulness in the Kingdom.

    So what I can say is that these early canons of the Church carried a principle that deacons do carry as much and equal importance as the bishop and presbyter.  Can they do things without the deacon?  Yes!  But we can also do things without the bishop if we so desire, or if the Apostles so wished it.  So that question taken to its extreme would make me believe, what's the point if it makes no different to just be a Protestant?  Essentially it is our ecclesiological practices that divide us all, Orthodox, Protestant, and Catholics.  Yes, there are other beliefs, but this is a major roadblock that separates us.

    And yes, a man can have a female spiritual adviser and a woman can have a male spiritual adviser.  We actually can have spiritual advisers of all genders all the time. Sometimes I like to think some Sunday school teachers really did act as beloved spiritual mothers to us.  But sometimes, there are things a woman needs advice about that only can be comfortably shared with a woman, and man for a man.  Let's face it, even today, despite our egalitarian emphases, still need some discretion on that front.  Like children, as they mature, they need guidance from something more gender-appropriate.  We also deal with sins that are gender specific at times, and that is an issue that requires separation.  Baptism also used to be nude, and because there were a lot of adult baptisms, a lot of discernment is required.  The reason we seem to not have deacons is because most of the baptized are babies.  There's no issue of scandal in that regard.  And the distribution of the Eucharist in the liturgy is not what I am concerned about, but outside the liturgy, those who could not make it.  If our Church multiplied its service, the presbyters wouldn't be able to do anything on their own.  There would be more adult baptisms, and more service to the needy.  Then, just as the Apostles did, we would ordain the deacons, because of their need.  Right now, if most baptisms are baby baptisms, and most of the needy are only those in the parish that we know and not outside the parish, then we are a sorry state of Christians.  The lack of deacons seems to mean we are not doing enough service. So not only is it against the injunction of St. Ignatius that without them there is no Church, but it is also a symptom of the lack of service we practice as Christians.

    Also, as I explained before, since we are chrismated, we are essentially having what is done to us that was only done for Old Testament priests and kings.  The oil they receive, we also receive making us all "priests and kings".  So really, all Christians, no matter the role or rank, male or female, are "priests".  That is why I make the distinction between presbyter and priest.

  • Amoni
    qawe said:

    @Amoni


    I actually agree with everything you've written.

    But I wonder whether you actually believe this: "priesthood, for example, is a male role, and should never be otherwise"?
    I don't expect you to admit this publically since it would undermine your case, however, given the views of several prominent Orthodox theologians that there are no clear "theological" impediments to female ordination, I wonder how much of this is sincere belief as opposed to astute tactics ;)  You seemingly have a liberal outlook (I personally support Bishop Serapion's move but, as I have a conservative outlook, did not get overexcited and feel the need to start this thread) and this is the reason for my doubts about the above quotation's sincerity.
    LOL, qawe. Why do you feel the need to read "dishonesty" and "astute tactics" into the words of someone who largely agrees with you? Respectfully, I'd ask you to do me the courtesy of taking me at my word, that I mean what I say. It is, I think, the charitable thing to do. I have a bit more to say about this, but in the spirit of Matthew 18:15, I've PM'ed it to you.

    Not that I should need to prove it to you, but I do believe what I wrote. My view on female priesthood is that of Schmemann (http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/SchmemannOrdination.php), and Vladimir Moss (http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/554/-dormition-women-priests/#_ftn5). I've used those articles to argue against female ordination with other people. I'm excited (or perhaps "over-excited" ...) by Anba Serapion's interview because it is the first example of support from the Coptic hierarchy for the establishment of female choirs, which you seem to agree are good things; I want the news to get out because it challenges the gut-reactions of a lot of Copts that this is a heretical and heterodox "innovation."


  • qawe
    edited November 2014
    Amoni said:

    qawe said:

    @Amoni


    I actually agree with everything you've written.

    But I wonder whether you actually believe this: "priesthood, for example, is a male role, and should never be otherwise"?
    I don't expect you to admit this publically since it would undermine your case, however, given the views of several prominent Orthodox theologians that there are no clear "theological" impediments to female ordination, I wonder how much of this is sincere belief as opposed to astute tactics ;)  You seemingly have a liberal outlook (I personally support Bishop Serapion's move but, as I have a conservative outlook, did not get overexcited and feel the need to start this thread) and this is the reason for my doubts about the above quotation's sincerity.
    LOL, qawe. Why do you feel the need to read "dishonesty" and "astute tactics" into the words of someone who largely agrees with you? Respectfully, I'd ask you to do me the courtesy of taking me at my word, that I mean what I say. It is, I think, the charitable thing to do. I have a bit more to say about this, but in the spirit of Matthew 18:15, I've PM'ed it to you.
    I never used the word "dishonesty".  I will try to be more charitable, but are you saying that you disagree with the open-endedness of Metropolitan Kallistos' position on the ordination of women?
    In relation to Matthew 18:15, I don't mind you posting it here.  I'm guessing it's about the conservative/liberal thing.
  • Amoni
    qawe said:

    And if that is the logical conclusion of what you are suggesting, then better to come out and say it directly, as opposed to intellectually dishonestly leading us all down a slippery slope to Episcopalianism.

    I suppose "intellectual dishonesty" is slightly different to dishonesty, though that is also a "slippery slope" ;) I have said that I don't support female priesthood - for you insist that I do is to suggest that I am not being honest. 

    I don't know much about Met. Kallistos' position, but as I understand it, he's saying that genders aren't a fundamental theological reality; that they are interchangeable, and not part of the basic structure of things. If that's what he's saying, then I do disagree (though I think more work needs to be done to explain why his position fails). I think that maleness and femaleness are part of created reality, which is why the Church is Christ's Bride, and why St. Mary (and not St. John or St. Peter) is held up as the ultimate symbol of the glorified Church, "above the Cherubim". Inasmuch as ordained priests are exercising Christ's priesthood, and Christ's priesthood is part of His "Groom-ness" to the Church's "Bride-ness", ordained priests must resemble Christ in gender. If Kallistos denies this, then I disagree with him.

    That said, like minasoliman has been pointing out, there's an important sense in which both men and women exercise a spiritual priesthood over creation too (distinct from the ecclesial role of presbyter).
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    edited November 2014
    Christ's "maleness" is half the story I think.  The theology of the maleness of Christ has been highly developed in the Roman Catholic church.  We have yet to find if this is true in our own tradition as it is in the RC tradition.  At the very least, we find in St. Ignatius not the idea that the presbyter and bishop are icons of Christ's maleness, but icons of the Apostles and of the Father.  So in a way, one could speculate and say Christ's maleness is a reflection of the fact that He too is an icon of the Father, not in actual gender, but in a spiritual sense.  But overall, we as Orthodox emphasize Christ's humanness, not maleness, and so I would contend that both male and female act as icons of Christ because that is what Christ wanted us to be.  No one, male or female, is exempt from the grace of being "sons" of God.  That is the entire purpose of our lives, and the eternal goal.  So I would shy away from using the maleness of Christ because that would dangerously put Christ's salvific work only for the males, and not for the females.
  • qawe
    edited November 2014
    minasoliman said:

    Christ's "maleness" is half the story I think.  The theology of the maleness of Christ has been highly developed in the Roman Catholic church.  We have yet to find if this is true in our own tradition as it is in the RC tradition.  At the very least, we find in St. Ignatius not the idea that the presbyter and bishop are icons of Christ's maleness, but icons of the Apostles and of the Father.  So in a way, one could speculate and say Christ's maleness is a reflection of the fact that He too is an icon of the Father, not in actual gender, but in a spiritual sense.  But overall, we as Orthodox emphasize Christ's humanness, not maleness, and so I would contend that both male and female act as icons of Christ because that is what Christ wanted us to be.  No one, male or female, is exempt from the grace of being "sons" of God.  That is the entire purpose of our lives, and the eternal goal.  So I would shy away from using the maleness of Christ because that would dangerously put Christ's salvific work only for the males, and not for the females.

    This is exactly the sort of argument I'm worried about.  I won't comment further here, since this is not necessarily a logical consequence of the OP (unless this 'Women Readers' cause wants women to read the Gospel, the role of the bishop, which has not been clarified), and I don't want to distract from the OP.
    However, what I do want to post is an Orthodox exposition of the theology of the maleness of Christ, which may well mark the theological trajectory and so-called 'development' of the Coptic church for the next 30 years: 

    "that would dangerously put Christ's salvific work only for the males, and not for the females"
    You'll see HG addresses this above.
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    Thank you for that. HG Bishop Raphael makes an interest point about maleness I have not heard yet. Usually the argument has a more social aspect to it. Catholics would say males need to learn to be leaders and to become self-sacrificial because they are usually spiritually lazy. Women have a natural propensity for self-sacrifice.  So I heard it as a more of an argument based on gender psychology.

    But HG Bishop Raphael is interesting.  Essentially he is saying that the male counterpart of human nature encompasses both males and females, because it is, according to genesis, the female created out of the male.  It's an interesting perspective, but I hesitate to agree with it until more research is done on this issue.
  • qawe
    minasoliman said:

    Thank you for that. HG Bishop Raphael makes an interest point about maleness I have not heard yet.

    Wow! I have just been inducted into the exclusive "people who bring up theological things that minasoliman has not heard yet" club.  So has Anba Raphael lol.
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    I always learn something new everytime. That's why I love forums at times. ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.