Female religious leaders

[Lalaith]

Very interesting discussion.

I was just thinking some of these very things today, as I sit back and watch our deacon body start destroying our church now that our pastor has left. Our deacon body that is comprised entirely of men, btw. And those women you mention, Ax? They are alive and well at our church!

I feel like I am on the brink of a major church change. Once before, I almost became Catholic. I'm not sure I could go to that extent now, but I most definitely might pursue something non-Baptist.

What you said, Ax, makes a lot of sense. I have never thought of that before....

In fact, I just said to Freddy tonight, "I am not so sure that this idea of only allowing men to run the church is a wise one. I don't mind submitting to authority [male or otherwise, but in this case I was referring to the male authority in our church] IF the person is a good person, a good leader, non-corrupt, etc. But I cannot sit under the authority of a corrupt person."

Lali

[Primula Baggins]

That's sad, Lali. It's upsetting to watch a church fall apart like that.

Whether to submit to authority or not is an individual choice. But I am inclined to be wary of any authority that's automatic and immutable—where because of my own unchangeable nature, there is no chance I will ever be allowed to speak up to it.

[Lalaith]

I think there was a lot of lip service paid to women having a voice in the church. And, in truth, we are welcome to serve in areas of leadership, so long as they are not over men. We can vote, we can speak up in business meetings. We serve on all kinds of committees (personnel, pastor search, nominating, etc.). But things have shifted now that the deacons are in control of everything. Somehow it just, well, doesn't sit well with me now. Maybe I felt like our pastor truly cared what women had to say, but I don't think the deacons do.



Yes, I am afraid my church is falling apart. At the very least, it's falling apart for me.


Lali

[Primula Baggins]

That's rough, Lali.

And I must say I have seen no negative result of women in authority in the church, including women pastors, which my branch of the Lutheran church has had for well over thirty years. Perhaps the men who just could not handle that left when it first happened. But I don't think a lack of rigid authoritarians has exactly hurt us. Nor has it diminished the necessary authority of pastors.

[WampusCat]

I'm sorry you're going through this, Lali. Jesus told his followers to serve one another, but too many people conveniently forget that. They prefer to seize and exercise power. And you can hardly get less Christian than that.

The best pastors -- male and female -- are servant leaders. They exercise authority, but do not attempt to control or manipulate others. The best lay leaders -- male and female -- are also servant leaders. I have been in churches where I have seen the best behavior and in churches where I've seen the worst. Sometimes it's the pastor, sometimes the congregation. Sometimes both. Sometimes they tear at each other until the church crumbles.

Good luck. If I were you, I would find a church that is more interested in empowering all its members to do Christ's work than in consolidating power with a few. But that is a very personal decision, and old ties are hard to break, for many good reasons.

[Primula Baggins]

Wampus is, as always, wise.

[MithLuin]

I guess I have never seen the issue of ordaining women as being about women having a voice or role of power in the church. I wasn't kidding about women running things - most of the staff of most churches I've attended are women, and the parish council (which is the decision making body) has women on it. Both my father and mother have served the church in various roles throughout the years, both practical and liturgical. My father was (briefly) on the planning committee of the parish council, and my mother served on the regional council (which made decisions for all the parishes in our neck of the woods, ie, the county, not the whole diocese). My sister was a youth minister. I cannot think of a single Director of Religious Education (DRE) who has been a man; they are all women. They are the ones who organize Sunday school and sacramental preparation. So, yes - they are in charge of what gets taught. They choose the curriculum, find the teachers, everything.

The only role that is reserved to the priesthood (and thus to men) is a sacramental role - saying mass and hearing confessions. Women can (and do) control the budgets, the schedules, and the decision-making process in many Catholic churches. In parishes that do not have a priest assigned to them, the pastor may be a deacon or even...a woman.

I realize that all of our bishops are men. But again, I know lay women who work in the bishop's office. When I look at how things work, I very much consider it to be my church. This doesn't mean I agree with everything or like all the decisions. But I do not have a problem accepting the authority of my Church leaders, and I respect (most) of them. I also feel that they respect women.

Ordination is not a 'right' or something to demand. It is a gift that is given to serve the community. If you feel called to serve...you can find a way. More precisely, we're all called to serve...it's just a matter of finding your niche. For my parents right now, that's prison ministry. You don't have to be a priest to visit people in prison. As a lay person, you can even take communion to them.

I am not suggesting that non-Catholics have to like the way we do things. I am just saying that, as a Catholic, I do .

I am not opposed to women in leadership positions. When the search committee for the new president of my school met with the faculty to ask us what type of person we wanted, I watched my collegues beat around the bush a bit, then finally raised my hand and said, "If we are a girls' school that purports to develop women leaders, then it only makes sense that we should have a female president." It's not that I think a man would have done a bad job, it's just that I thought it would be good to have a female role model, if possible. They did hire a woman, and more significantly, the candidates they brought in for interviews were all women (IIRC). So, I don't regret saying that, even if what everyone always wants to say is, 'the best person for the job, regardless of who they are.' But since we currently have 2 graduates in the US Congress, we really do take the 'developing women leaders' thing seriously. I see it in the culture of the school, and I wanted our leadership to reflect that.

I just don't see any reason for women to be priests.

[JewelSong]

I just don't see any reason for women to be priests.

But...do you see a reason for them NOT to be priests?

I think that's the real question.

(Well-written post, BTW.)

[superwizard]

Nice topic!

1. What religion/spirituality and denomination are you?
Muslim/Sunni

2. Does that denomination have female religious (non-lay) leaders (priests, rabbis, ministers, etc)?
I think there are a few. Its rather different in Islam (I'm talking specifically about sunni islam) where there is not really a centered body that decides things. There have been in the past religious leaders who were women even several centuries ago. There is debate on whether a woman can lead the Friday sermon and another separate (but related) one about whether women can lead prayer. Some people hold that it is ok and others disagree.

3. If yes, what age were you when women were first ordained?
N/A

4. If yes, have you ever belonged to a congregation led by a female religious leader? How did it compare to your experiences with male religious leaders?
N/A

5. If no, would you prefer that your denomination ordain women? Why or why not?

6. What difference - if any, whether positive or negative - does it (or would it) make to you for your religious leadership to include women?

I've always been very glad that women from the early days did have a role in shaping my religion. There really aren't many official positions in sunni Islam but still there were female religious scholars way back to the earliest days of Islam (one of the main sources of narrating religious sayings of the prophet was his wife) and in the past women have been muftis as well as qadis (judges)...

ETA: Oh and there is as well an issue of women becoming the Caliphs or the leader of a community. Traditionally I don't think the majority of the scholars argued that they could but nowadays it has become quite mainstream for people to say that they think the leader can be female. I have always felt very strongly and I'm really glad that women can be the leaders.

[solicitr]

But...do you see a reason for them NOT to be priests?

I think that's the real question.

Because the Catholic Church operates on the basis that there are certain Rules which simply cannot be changed. Not no way, not nohow. Ordaining women is one of them. If the Church suddenly started rewriting doctrine just because 'times have changed', it wouldn't be the Church. It would be, well, the Anglicans.

(Allowing priests to marry is an entirely different thing. That has never been a matter of dogma, and in fact priests were permitted to marry up until the ninth or tenth century- as Orthodox priests(whose sacerdotal status Rome recognizes) still are. Peter himself, the first Pope, was married! In extraordinary circumstances the Church does actually still ordain married men. In any event, priestly celibacy is no more than a 'discipline,' in other words just part of the Employee Handbook like wearing black.).

[WampusCat]

The sacramental role is so central to the church that yes, it does matter that women are barred from it, even if they can do many other jobs.

The Catholic Church may, of course, set its own rules. I strongly feel that those rules are not in the spirit of Christ (which is why I am Episcopalian).

[JewelSong]

Mithluin, has your position on women priests been properly described by the posts above?

[Jnyusa]

In Judaism it's different too, because the Rabbi doesn't have any special powers. He's a scholar, which is the most highly-respected profession in Jewish culture, but not more than that. The real power, if you want to call it that, is held by the President of the synagogue.

The conservative and reform branches of Judaism do ordain women rabbis.
But in orthodox Judaism women are not ordained and they are not allowed to sit on a religious court either, a beth din. I think that exclusion from the courts might be closer to the kind of distinction made in Christian branches that do not yet ordain women than would exclusion from the rabbinate. If I were to press for change within orthodox Judaism (which I will not because I'm not a member of that community, but if I were ...) it would be to admit women to the beth din rather than to admit them to the rabbinate, I think. We have some very famous women judges in historic Judaism! And I think that female exclusion from this function really is just a matter of modern discrimination and power-hoarding.

[MithLuin]

Jewel, the source of inspirations for decisions in Catholic Christianity is twofold: Scripture and Tradition. Scripture gives us the Apostles, a group of men who became the first bishops, as well as many other disciples including women. The women are mentioned by name, were the ones who stuck with Jesus til the end, and were the first ones he appeared to when he rose from the dead. Clearly, they had a prominent role in the early church. But they were not apostles, not even Mary Magdalene (sometimes called 'the apostle to the Apostles' because she brought them the good news in the Upper Room) or his mother Mary. Women were certainly very important in the early church, but did not share the liturgical role - they were not priests (presbyters in some translations).

Tradition does not mean 'the way we've always done it' but rather includes the wisdom of the Church through the ages - the writings of the Church Fathers, the decisions of the Church Councils, etc. In 2000 years of history, we have nothing in Tradition that would support the ordination of women. For a church that did not consider Tradition to be a guiding force, this might not be a problem, but it is a huge deal for the Catholic Church. We see Tradition as one of the ways in which the Holy Spirit guides us to follow God's will. Disregarding the prompting of the Holy Spirit is considered to be a Very Bad Thing.

So, the Catholic Church has come to the conclusion that it has no authority to ordain women. I respect that decision, and it does not bother or upset me - at all. I'm fine with the all-male priesthood, just as I am fine with the all-female order of nuns that runs the school where I work.

As for a reason not to, as you requested...it would be a very ambiguous move liturgically and symbolically. Currently, the primary metaphor for Christ's relationship with the church is as bridegroom and bride. The priest stands in persona Christi (in the person of Christ) during sacraments, and thus is married to the Church, in a way. I'm not sure how the metaphor would change if you had a priestess instead,* I only know that it would be different. And so...I can respect the hesitancy of the Church to change the way things are currently done. Certainly, there are changes that can be made to the priesthood, and we always want better, holier priests. But I don't think changing the nature of the priesthood is the way to do that.


Just as a reminder, I am speaking of the Catholic priesthood - I am not suggesting that women would be incapable of being religious leaders, and other groups can make their own decisions as to how to choose and train spiritual leaders. My church selects priests from among unmarried young men who are willing to make a life-long commitment to the task and take vows of poverty, chastity and obedience (in most cases). They also must be able to handle the coursework (ie, learn Latin and take college-level philosophy/theology) and be in good mental and physical health, with no outstanding debts or dependants.


*Theologically, all souls are feminine in comparison to God because we receive our life from Him, which makes St. John of the Cross' poetry more comprehensible .

[JewelSong]

Interesting.

I always had a great deal of trouble with the analogy of the church being the "Bride of Christ." It feels...I don't know, kind of icky (for lack of a better word) to me. And the church I was brought up in (Presbyterian) certainly used that language. I never liked it...not even when I was very young.

Also, theologically, God is neither male nor female. So therefore, references to souls being "feminine" because God is masculine really don't make much sense to me. I always thought Jesus referred to God as the "father" for the sake of analogy, not because God was actually male. (In fact, there is at least one place where Jesus compares God to a mother - a mother hen, looking after her chicks, if I recall correctly.)

I do think that the idea of a "male" God has been perpetrated and promoted by the Judeo-Christian religion. It is interesting to read the Old Testament and see how the feminine side of the the Divine was slowly and deliberately excised.

I think that this is the reason for the deification of Mary by the Roman Catholic Church. People NEED a God who represents both genders and the traditional God of the Judeo-Christian faith is decidedly male.

There needs to be a return to the feminine Divine, in my very humble opinion.

[MithLuin]

I did not say that God was male, I said that souls were feminine (not female). In this case, masculine and feminine refers to the dicotymy of giving and receiving. Since we are very much meant to be receptive to the life and grace that God pours out for us, that puts us in the position of being feminine, and the soul is called 'she' to represent this.

Of course God the Father is not male or female (not having a physical body, I'm not sure what that would even mean). Certainly God has some traditionally feminine characteristics, since he made both males and females in his own image and likeness. I realize that the Bride of Christ analogy (or referring to Jesus as the Lover of my Soul) is not necessarily comfortable for everyone, but it is biblical. Any Christian faith is going to have to deal with the Marriage-supper of the Lamb and the Song of Songs in some way. And I always imagined Jesus taught us to call God Father so that we understood our relationship in terms of parent/child, emphasizing his love for us, and the whole concept of 'heirs'. But while he did use the analogy of the mother hen in one case (about himself, incidentally), he called God the Father....Father. I doubt the word choice was arbitrary or meaningless, so if Mother was a more appropriate term, I think he would have used it.

Treating Mary as divine is very much not compatible with Catholic theology, by the by. I realize that we honor her more explicitly than many other Christian traditions, but she is not God and we do not treat her as such. She gets to be the spouse of the Holy Spirit, and first among the saints, and queen of heaven. So, yes, pretty unique. But not a member of the Holy Trinity (suggesting such would be blasphemy). All generations will call her blessed, but not divine.

[Primula Baggins]

The thing I am puzzled by, though, Mith: Is Tradition the only guide for doctrine? Is the Holy Spirit now completely silent?

A theoretical question: If it ever were God's will for the Church to change, how would that will be discovered? And how would the change happen?

[Crucifer]

Ordination is not a 'right' or something to demand. It is a gift that is given to serve the community. If you feel called to serve...you can find a way.

But what if a woman feels called to serve as a priest?


Mary Magdalene was one of the first called by Christ to spread the news of his resurrection, a.k.a. to preach (albeit to the apostles) the good news. Again, this is a pretty priestly activity.

In relation to God, the earliest Jews worshipped and recognised God in two forms: male and female, Jah and Shenakh (correct me if I'm wrong on the names) these were combined to YHWH or Yahweh when talking about GOD as on single entity, much as Christianity calls God the trinity of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Three persons, one God. The thing is that God the "father" is, if we believe some of the earliest scriptures, also split into more than one person. So to say that souls are "feminine" because God is "masculine" is a very modern concept. Very modern indeed.

queen of heaven

That has always very much bothered me. Why does she get to be queen of heaven? I mean, I know she was great and all but queen of heaven? That would suggest that she was the "spouse" of God the "father", as opposed to of God the Holy Ghost.

[slight osgilliation] I recently heard an interesting description of the Trinity. God the "father" is the vengeful God of the OT, God the Son is the Forgiving God of the NT, and God the Holy Ghost is the moderator, the middle man, so to speak. I'm not sure about that myself, but it sounds like a pretty interesting interpretation.[/slight osgilliation]

[Primula Baggins]

You are sliding into Marcionism, there, Crucifer, and likely to end up burned at the stake. Read more Tertullian.

(I know this because my son did the same in confirmation class. He did end up getting confirmed rather than burned, but it was, our pastor said, a near-run thing.)

[Crucifer]

Anglicans don't get burned at the stake... We're pretty much free to believe what we want, so long as it's biblical. I've heard this from the pulpit, as well as rebuttal of it.

Edit: and I'd just like to say, for the record, that I don't necessarily subscribe to this, or indeed any belief. I have an open mind about it all.

Edit again: and while reading through this thread, I couldn't help but notice Alatar's post on page three regarding being 'devout'

I know it's an old post, but it shows how tiny the differences between Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism, and surely a lot of other Christian Churches, really are.

When Thomas Cramner established the Church of England, he was very emphatic in saying that it was not a split from catholicism, it was a split from Rome