CC BY
20Elena Narinskaya
Doctor of Theology and Religion; Associate member of Department of Theology and Religion
E-mail: Elenarinskaya@yahoo.co.uk
Oxford University
18 Havelock Rd, Oxford OX43EP, United Kingdom
Conciliarity and Women in the Orthodox Church
The piece shows a deep concern with the Orthodox church's current exclusion of women from ordination and church hierarchy, which affects conciliarity and fullness of the participation of the laity within the church. The article dwells on various issues: the meaning of conciliarity, the shifting status of women in Western societies, ecumenicity, the roles women play in the church, the role of tradition, and its misperceptions. It touches upon key events such as the pan-Orthodox Council of Crete (2016), it shows the awareness of the debates and consultations within the Orthodox church concerning gender and ordination and ordination of deaconesses. Patriarchy is looked into as a background development of male dominance, while also democracy and position of women in it is analysed. The 100% male clergy situation in the Orthodox Church today is taken under consideration and analysed. Ordination of women discussed from theological, traditional and practical perspectives. Discussions on tradition, priesthood and scripture are offered through the principle of consiliarity.
Keywords: Theology, Ordination, Women, Orthodox Christian Church, Tradition, Ecumenicity, Conciliarity.
For citation: Narinskaya E. Conciliarity and Women in the Orthodox Church. Theology: Theory and Practice, 2022, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 5-22. DOI: 10.24412/2949-3951-2022-0140
Наринская Елена
доктор теологии Даремского университета;
ассоциированный член богословского факультета
E-mail: Elenarinskaya@yahoo.co.uk
Оксфордский университет
18 Havelock Rd, Oxford OX43EP, Великобритания
Рассуждения о соборности и женщинах в православной церкви
Статья состоит из рассуждений о положении женщин в православной церкви, и рассматривает этот вопрос через принцип соборности. Автор анализирует поставленную проблему с пастырской, богословской и практической точки зрения. Статья указывает на проблематику исключения женщин из клерикальных / иерархических служений в современной православной церкви. Это, в свою очередь, оказывает определенное влияние на понимание и воплощение принципа соборности в церкви, и предотвращает полноту участия мирян в церковном устройстве и благополучии. Статья поднимает различные темы для дальнейшего обсуждения: общее понимание принципа соборности, положение женщин в западных странах, экуменичность церкви, роль женщины в церкви, роль церковной традиции и разные отношения к ней. В статье упоминаются различные ключевые церковные события современности, как Всеправослав-ный экуменический собор на острове Крит в 2016 г., указывает на рассуждения изнутри церкви о вопросах рукоположения женщин с богословской, исторической и пастырской точек зрения. Патриархальный устрой рассмотрен как фундамент развития мужского доминирующего влияния. Также принципы демократии проанализированы по отношению к позиции женщин. Клир, состоящий из абсолютного преобладания мужчин рассмотрен и проанализирован как феномен современной православной церкви. Вопрос о рукоположении женщин также рассмотрен с точки зрения богословия, традиции и практики. Рассуждения о традиции и священстве предложены через призму принципа соборности.
Ключевые слова: богословие, рукоположение, женщины, православная церковь, предание, все-ленность, соборность.
Для цитирования: Наринская Е. Рассуждения о соборности и женщинах в православной церкви // Теология: теория и практика. 2022. Т. 1. № 3. С. 5-22. DOI: 10.24412/2949-3951-2022-0140
Conciliarity definition
From the outset this essay will be proposing its own definition of the word conciliarity. It might not be one's most well-known or used word, like love or hate, but the same observation and perhaps even a principle applies to it. As with many fancy words or well-known common words it seems like each inflames their own meaning on them. And as the following quick browse over the internet will show below, the meanings offered could be quite different, and often polar-opposite. Therefore, one's own definition of the word conciliarity is in order as a foundation stone of developing the argument in this presentation.
Merriam Webster online dictionary presents the following definition of conciliarity: 'the principle of government found in Eastern Orthodox churches that places final authority in representative councils' [Conciliarity]. What is noticeable in this definition is its distinct religious affiliation and foundation in the Eastern Orthodox Christianity, but also the particular projection to the hierarchic authority that is considered as a definitive for the word conciliarity. The next reference of the Merriam Webster dictionary is to the word SOBORNOST, which is a Russian equivalent of the word conciliarity. What is interesting to notice here is that the Russian word carries a very different approach in defining the word. Merriam Webster definition of Sobornost is the following: 'spiritual harmony based on freedom and unity in love'. Ecumenicity: 'the principle of spiritual unity and religious community based on free commitment to a tradition of catholicity interpreted through ecumenical councils of the Eastern Orthodox Church' [Conciliarity]. The definition here is heavily grounded in the spiritual domain with the basis on the principles of freedom, love and unity. This principle of unity is going to be taken as a foundation principle for the argument in this presentation.
What is interesting to notice in various selected definitions of the word conciliarity presented above is the evocation of various influential capacities/facets in the life of the human, church, tradition, culture and society as a whole. There seems to be strong influences that determine our appreciation of the reality that we surround ourselves in. The influences of external factors upon us depend on the amount of authority and power that we attribute to them. For example, one cannot easily avoid being a product of their own cultural or religious heritage, one is bourn within a certain historical period with certain views being popular and others being marginal and so on. These are basic factors, among many others, be it family, education etc., that form the foundation of our background for our adopted views and preferences. As we grow in maturity and find our own path we can choose consciously either to adhere to the inherited views or choose alternative ones. Our chosen formation could also be a symbiosis of our heritage and our own development outside it, or perhaps adopting some other trends of modernity, tradition and son on. Every step of the way one revisits the foundation stones of our life and reassesses them according to the stage we are in and our adherence to certain hierarchical, scholarly critical, or distinctively individual points of view.
Hierarchy and its historical context
The following part of the study will further unravel the appreciation of hierarchy, as it was referred to as the formal definition of conciliarity in Merriam Webster dictionary quoted above. The reason for bringing the discussion in this area is in order to show how our ideas and perceptions of hierarchy was forming within the particular historical context. To bring the discussion closer to the theme of the study, that is conciliarity and women in the Orthodox church the following part of study will point out to the certain historical, cultural / political, traditional aspects that were influencing the development of the position of women in the church throughout the history of hierarchy. In order to further address the subject one needs to look at the phenomenon of patriarchy. Consulting the Merriam Webster dictionary one finds the following definitions of it: 'social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line'. There is also a broad definition of patriarchy: 'control by men of a disproportionately large share of power', and the following rather vague definition, which does not really reveal much: 'a society or institution organized according to the principles or practices of patriarchy' [Patriarchy]. What strikes in the definition above, especially the latter two examples, is its one-sidedness, which scratches the modern ear with its negative flair towards women. The purpose of this study is outside the definitions of patriarchy, but within the definitions of conciliarity and women in the Orthodox Church. Therefore, referring to patriarchy is necessary. However, before the study proceeds further into its designated course, it is important to appreciate the facts that within the patriarchal religious structures there were some systems in place in order to protect and even cater for the basic needs of women1. These systems and structures could be considered inadequate for the twenty first century sensitivities, but when studying patriarchy in its context one has to learn to put aside the further historical development outside patriarchal norms and regulations.
What is important to highlight here in this study is a very important feature of patriarchy, which influenced heavily the development of women leadership in particular, but perhaps even more broadly, the appreciation of women in the Orthodox Church in particular, as well as women in the society and its hierarchy. What is clear as far as patriarchy and hierarchy is concerned is the situation of male dominance in all aspects of human developments and opportunities, be it in the church or in the society. However, the biological specificities of human species is not very much affected by the patriarchy. Women were and still are the ones who give birth to children. What could perhaps be highlighted here is the shift from women prime domain as home in patriarchal structures towards women having access to education, employment, politics, and other areas of the society and its structures as western world in
1 This could be seen in Judaism in the tradition of marriage contracts which stipulates financial allowance for women in case she finds herself alone ad without protection of a man. In Orthodox Christian tradition there were instances when women of means chose not to get married and lose their possessions, but become monastics and keep their financial independence from a man. There are prominent stories of women leadership in England of early centuries with women saints and leaders, be it Hilda of Whitby (614-680CE), Etheldreda of Ely (~636-679CE), Frideswide of Oxford (650-727CE), and the tradition of women leadership followed after the unity of church was jeopardised in 1053CE, e.g. through Julian of Norwich (1343-after1416CE) and others.
particular, but also other European cultures leading the way towards drifting away from the patriarchal influences and structures.
Church in general, and particularly more traditional branches of it, of which Orthodox Church is one, seem to be less mobile in accommodating the distinct shift in the society towards establishing space for women to grow, develop and to be encouraged and appreciated. The situation in the society is still far from ideal and definitely not yet complete as far as gender balance is concerned, but there is a movement accompanying transition from patriarchal society towards the new one where women's rights are appreciated and respected as much as men's. Democracy seems to be the blueprint for these newly emerging societies where women's rights and opportunities are gives some consideration. Miriam Webster dictionary gives the following definition of democracy: 'government by the people', especially the 'rule of the majority' [Democracy]. This sounds more like Soviet slogans for socialism. Democracy is by far not the i instead of given deal governance system. Modern days show that on the paper it looks much better than in reality, when corruption, passiveness of people's participation in free election severely effect egalitarian democratic principles. However, Western world seems to have adopted democracy at this point. Whether it is a suitable form of governance for the church is the question that needs to be addressed further. Parish general elections of trustees are usually held democratically, so one can assume that on the lower levels of governance democracy is used and gender equality is balanced. However, the problem that one cannot ignore is Church hierarchy, which is still 100% male.
As usual, Merriam Webster online dictionary gives further definitions of democracy: 'a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections' and 'the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges'(ibid). The latter definition of democracy seems to be apologetic to the societal norms in the past. It seems to indicate the process in the society when the historical 'mistakes' are revisited and an attempt is made to build a society when obvious form of injustice is avoided. The same principle could be applied to the church governance and more so to hierarchical structures. Currently they are well established only accommodating male and clerical participants. However, this does not reflect on the principle of conciliarity. How is thinking of women in term of conciliarity in the church can help to improve the gender balance representation women in hierarchy, history, culture, tradition? In order to help answering this question the certain very important aspect of the definition of conciliarity needs to be addressed further.
Conciliarity as Ecumenicity
Unravelling the different facets of conciliarity the principle of ecumenicity comes very handy. If one ponders on ecumenicity as vigilant awareness of the oikumena, be it church and its surroundings, then one is continuously open to change. The beauty of this life, and the life in the church is that it is constantly evolving and changing, be it because of the people in it or due to the history taking its course. During the mundane existence of the church or in the turbulent times of struggle the principle of ecumenicity remains. One is constantly on the lookout for improving its potential and enhancing its abilities. It is almost like running one's
business, exercising vigilance and awareness of the market, so that business improves. As far as the church trajectory it is further and higher2, which is the opposite of stagnation, which is at best standing on one spot, but most probably moving backwards, if not acutely visible at first. The common misconception about safeguarding and preserving the 'Holy Tradition' insists on actively preserving it by avoiding any change, and almost being legalistic to the letter often totally disregarding the principle of ecumenicity. Instead, the people adhering to this form of safeguarding the tradition often smear the principle of ecumenicity by painting it into the modern liberalism and even heresy insisting on close-minded appreciation of one's Orthodoxy as a segmented and disconnected from the rest of the oicumena body. Such an approach, in return, could be seen resembling more the sectarian or even heretical mind-set, being hostile to the outside influences, close-minded and segmented appreciation of one's own much broader and deeper tradition. The principle of openness and ecumenicity is inherently interwoven into every step of the historical, theological, scriptural and cultural development of the Orthodox Church. It is not random that the first eight councils of the church were and are called ecumenical, as they were inspired by the principles of conciliarity and ecumenicity. As far as the reasons for these councils, it is often the awareness and openness of the church to its development that instigated the councils. The church was refining its theology, was formulating its foundations in dogmas, and in order to do it had to stay open to the spirit and to the world around it, and to its own traditions and developments. The task was of an impossible magnitude, which lead to the long process of trial and error. The first schism originated in the fifth century, after the council of Calcedon (451CE), which separated the oldest Orthodox churches of Armenia, Syria, Ethiopia, Egypt, Iraq from the churches of Greece, Balkans and Russia. The first schism laid a rather painful foundation jeopardising conciliarity message of the Christendom. It showed the lack of ecumenicity at the time alongside the triumph of one Christological formula over the other3. The second big schism was in the eleventh century (1053), and it crowned painful separation and the divide between Rome and Constantinople. Further centuries saw more division and separation in the church weakening its conciliarity principles further, which in turn severely afflicted the church's ministry as a one body of Christ. History saw unpleasant exchanges between the churches, which often materialise in 'us and them' attitude, which is detrimental for the Christian unity.
2 Proverbs 15:24; 4:24; Mathew 5:48.
3 The first schism resulted in separation of Oriental Orthodox churches from the undivided Christian tradition. These are still not in Eucharistic communion with the Eastern Orthodox churches. These churches are Armenian Apostolic Church, Coptic Orthodox Church, Erithrean Orthodox Church, Ethiopian Orthodox Church, Malankara Orthodox Church, Syriac Orthodox Church. For more information on the first schism one can consult the following sources: [Does Chalcedon Divide or Unite?, Gregorios, Lazareth and Nissiotis, eds., World Council of Churches, Geneva, 1981; Farrell, Joseph P., Free Choice in St. Maximus the Confessor, St. Tikhon's Seminary Press, 1989; Greek-English Lexicon, Liddell and Scott, eds., Oxford University Press, 1968; Greek Orthodox Theological Review, Vol. XVI, nos. 1&2, Spring & Fall, 1971; Grillmeier, Aloys, Christ in Christian Tradition, Volume One: From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon, John Knox Press, l975; Grillmeier, Aloys, Christ in Christian Tradition, Volume Two, Part One: From Chalcedon to Justinian I, John Knox Press, l987; Meyendorff, John, Christ in Eastern Christian Thought, Corpus Books, 1965; Meyendorff, John, Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions, SVS Press, 1989; Patristic Greek Lexicon, G. W. H. Lampe, ed., Oxford University Press, 1984; Pelikan, Jaroslav, The Christian Tradition, Volume 2: The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700), University of Chicago Press, 1974].
Whoever delights in the schism and casts away the principle of ecumenicity has to seriously reread their scriptures4 to start with and also will have to self-educate themselves in the history of the church to fully realise the tragedy of the schism and the damage to the oikumena that it continuously poses5.
To conclude the initial thought of this section one highlights the state of ecumenicity which initiates openness and active position of the church and its members and facilitates the environment within the church which is open to change and further development of the tradition as a living tradition, and which in return makes the church a living church.
The fact that women in the church are excluded from its hierarchy allows the following question: How do women contribute to the potential of the church in modern times? It is crucially important to highlights at this point that women accumulate an ever-growing potential by acquiring very high levels of education, both secular and religious. Although it is a relatively recent development in the history of the humanity, which only came about after equal rights movements of 18th century, be it suffragettes or later on feminists. The social equality of women allowed them to accumulate and contribute to the society. Hence, in the current worlds women keep on accumulating an invaluable potential in the society, history, politics, arts and so on.
As far as the ecclesiastical context for women, a lower levels or a grassroots initiative show the signs of women occupying a prominent position in the parish councils, theological education. The awareness of women's potential has not yet reached the top echelons of ecclesiastical structures, thus, preventing women from contributing their gifts and abilities for the use of the church. One could suggest that the apprehension and possibly fear of change is rather strong in preventing women to fruitfully utilised themselves in the certain areas of ecclesiastical context. In the time of women running the countries, as for example, the prime minister of Finland, Sanna Marin, 37, who also makes a record of being one of the youngest political leaders in the world, the message of the church seems to delay in appreciating the benefits of the society from women's contribution. The world around us are still getting familiar with women holding responsible and crucial roles in the society, be it leaders and head doctors in the hospitals, while also receiving all due recognition for their contributions, be it scientific and humanitarian. In spite of gender prejudices still obstructing some women in achieving their full potential, the process is set in motion and rolling allowing more capable women taking over and growing into their significant roles of service to the world, society and humanity.
One the one hand, it does look like the church follows the gender dynamic in the society, in allowing women to fulfil their potential in the theological education leadership roles, or on the parish levels. On the other hand, there is still no change with allowing women in church hierarchy. This signifies a considerable delay posed by the church leadership in recognising the use and the need for women's participation and input. More flexible and more open to
4 Mathew 12:25, Mark 3:25.
5 For more information one can consult the following books: [Taft, Robert F (2010), Perceptions and Realities in Orthodox-Catholic Relations Today, Fordham; Henry Chadwick. East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church: From Apostolic Times until the Council of Florence. Oxford University Press, 2003; Louth, Andrew (2007). Greek East and Latin West: The Church, AD 681-1071. St Vladimir's Seminary Press].
change ecclesiastical communities of Protestant persuasion have been making a good use of women religious leadership for a rather long time. In the Anglican church the first woman was ordained as a minister in 1992. Her name was Angela Berners-Wilson, and she was presented for ordination first in alphabetical order after the General Synod approved its final legislation on the matter on the 11th of November 1992. Antoinette Brown Blackwell is considered to be the first ordained minister in America. Her ordination took place in 1853. Although it might be still considered relatively recent as a development, it is nonetheless showing that the religious organisations follow on the civil movements and civil organisations allowing women to take part in the essential offices of the church governance. The earliest women were granted the right to vote in national elections were only in 1983 in New Zealand, 1902 in Australia, 1906 in Finland, 1913 in Norway. In the UK, for example, only some women were granted to vote in parliamentary elections in 1918, and only in 1928 men and women were given equal voting rights the first time. This statistic suggests that on a case to case basis it is not often the state that paved the way for women liberation, but as have been pointed above, sometimes the church leads the way. The institute of ordained female ministries was flourishing in the early centuries of the church6, but gradually declined under the influence of the patriarchal developments7. However, ancient church of the second century saw women ordained into the roles of bishops and priests8.
More traditional churches, be it Catholic or Orthodox ones would not actively support reinstating ordination of women to this date, but have an impressive number of women theologians, historians, parish leaders, administrators of the church, choir leaders etc9. It seems only the matter of time when the ordinations will follow, but the wait could be still significant, as in vast majority people are not educated enough to discern the need and the benefits of women in church hierarchy. The average parish life and concerns of the people usually revolve around Sunday services with little education and encouragement for women to take more active roles in the church or taking part in its governance and official decisions of doctrinal or practical matter. The following part of the work will attempt to pin-point some advantages and disadvantages of the current situation in the church hierarchy.
6 The earliest record of female diaconate was recorded in the NT, Romans 16:1: I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae (NIV). On ordination of women in Orthodox church the following authors could be consulted: Evangelos Theodorou, Kallistos Ware, K. K. Fitzgerald, Valerie Carras, Carrie Federick Frost, Elena Narinskaya, Gabrielle Thomas, Teva Regule, Vassa Larin, Elizabeth Behr Siegel and others.
7 Macy, Gary (2008). The hidden history of women's ordination: female clergy in the medieval West. New York: Oxford University Press; Madigan, Kevin; Osiek, Carolyn, eds. (2005). Ordained Women in the Early Church: a Documentary History (pbk ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
8 Montanist movement practiced it in the early church, as referred to by Kienzle, Beverly Mayne; Walker, Professor Pamela J.; Walker, Pamela J. (1998-04-30). Women Preachers and Prophets Through Two Millennia of Christianity. University of California Press.
9 Patricia Fan Bouteneff recently carried out a survey which established that women perform a wide variety of leadership roles within the Orthodox church, even if they do not 'wear cassocks, beards, and pectoral crosses'. Such roles include pastoral care, chaplaincy, spiritual direction (especially on the part of women who have dedicated themselves to a monastic life), diplomacy within the church, administration, acting as trustees, directors, or treasurers of theological seminaries or parishes, organising music and serving as choir directors, teaching, serving as librarians or archivists, painting icons, embroidering church vestments, teaching Sunday school, engaging in public speaking and academic writing, blogging, translating, and many others [Bouteneff, 2016]. Bouteneff notes, however, that such activity remains largely unacknowledged and unrewarded by the official church C07 Page: 71 Stage: Draft 2/6/23 72 Mary B. Cunningham hierarchies [Bouteneff, 2016; Bouteneff, 2018. P. 2-3].
Conciliarity and hierarchical institutional governance
In the Orthodox church ordained ministries are 100% male. It has been like this for a long time, i.e. for centuries, which allows the assumption that this is how it should always be. The advantage of this argument is that it is assumed and accepted by default, it does not rock any boats and does not provoke controversies and disagreements in the church. Hence, the church remains unchanged, the tradition follows from the previous centuries, and it gives to many people comfort and security on a superficial and perhaps on a psychological level. If one looks at the current situation from the pastoral, theological, and even practical point of view, than the situation becomes less comfortable, and perhaps less acceptable as a particularly healthy for the church and its followers.
On a practical level male clergy invites only male and clerics for the church councils. This was clearly demonstrated at the latest council in Crete of 2016. Only four lay women were invited as observers, while more than 200 male clergy took part in the gathering. Preventing women's ordination automatically deprives them in taking part in influencing and forming doctrinal and practical decision of the church which they belong to. Such a disproportional, although to a certain extent traditional approach to church governance, was not always the case. Various biblical verses suggest that all lay and ordained people represented members of the body of Christ (e.g. Rom 12:5; 1 or Cor 12:27), while practically speaking, representation of women in the governance of the church is negligent, which severely diminishes the capacity of the church's conciliarity as such. It is diminished by more than half, as statistically women form the bigger part of Orthodox congregants and attendants of the churches.
Following on the idea of how painfully compromising the conciliarity effects the church, one could revisit the examples of two schisms in dividing the church. They stand as a grievous reminders of how one off schism could bring an end to the reality of undivided church. The separation was also detrimental as it created hostility among Christians of various denominations, thus, bringing the schism at the very core of the body of Christ, i.e. in people's minds and hearts.
Once conciliarity was jeopardised, the further development of the church also suffered. For the purpose of this study of conciliarity and women in the church, one can notice that women roles in the church gradually diminished when the ordination of women declined, and the roles of leadership for them were more and more scarce in the church eventually resulting in patriarchal structures overwhelming the governance of the church. It was not the case in the early period of the church when women were much more active in the church, as reflected in the epistles of Paul. In some Christian sects women could have been ordained as priests, preachers and prophets, for example, in Gnostic and Montanist communities. It is noteworthy that these communities were shunned from the main stream Christendom and consequently took their female ministries with them. So by the end of the first couple of centuries of the Christian era women were restricted to semi-formal roles of widows, virgins and in some cases ordained deaconesses [FitzGerald, 1998. P. 1-17; Kateusz, 2019. P. 49-65; Wijngaards, 2002]. And gradually these designated women's ministerial orders declined in the church.
'How is referring the councils of the church similar to talking about women in the church?' — one might ask. The connecting link is the principle of conciliarity and the advantages it brings to the church when the church upholds this, while clearly marks the disadvantages for the church when it does not. The lack of conciliarity during the schismatic councils of the church penetrated into the core of the body of Christ, and brought the division from the top to the very bottom of people's hearts and minds. It does not reflect on the dogmatic accuracy of the principles upheld in these councils, but what is important to highlight that in spite of the true Orthodoxy being upheld, the Orthopraxy was damaged solely by the fact that conciliarity of the church was compromised. This clearly shows that in the church there could be no big or small issues when it is the question of conciliarity. One might say that conciliarity of the dogmatic councils prevails over the conciliarity of the gender dynamic in the church. As this study will show, each subject, no matter how big or small it might seem on the surface, could be magnanimous in its effect on the church. This is because whatever has influence on people's minds and hearts brings it to the core of the church, it becomes the church. And if whatever it is doesn't uphold the principle of conciliarity, it is most likely having a detrimental effect on the church. As Christ put it very clearly, 'whoever is not with me is against me'.10 One could further develop this thought is stating whoever is not consciously upholding the principle of conciliarity could be labouring against Christ and against his church.
Conciliarity and ordination of women
A rather dramatic parallel between conciliarity and Christ, presented in the passage above, is not meant to blame or demonise, but to mark a serious point in continuing the conversation on the subject of conciliarity and women in the Orthodox Church. The most controversial subject of women in the church remains the question of women's ordination. This question remains for the most part dormant in official ecclesiastical circles, it has been discussed in academic and less formal contexts in recent years [Behr-Sigel, 1987; Behr-Sigel, 1991; Hopko, 1983; Hopko, 1999; Thomas, Narinskaya 2020]. How does this situation relate to conciliarity? First and foremost, restricting ordained ministries by gender does not stand as a strong argument. Secondly, theological arguments against women's ordination lack any substantial depth and credibility. Many people already dealt with the basics of the traditional, theological arguments opposing women's ordained ministries (Cunningham, Kallistos Ware, Behr-Siegal etc). It is not about the weakness of the arguments opposing women's ordination that matters in this study, but the effect on the conciliarity that these opposition presents. This brings the question to its third domain, that is its practical application. Christian community consists of variety of people who bring their potential gifts as their offering to the body of Christ. Each person's abilities, in the spirit of conciliarity as a unity in love, are to be appreciated with the openness that this unique unity affords. It is in a sense a unique opportunity for the church to utilise its gifts from its people, either as leaders or as ministers, as a teachers or chanters or preachers or else.
10 Mathew 12:30, Luke 11:23.
In relation to approaching the question of conciliarity and the ordination of women, the only criteria that seems relevant to adopt, perhaps, is the need of the church. The other important criteria to apply is the ability of the person to fulfil the ministry. The other question to consider is whether this step is benefiting the church, its flourishing and growth as the body of Christ, and whether this step fulfils one's personal calling for this ministry. The gender of the person should not play such a significant role in the process of selection of a right candidate for the ministry on a spiritual, theological, ecclesiological, scriptural or pastoral levels. What makes it slightly difficult to accept and implement in the current climate is a cultural, historical and perhaps even psychological levels. These levels cannot and should not be ignored, but perhaps should be addressed as such. When they are not addressed as cultural hindrance, the tendency is to pretend that they are not cultural, but theological or spiritual, in order to give them a somewhat bigger significance in conversation. However, by addressing the difficulties on cultural, psychological or historical contexts could help some people with clarity and understanding, and most of all with education about their traditions, its depth and width and variety of small traditions throughout the history.
It is, therefore, a calling that ideally should determine selection process of the person for the ordained ministry. Firstly, it is the calling of the church as a body of Christ, its needs and aspirations. And secondly, it is the calling of Christ within a person. When both or one of these two is clear, the wisdom is to seek for the other, and if the other is fulfilled than there should not be significant obstacles to follow on with the opportunity to fulfil the calling. However, the realities are usually much more complex and much less straightforward. However, the basic principle at the foundation of the process should be a principle of openness, love, unity, i.e. conciliarity. Conciliarity, in this particular sense, could be defined as the state of constant openness of the church as a body of Christ to its own needs and to its ability to serve in the best possible way, so that it fulfils its mission of preparing people for salvation, facilitating their lifestyle of servitude and perfection on their path leading towards God, goodness and grace, love and unity, the path of conciliarity. In that sense the emphasis of the body of Christ is never on the gender, but on humanity, on personhood. It correlates with the basis of Christology and Orthodox anthropology, which puts as the core foundation of it not a gender, but a person. As the specific gender of Christ is never plays a major role in theological contemplation of Christology, and neither it is greatly embellished in patristics, nor should it matter in looking at any human person in considering them for this or other ministerial roles in the church of Christ. Therefore, strict gender restrains on ordained ministries in the Orthodox Church today can no longer be unquestionably accepted as a norm. In the spirit of conciliarity one would never bluntly reject it either, but asking the appropriate questions and attempting to find the right answers are in order. This is exactly the purpose of this study, and the main theme of it seems to be rather helpful in the process.
The principle of conciliarity here could contribute to the definition of the body of Christ, the church, in the sense that it encourages a unity of love, firstly, between each person and their God, and secondly, between one person and another. When the argument of upholding the tradition is used as a shield against the positive change in the church than perhaps one ought to address this argument in detail and again contemplate its relationship with the basic
Christian principle of conciliarity. Mary Cunningham offers the following conclusion in her contemplation about women in the church: 'The Christian view that every person in the church is an essential member of the whole body — and belongs to 'a royal priesthood' (1 Pet 2: 9) — undermines to some extent the need for women, as well as men, to be ordained. However, the absence of women from official synods or councils is a problem that needs to be rectified' [De Lange, Narinskaya, Sheridan (eds.), 2023. P. 73].
The following part of the study will carry on assessing major foundation stones of the Orthodox Christian Tradition against the principle of conciliarity. The considered topics will be tradition, priesthood and scripture. This will help in further understanding conciliarity as the foundation of Orthodoxy.
Conciliarity and tradition
What constitutes the tradition in the Orthodox church? The most simplified formula could be distilled to two major ingredients: Scripture and Fathers of the Church. It is insufficient to talk about tradition without giving a broader definition of the Orthodox Church. Wikipedia gives the following definition of the Eastern Orthodox Church: 'Eastern Orthodox theology is based on the Scriptures and holy tradition, which incorporates the dogmatic decrees of the seven ecumenical councils, and the teaching of the Church Fathers' [Eastern Orthodox Church].11 There are at least two hypostases that could be identified constituting the same Orthodox tradition. They both are held as holy and sacred, but in reality they are quite different, and often contradicting. One tradition is of the dogmas, councils, theological discourses, which could be identified as Orthodoxia, while the other one is its practical implementation, which could be called Orthopraxia. The reason these traditions do not always see head to head is because there is often a gap between theology and practice in everyday life of our church. Sadly, and unsatisfactory as it is, this is a reality that we all leave in every day of our life. We are given a richest and greatest gift of beautiful and richly inspirational theology, but as we strive to implement it in practice we fail continuously. Often this is the way of our life from the beginning to its end. And the failures are often a bigger part of our experience. Rare successes are exceptional privileges of a scares number of people. Stating all of the above, we are encouraged to keep on trying, firstly and fore-mostly to better ourselves, and secondly, to better the world around us. As St Seraphim of Sarov once said, 'acquire the peaceful spirit and thousands around you will be saved'12, which could be rephrased as change yourself by working on peace, love and harmony in yourself to change the world. The general principle of changing the world starting with yourself is vocalised in the Gospel as well13.
We are encouraged to look at our own falls and shortcoming before exposing the ones of the others, or even exposing the ones of the church. These are very important stumbling blocks or rather principles of our conduct within the church, but these are not contradictory
11 Further reading could be recommended starting from the foundational book written by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Church [Penguin, 1993], and The Orthodox Way [SVSP, 1979].
12 St Seraphim of Sarov, published in 'Беседа преподобного Серафима Саровского с Мотовиловым Н.А.'
13 Matthew 7:3-5: Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
to the others. There is also a very important principle of taking responsibility for one's own actions, but also taking responsibility for the church, delighting in its successes, but also acknowledging its shortcomings. The story of Noah in his indiscretion might not necessarily be helpful in every instance. Sim covered his father's modesty, while Ham exposed it. Exposing the shortcomings of the church practice, even well-established and long-serving, for the sake of being fair to the tradition might be a necessary thing to do. Doing so with all due respect and appreciation for the church is also a way forward. It is never easy to go against a main stream, but this is where the democracy could differ from the foundation principle of the church, from Christ. When he forced himself to the temple courtyard and started trashing the place, He was doing so exposing the well- established and long-serving practice, which was not beneficial for his kingdom, but which was perhaps very convenient and familiar for most.
A further consideration of the tradition would encourage the definition of tradition to be a living one, which means not the one that is written in stone, frozen and cold, but burning and palpable, the one that is relieved by every member of the church at every moment of their life. The living tradition does not emerge from mechanical reading of the words and prayers from the book, but from the disposition of one's heart and mind, their openness to growing into love and unity. Hence, conciliarity could be seen also as a main ingredient of the tradition, when one digests one's scripture and one's Fathers of the church and makes their presence alive in their day to day life. How it is possible? Looking at the historical changes of the tradition and in the tradition one learns not to be afraid of the fact that the living tradition is constantly undergoing the change. This does not mean that old traditions have to be thrown away and new ones build from the scratch. One grows into understanding of the tradition and determining which elements of the tradition are core elements and which ones are of a temporal, transitional nature. For example, when one moves away from the rural village of Russian Orthodox Church and into the Greek Orthodox Cathedral in London, one notices a striking visual difference. From wooden floors to marble perhaps, from a small number of old grannies to a large congregation of young and old, modern dressed people, looking different, dressing different, but following the same liturgy of St John Chrysostom for the most part of the liturgical year. Therefore, the exterior is of changeable and therefore temporal nature, while the insights of the tradition are its core. Through this experience of different Orthodox traditions with the small letter one learns to distil the Tradition from the capital letter. And in a nutshell it simply amounts to the main principle of conciliarity, that is the spirit of love and unity in love. One can freely say that if the tradition inspires love and unity than it is most probably the tradition worth considering. But one cannot oversimplify anything, not even for the sake of clarity. Tradition, as well as theology, is the matter of experience and growing into, first by learning about it, than by practicing it and making it one's own experience in accordance with the scriptures, Fathers of the Church and local traditions. When one grows confident with one's own tradition than it is also possible to look around and appreciate the traditions around the world, be it Orthodox world or a Christian one, or other. If done properly, with the spirit of conciliarity, one can learn a lot and grow in one's own tradition even stronger.
Further developing the idea of conciliarity of tradition one could unfold the idea of priesthood and a principle of conciliarity.
Conciliarity and priesthood
Priesthood and laity are two sides of one parish, every traditional Orthodox parish. Is there a unity between them? One often observes how separated and even detached the two could be. There is an altar wall that often separates them during the most intimate moments of the liturgy. During the Anaphora, for example, the priest is often reads the sacramental prayers of the anaphora silently, so they are not heard by the people, and often the choir overtakes the volume and the priest reads his prayers and might not even be heard by the members of his clergy inside the altar, while the rest of the congregation is listening to something different. The disconnect in this setting is quite audible. The tradition of reading sacramental prayers silently is relatively recent one, it did not start this way. In fact initially priests were encouraged to read the prayers out loud.14 It is important to appreciate the changes in the tradition, and perhaps revisit them if they are not helpful. Once one experiences understanding the prayers and hearing them in their own language, as well as the scriptural reading and the chants, one discovers such a beauty in liturgical tradition of Orthodox church than it makes it painful not to be able to hear it when the prayers are read silently or when the Scripture or chanting is done in a foreign language.
One could appreciate in this example how the concept of priesthood and laity is connected to the understanding of the tradition. In the wholesome appreciation of the Orthodox Church one learns to appreciate this inner connection of everything. Therefore, conciliarity could be seen as a spirit connecting everything to each other, and ultimately to Christ. Small intermediate traditions have to be connected to big traditions, and if the connection is lost, as perhaps in the case of silent prayers during anaphora that it is important to vocalise it and reinstate the tradition that is lost or blurred into the centuries of historical fluidity. Again, the greatest catalyst in determining whether tradition is blurred or compromised is the principle of conciliarity. If the ecclesiastical and liturgical unity between laity and clergy is lacking than it has to be reinstated and worked on. The current divide between laity and clergy is not necessary, as it does not help to build the unity of the church.
Another example of revisiting the divide in the church is of course, the gender divide. It is directly linked with the strictly male clergy in the Orthodox church. One does not have to invent the wheel or to propose the revolution to help the current situation. Often the answer could be found in the traditions which were forgotten, for example, female diaconate. However, in spite the fact that these traditions were widely spread across the Orthodox Church of the early centuries, reinstating them into the contemporary practices has not been yet successful. In summarising the recent attempts to do so Mary Cunningham writes the following:
'A Consultation of Orthodox Women, held at Agapia, Romania, in 1976 resulted in a plea for the 're-activation' of this order; the conference described the ministry as 'a lifetime commitment to full vocational service in the church . . . and extension of the sacramental life of the church
14 «In one liturgical tradition after another, the modern Liturgical Movement has swept aside the age-old custom of reciting at least certain liturgical prayers, especially the most solemn prayer of the eucharistic anaphora, in secret» («Was the Eucharistic Anaphora Recited Secretly or Aloud? The Ancient Tradition and What Became of It» in Worship Traditions in Armenia and the Neighboring Christian East, ed. Roberta R. Ervine, AVANT Series, Book 3, St. Nerses Armenian Seminary, New Rochelle, NY [Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir Seminary Press, 2006], p. 15).
into the life of society' [Tarasar, Kirillova, 1976. P. 40]. An Inter-Orthodox Symposium, held in Rhodes in 1988, also advocated the revival of the order of deaconesses [Kallistos of Diokleia, 1999. P. 18]. Despite these initiatives, progress has been slow. Since no official pronouncement has been made on the subject, for example at the Great and Holy Council of Crete 2016, it has depended on individual synods or bishops to ordain women to the diaconate. For example, the Synod of Alexandria voted to revive the female diaconate in November 2016 and followed this up with the ordination of five women is the Democratic Republic of Congo on 17 February 2017 (Frost 2017). It may well be that practical, rather than ecclesiological, considerations will dictate whether this move is replicated in other jurisdictions of the Orthodox church' [' [De Lange, Narinskaya, Sheridan (eds.), 2023. P. 70]].
Conciliarity and Scripture
The crowning glory of the wisdom, spirituality and didactics in the Orthodox church comes from the Scripture. Therefore, it is quite impossible to avoid consulting the scripture in the current discourse about conciliarity and women. As have been noted in the previous part of study, often one aspect of the Orthodox church, be it women, tradition, priesthood in connected to the other. The very principle of such a unique inter-connection often suggests looking at the whole and broader spectrum of the church, and apply the principle of conciliarity to the very core of it. The Orthodox Church, as a body of Christ, is built on the principle of conciliarity, so every aspect of it must adhere to the spirit of unity and love. In this sense, if one aspect of the church is compromised the whole body is afflicted, as it is reflected in the biblical parable (1 Corinthians 12:26). That is why in addressing the question of women in the Orthodox church one cannot avoid talking about anthropology, theology, tradition, Bible, liturgy and practice. Everything is connected in the spirit of conciliarity, and if one addresses the conciliarity as such in the church one has to address every single element of it in relation to the other.
The scriptural foundation for conciliarity are the words of Christ, the apostles, while in return this very principle determines how to appreciate the scripture itself. Apostle Paul advises the women of Corinth parish to be silent in the church (1 Corinthians 14:34). Is it justifiable that his advice to one parish in their particular predicament has often been singled out and taken out of its context to prevent women to preach? In this very same letter Paul suggests that it is better for unmarried to remain single as he was (1 Corinthians 7:8-9), which could testify to his preference of celibacy. And yet, many Orthodox Christian choose to marry and consider it a great blessing. It is obvious that the literal approach to the Scriptures is not helpful. In applying the principle of conciliarity to the Scripture one is able to appreciate the unity of its message and the didactic in accordance with the writings of the fathers and one's own personal experience of the life in the church.
Conclusion
The attempt of this essay was to address conciliarity and women in the Orthodox church. It usually is a daunting task to follow the discussion on women in the Church, as it still remains a controversial one, as if women are still alien and marginal species that should be treated
differently. However, focusing this study primarily on the conciliarity, and discovering how this principle is vital for every sphere of Orthodox Christian tradition, allowed one to ponder on women in the church in unison with all other aspects of Orthodox existence, be it tradition, ordination, scripture and so on and so forth. The list of different facets of Orthodox existence could never be exhaustive, as it is a living tradition, which is constantly evolving, changing and ideally improving. What this exercise in this essay confirmed is that principle of conciliarity is the one that can unite the tradition, solidify it around its core of love and unity, and with this around Christ as an ultimate example and the incarnation of these virtues. The conciliar disposition is the foundation for one's mind and one's understanding of the Orthodoxy, and it requires constant effort of keeping one's heart and one's mind open to it. Closing one's mind leads to closing one's horizons and breeds fear and hostility, which in return bears bitterness or ambition leading to conflict or further division. There comes the time in one's life when things have to be called as they are. One grows tired of observing problems being carpeted or ignored. When the body is in aching one needs to attend to its plea. The body of Christ is aching without conciliarity, without the spirit of unity and love, without respect to the gifts of its members. Women by far constitute the majority of almost any Orthodox congregation, and yet their voices are rarely heard. It is hardly what is meant by 1 Corinthians 14:34 or 1 Tim 2:12 if one looks at these verses as a didactic of the Christian scriptural message. Both Paul and Timothy lived at a particular time and attempted to address particular contexts in their letters.
When one studies the Bible it becomes clear very soon that the biblical tool can be used in support of almost every argument if the argument is put in the centre of one's search. However, if one aims to see everything through the spirit of conciliarity than scripture responds back with the same principle, the fathers of the church speak about it, and the whole tradition shines back through its continuous plea for love and unity. One chooses its own guiding principle in their Orthodoxy, and one's Orthodoxy will respond accordingly. One's judgement is one's disposition. When one cultivates and develops openness of heart and mind to love and unity than these facets become the foundation of one's own world. With these foundation one influences the people around and contributes to the experience of the church, forms its tradition. By living Orthodoxy through the prism of conciliarity one brings the scripture to life, one learns to appreciate the fathers of the church and interpret their message into one's own every day realities. It is one's privilege to open up the tradition by living Orthodoxy. The Orthodoxy that is alive is the orthodoxy that is evolving in us and with us. Asking questions and searching for answers is a necessity in this process of self-discovery and discovery of one's own religious identity. It is no longer enough just to inherit it from one's cultural background, although it could be a good start. But one's own path to God is not easy, it is a narrow one15. When one's comfort zones are expanded, when one's heart is enlarged through the process of change16, which is often through the painful process of repentance (metanoya = change in Greek). Therefore, constant change is as much of the requirements as it is to repent. Repentance brings freedom, mostly from fear and sin, openness to the path of love leading to salvation.
15 Matthew 7:13-14.
16 Psalm 119:32 bearing in mind that the main commandment it is to love.
References
Behr-Sigel Elizabeth. Le Ministère de la femme dans l'Église. CERF, 1987.
Behr-Sigel Elizabeth, Ware Kallistos. The Ordination of Women in the Orthodox Church. WCC, 2000.
Chadwick Henry. East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church: From Apostolic Times until the Council of Florence. Oxford University Press, 2003.
De Lange, Narinskaya, Sheridan (eds.) Eloney Namre: The Encounters of Jews and Orthodox Christianity. Fortress Academic, 2023.
Eisen Ute E. Women Officeholders in Early Christianity: Epigraphical and Literary Studies. Liturgical Press, 2000.
Ervine Roberta R. ed. Worship Traditions in Armenia and the Neighboring Christian East, AVANT Series, Book 3. St. Nerses Armenian Seminary, New Rochelle, NY [Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir Seminary Press, 2006].
Farrell, Joseph P. Free Choice in St. Maximus the Confessor. St. Tikhon's Seminary Press, 1989.
Fitzgerald, K. K. Women Deacons in the Orthodox Church: Called to Holiness and Ministry. Boston: Holy Cross, 1988.
Fitzgerald, K. K. ed. Encountering Women of Faith, Saint Catherine's Vision.
Fitzgerald, K. K., Bouteneff P. eds. Turn to God, Rejoice in Hope: Orthodox reflections on the Way to Harare. WCC, 1998.
Frost Federick Carrie ed. Te reception of the Holy and Great Council: Reflection of Orthodox Christian Women. Vol. 4. Faith Matters Series, 2018.
Greek-English Lexicon, Liddell and Scott, eds., Oxford University Press, 1968.
Gregorios, Lazareth and Nissiotis, eds. World Council of Churches. Geneva, 1981.
Grillmeier, Aloys, Christ in Christian Tradition, Volume Two, Part One: From Chalcedon to Justinian I. John Knox Press, 1987.
Grillmeier, Aloys. Christ in Christian Tradition. Volume One: From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon. John Knox Press, 1975.
Karras Valerie. The Liturgical Participation of Women in Byzantine Church. Catholic University of America, 2002.
Karras Valerie. Women in Byzantime Liturgy. Oxford University Press, 2005.
Kienzle, Beverly Mayne; Walker, Professor Pamela J.; Walker, Pamela J. Women Preachers and Prophets Through Two Millennia of Christianity. University of California Press, 1998.
Louth Andrew. Greek East and Latin West: The Church, AD 681-1071. St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2007.
Macy, Gary. The hidden history of women's ordination: female clergy in the medieval West. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Madigan Kevin, Osiek Carolyn eds. Ordained Women in the Early Church: a Documentary History. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005.
Meyendorff John. Christ in Eastern Christian Thought. Corpus Books, 1965.
Meyendorff John. Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions. SVS Press, 1989.
Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian Tradition. Volume 2: The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700). University of Chicago Press, 1974.
Robert F. Perceptions and Realities in Orthodox-Catholic Relations Today, Fordham, 2010.
Thomas Gabrielle, Narinskaya Elena eds. Women and Ordination in the Orthodox Church: Explorations in Theology and Practice. Brill, 2020.
Vassiliadis P., Papageorgiou N., Kasselouri-Hatzivassiliadi E., Deaconesses, the Ordination of Women and Orthodox Theology. Cambridge Scholars Publisning, 2018.
Ware Timothy (Metropolitan Kallistos). The Orthodox Church. Penguin, 1993.
Ware Timothy (Metropolitan Kallistos). The Orthodox Way. SVSP, 1979.
Wilson Hinlicky Sarah. Woman, Women, and Priesthood in the Trinitarian Theology of Elisabeth Behr-Sigel. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2013.
Conciliarity. ULR: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conciliarity (data of access: 17.02.2023).
Patriarchy. ULR: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patriarchy (data of access: 17.02.2023).
Democracy. URL: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy (data of access: 17.02.2023).
Patristic Greek Lexicon, G. W. H. Lampe, ed., Oxford University Press, 1984.
Greek Orthodox Theological Review, Vol. XVI, nos. 1&2, Spring & Fall, 1971.
Eastern Orthodox Church. URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church (data of access: 10.05.2023).
