Ordain women? Orthodoxy says no - but let's talk.

The issue of women's ordination, never as simple as people on either side of the question would like it to be, has been further complicated by a recent statement of Pope John Paul II. Ordinatio sacerdotalis was no doubt intended as a contribution, a help; indeed, the pope says that it was issued to remove all doubt: "Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32) I declare that the church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the church's faithful."

It isn't that simple, not for those of us who are not Roman Catholic, and most definitely not for a great many millions of Roman Catholics, who have seen previous popes declare with equal certainty that all of those not in communion with the Roman See are damned. The statement will certainly not end discussion of the issue. In his statement about Ordinatio sacerdotalis, Archbishop Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee speaks of his own "inner turmoil" at the pope's decision to issue such a statement; his turmoil is certain to be shared by millions of Catholics. Although many will be disturbed by the opposition to women's ordination itself, at least as many may be bothered by the tone, and by the assumption that a ruling of this sort settles an issue, even (as here) without anything approaching a serious argument.

In the course of his response Archbishop Weakland said something that interested me: "The Orthodox churches may agree with the pope on the question at hand, but are usually shocked when the pope teaches the bishops and does not speak in union with them." The question, again, is partly one of tone; but tone reflects something deeper, namely the pope's sense of what his role is, as bishop and pastor.

The pope's letter made me think of the current state of the question, and the debate, within Orthodox circles. We are widely considered the most conservative party in the debate, and if conservatism is given its richest sense I suppose we are. But one other thing also characterizes Orthodoxy: a belief that free assent to its teachings is essential. External assent doesn't matter, if internal assent is absent, and assent simply cannot be compelled or ordered. This is not to say that Orthodox always live up to this ideal; I have met Orthodox who, in their authoritarian yearnings, make John Paul II look like Bishop Spong. But in Orthodoxy the ideal, based upon the belief that the Holy Spirit's guidance is present in the fullness of the church, has been an agreement among the faithful, a consensus about the church's understanding, articulated by the bishops but not limited to episcopal or conciliar authority.

This looks shaky to Catholics used to a central headquarters and a final, unchallengeable doctrinal bottom line; it has served us well for two thousand years, however. It seems to work, though it has its ragged edges. So does a strong central papalism, which leaves Catholic theologians having to cope with statements handed down as unchallengeably true, only to be reversed in subsequent years.

Many Orthodox have come late to the question of women's ordination, and quite a few of them act as if it were not a question for us, but only a problem currently bedeviling the hopeless Western churches. This ostrich approach has been challenged by the fact that this issue is, like it or not, being discussed seriously among the Orthodox as a question facing us as well as the Western churches. The ordaining of women as deacons (something the church did--more commonly in the East than in the West--during its first centuries) is currently advocated by a great many Orthodox, and a smaller but significant number of Orthodox have defended women's ordination to the priesthood.

Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh, known to many American and British readers as Metropolitan Anthony Bloom, has given his blessing to the work of the Orthodox theologian Elisabeth Behr-Sigel, who favors women's ordination. Father Thomas Hopko, dean of Saint Vladimir's Seminary, who opposes the ordination of women, wrote a gracious introduction to Behr-Sigel's The Ministry of Women in the Church (Oakwood Publications, 1991). A recent issue of Saint Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly dealt with the question, and one of the contributors, patristics scholar Sister Vema Harrison, has also contributed a good essay on the current state of the question to the British journal Sobornost. Though there are exceptions, what impresses me is that the discussion among the Orthodox has, for the most part, been conducted calmly, without anger.

The decision by the Church of England to ordain women led approximately a hundred Anglican clergymen to explore the possibility of a move to Orthodoxy. What is interesting is that in its response to the Anglican church's decision a pan-Orthodox committee of bishops in Great Britain made a point of saying that "opposition to the ordination of women is not in itself sufficient reason to be received into the Orthodox church." Although the bishops made it clear that they would counsel and guide anyone with a genuine interest in Orthodoxy, they would not actively proselytize among non-Orthodox Christians, and hoped, despite what seems to be an insurmountable divide, to continue to enjoy close relations with the Church of England. This is a contrast to the welcome offered by some Catholic bishops, apparently encouraged by Rome, to those Anglican clergy and laity who are opposed to women's ordination.

One area of agreement between those in favor of the ordination of women and those opposed is that if there is a sound reason for excluding women from the priesthood, it must be articulated much more clearly than it has been to date. Orthodoxy is, of course, profoundly traditional. Tradition is considered the language of the Holy Spirit in the church (and must be distinguished from many traditions which are far from central), so the fact that women have not been ordained as priests itself carries a great deal of weight. But the church's traditions can and must make some sort of sense; "it's always been that way" is not a sufficient explanation. The symbols of the church must communicate, and not obscure, the message of the gospel.

On the other hand, these symbols are not arbitrary. Those who oppose the exclusion of women from the priesthood see it as a question of something that evolved as a discipline that might be changed (like certain liturgical practices, or fasting rules); for them the ordination of women is a matter of fairness and justice. Those who oppose the ordination of women believe that the church's language and symbols may not be changed in response to cultural or political pressures. The church cannot stop referring to God as Father, or Jesus as God's Son, simply because this might look patriarchal to some people. It cannot substitute other elements for bread and wine in the Eucharist, or water in baptism. Opponents of women's ordination see an exclusively male priesthood in the same terms: the central symbols are not arbitrary, or ours to change. This is what the pope means when he quotes the declaration Inter insigniores: the church "does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination." (There is, on the face of it, something ironic in that "herself.")

I have mentioned the calm that generally marks the Orthodox discussion, as compared with the way the subject has been dealt with among Protestants and Catholics. There is a perception--right or wrong--among the Orthodox that disorder and trendiness rule the roost among the Western churches, and questions of theology have become indistinguishable from questions of politics and culture. The connections between these realms are undeniable; that they have become practically interchangeable is alarming. Those Orthodox who disagree with the tradition of ordaining only men also understand that the question does not have to be resolved next week; if it can be done, which is still an open question, it will be done only when there is truly a common mind. This common mind is not something that can be brought about by a majority vote; nor can it be forced by a verdict from on high. It must be arrived at over time, prayerfully, and without anger.