The 21st-Century Debate on Women in the Priesthood Part I: Dangerous Feelings
Alaina Mabaso | Friday, October 14, 2011 Reflecting on the dialogue about women in the ministry heard at the 2011 General Assembly, Alaina highlights the double speech circulating on this issue. While the some of the clergy praise women's sensitivity to feeling as their singular virtue, they silence this perception and prevent it from participating in the formal discussion of women in the priesthood. This is the first essay in our series called: Women as Ordained Priests (or Not). The seoncd essay, also by Alaina, is called Part II: "Side Notes" and Tradition. -Editor.
“The Writings are clear that the priest represents the Lord. The Lord is male. No-where in the Word do we see a ‘Mother God’. Therefore women are biologically not equipped to be priests.”
This, a New Church minister said in a small group discussion at this year’s General Church Assembly, is the “best reason” for denying ordination to women. The body she was born in cannot represent the Lord.
Our group waited for further explanation, but the minister took our expectant silence for agreement. He settled in his chair and folded his arms. “I rest my case,” he said.
The question of whether we should also deny that the Lord could be seen in a garden, a cathedral, the birth of a child, or any number of things that are not a human male is a vital question for another day. Upon hearing this brief but authoritative ruling on the spiritual limits of my female biology, the questions that ate at me went deeper than a doctrinal lesson.
“As you say that a woman could never represent the Lord, have you ever truly considered how you would feel about that statement – how it would affect you - if you weren’t a man?” I asked.
He shrugged. “No,” he said immediately. It was the calm, self-evident answer to an irrelevant question. “I’m not capable of thinking of how a woman would feel.”
I attended three 2011 Assembly sessions about female religious leadership because I thought this represented an unusual openness in the General Church about this perennially controversial topic. More than learning what the current positions are on a female priesthood, both in General Church policy and among its members, I was curious to explore the debate in the 21st Century.
Well over one hundred attendees gathered for a session led by Rev. Frank Rose, in which participants broke into small groups to list and present reasons it is important to discuss the issue of ordaining women.
“We can’t decide a question of this magnitude based on how we feel,” said one priest, warning that emotions or cultural trends are not important next to strict doctrinal study. Many others, both in seminars and in personal discussion, made similar comments about the importance of referring to doctrinal study and debate, rather than to our emotions, will, intuition, “wants”, or cultural influence. There was a consistent warning against the “danger” of referring to our feelings on the topic.
This shows an admirable commitment to doctrine versus popular sentiment, and may frame the exclusion of women from the priesthood not as bigotry but as a desire to live according to the truth one perceives.
On the other hand, this approach showcases an enduring irony in this debate.
As ministers and many others insist that women are unfit for ordination, their arguments for an exclusively male spiritual leadership are tempered with assurances that this does not imply male superiority. Conjugial Love 125 is often invoked to explain that while men are naturally elevated into a higher realm of understanding, or “light”, women are naturally elevated to a higher realm of will, or “heat”. This means men and women, equally important, complement each other.
Therefore, many New Church ministers self-consciously strive to emphasize women’s value. Rev. Willard Heinrichs, offering a handout of his own doctrinal interpretations to accompany Rev. Rose’s Assembly session on female priesthood, insists that the Lord discourages women from preaching so that their “precious femininity, so needed and important in so many areas of human life” will not be damaged, because that would be “a very sad loss to the church and humanity generally.” Other ministers tout the value of women’s “affectional” nature and the importance of the proper feminine emphasis on affections and the will, versus the intellect or understanding.
However, when ministers declare that they value women’s affectional nature, and then announce that people must divorce what they “feel”, or what they observe in the world around us, or what they “want”, from the question of a female priesthood, ministers devalue what they themselves term the feminine perspective in favor of a traditionally male perspective. Women’s voices are praised and then shut out of the debate, all in one breath.
This avoidance of a practical, traditionally feminine approach that admits both living experience and emotional realities, versus an approach strictly limited to doctrinal scholarship – exclusively male scholarship, at that – comes out in a number of ways. In Rev. Rose’s session, opinions were color-coded, and participants were told whom to gather with, when to speak, and the order in which their views could be aired. A chime was to control the duration of each exchange. At the end of the session, participants were encouraged to pick up a photocopied package of doctrinal excerpts – which emphasized reasons that women should not be ordained.
Rev. Rose is in favor of ordaining women, and expressed many brave and sensitive ideas. He emphasized the importance of a “structured discussion” that “maximizes understanding” and “minimizes misunderstanding”. In other words, keep everything as rational as possible, and, I infer, keep difficult emotions at bay.
A session on developing (rather than debating) female ministry, led by the women of New Church Live, emphasized a very different approach from the start, unfolding as a free-flowing, group-wide emotional, practical and experiential sharing, in which both men and women were welcome to speak. While he was warmly welcomed to attend by the presenters, a man left the room when he learned that the session would not be a forum for him to debate the female leaders on the merit of women’s ministry.
Of course, there is a wealth of written material on this topic, as well. In 2002, Rev. Jeremy Simons presented a paper to the Council of the Clergy on the hazards of ordaining women. It is a thorough, thought-provoking piece, and though the paper is dedicated to excluding women from a New Church office, women are not meant to read it: “this paper is written for the clergy and not for general distribution,” Rev. Simons specifies. “Several of these passages are harshly worded, and can cause people to be offended and react, rather than consider their message.”
Again, there is the fear that emotions, legitimate or not, are not appropriate to the issue. In this instance, even if his teaching affects people in a hurtful way, the writer begs freedom from emotional implications that could jeopardize his message.
“All religion is of life,” Swedenborg explains in Spiritual Diary 6023, as he describes the spiritual fate of people who deny that your place in heaven depends on how you live your life, not the faith you recite. This phrase strikes me in separate but related ways. It reminds me that faith is no good unless you marry it to your actions. But to me, it also seems to say that religion can be attached to the business of life in all sorts of unexpected ways – it does not bide only in church or in scripture – it applies all the time, no matter what you’re doing.
This is one reason General Church clergy and members should not stake major questions of policy exclusively in the realm of papers and tightly controlled intellectual debate. A female priesthood, or the prevention of a female priesthood, has all sorts of real-life implications which strike church members deep at home – not just in their literal homes, where religious and cultural dogma consigned women for decades, but in their emotional core.
Even for those staunchly in favor of a female priesthood, emotions can seem like a minefield – an impediment to their message. Bryn Athyn College alumna Hannah Reynolds led an Assembly session about her life experiences, and the call she feels to become a General Church minister.
She told her life story – an extraordinarily tough one for a young person. She suffered family tragedies as well as abuse and sexual assault, and struggled with alcohol and drug addiction. She sees beautiful providence in a series of events that brought her to school at Bryn Athyn College, revealing the Lord’s call to her. Earnest, lucid, and compelling, she briefly shared her favorite New Church doctrines, with special emphasis on the need for faith joined to good works.
She applied to three schools: divinity programs at Harvard, Princeton, and the Theological School at Bryn Athyn College.
“I got into two,” she said. But after visiting both Harvard and Princeton, she felt more than ever that the Bryn Athyn Theological School – and New Church ministry - was the right place for her.
She said that many have suggested that she join another church, enter the Master of Arts in Religious Studies program, or pursue ordination at the hands of the New Church Convention, since a woman’s ordination in the General Church is impossible.
At this point in her presentation, tears welled in her eyes.
“I was not going to get emotional,” she choked out, as if to herself.
She held her ground, and her emotions washed through the audience. “This is my church, too,” she said, her voice shaking with repressed feeling. “This is my church, too.”
Instead of derailing or invalidating the session, her personal vulnerability gave a poignant, challenging immediacy to the truths and experiences she shared. The General Church may watch her leave for one of the nation’s top theological schools. Meanwhile, Reynolds’ perspective on the essential marriage of works and faith, and good and truth, are as fresh and clear and real as a glass of water in my hand.
The truth is that even with our best efforts to proscribe uncomfortable or messy parts of this discussion on female priesthood, Church policy about this will continue to affect us at all levels. A denial of the policy’s practical and emotional effects – evidenced by doctrinal scholars who avoid listening in person to those whom their teachings exclude - is tantamount not just to a tacit, widespread marginalization of women: it’s a kind of faith alone. It’s a denial of what really happens when teachings come off the page and into our lives.
All religion is of life.
A pastor can write a paper promoting the continued ban of women from the priesthood and stipulate that the general public not read it, because of our failure to be dispassionate about “harsh”, exclusionary terms. But lay-people may still find it, read it, and discuss how they feel about it. We can call for stoutly organized discussions, with timed allotments for ordered talk. But in practice, as happened in my own discussion group at the Assembly, the structure inevitably gives way to an organic exchange. It’s rife with awkward chuckles, speech out of turn, uncomfortable silences, and heated repartee, everything that brings a debate to life, both in the sense of making it interesting, and in the sense of applying what you’ve learned once the session is over.
Structured debate and analytic study have their place in any important topic. Especially, as with the large group Rev. Rose presided over, a sturdy structure can be necessary to getting a charitable chat off the ground. But difficult, unpredictable and sometimes emotional interactions are also needed. It saddened me to hear a clergy leader as he was invited to participate in an Assembly discussion group about female priesthood.
“I hate groups,” he said, and left the room.
The sooner church members and clergy admit that disagreements over the ordination of women have a relevant personal and emotional side – a side that should be discussed face-to-face, not only in doctrinal papers - the sooner they can talk about the merits or dangers of a female priesthood in a way that includes everyone. Until they acknowledge all of the everyday repercussions of women’s ongoing exclusion – such as what some women term the “apartheid” in the General Church, and other women call a “closed door” between them and the Lord - and the complex, legitimate feelings this provokes in people of both sexes, the debate will not be balanced or productive.
One male attendee of the 2011 Assembly shared with other attendees his experience of this challenge.
“I was irritated,” he said, on seeing multiple sessions about women’s spiritual leadership. “I thought, why can’t we just leave this subject alone?” But his curiosity got the better of him, and his perspective began to shift. From believing that the movement to ordain women was limited to perhaps a “small group meeting once a month,” he realized for the first time that it is a movement with widespread support, encompassing priests, laypeople, and men and women of all ages. This was leading him to re-examine the source of his own convictions.
Rev. Andrew Dibb heads the Theological School at Bryn Athyn College. He attended Hannah Reynolds’s session, listening quietly and intently. This simple act resonates deeper than Rev. Heinrichs’s advice in the paper accompanying Rev. Rose’s session: “one will only feel comfortable in their response to questions and challenges [about female priesthood] after they have done their own thorough study and reflection on the matter.”
This is true in more ways than one: Rev. Heinrichs is right that thorough study is vital to a well founded debate. But this statement also reminds readers that silent, individual scholarship can indeed be much more “comfortable” than face-to-face connections with people of differing opinions.
Rev. Dibb’s attendance at Reynolds’s session shows the courage and the courtesy we need, from people on every side of the debate. Questions about the real-life impact of these teachings should never be met with a quick exit, a shrug, or the assertion that we’re incapable of imagining how someone else might feel.
Alaina Mabaso
Alaina is a Philadelphia-based freelance writer whose work appears in several venues. She also writes and illustrates humorous real-life essays on her blog at Alainamabaso.wordpress.com, where you can find information about her book, “The Conjugial Culture: A Derived Doctrine of Sex in the New Church.” Alaina is currently working on a second book for Swedenborgian audiences, about the intellectual life of New Church women.Wondering about the inspiration for this article? Look up the New Church, which is based on the theological writings of Emanuel Swedenborg.
emotions, feelings, male vs. female, ministry, ordination, organized religion, uses, women
Reader Comments (42)
Alaina,
Thanks for starting this series off. I think your piece is very well written and takes right to the heart of the matter. What is it that we expect, want and need from the priesthood? What we get will be very heavily effected by whether or not women are included. Do we have agreement about what is desired? Do we want the "dangerous feelings" which you describe?
My only regret is that I think your piece tacitly suggests boxes for people - ministers, women and men. These boxes are likely true in generality but not of all the individuals. Maybe you didn't intend this, but it is how I read certain descriptions - like the man walking away from the group when he realized that the opportunity for debate would not be allowed. Hopefully you did not mean to imply that no men appreciate small group sharing formats.
For the purposes of your piece, I do think it was important to paint a generalized picture of how the male General Church clergy operate, namely in a emotion averse environment which seeks doctrinal statements separated from individual situations and cultural sensibilities. This is not exclusively the case, but I buy it as a useful characterization which allows us to think about what is achieved and lost by the exclusion and inclusion of feminine participation.
Brian
I am somewhat puzzled by the apparent disparity between the hope expressed (in the introduction to this series of essays) "that the topics of appropriate spiritual leadership and role division between the sexes are universal to all worship groups" and the regret expressed (above) that Alaina's essay "tacitly suggests boxes for people".
Categories, collections, groups, etc., conceptually are "boxes". While I agree that individuals of a group do not necessarily share in or possess all of the general characteristics the group itself legitimately may be said to have, it does seem clear that the "boxes for people" had been defined, so to speak, prior to the posting of Alaina's essay (via "division between the sexes" implying one "box" for men, who are held to be legitimate candidates for the priesthood, and another "box" for women, who are held not to be legitimate candidates).
Still, it is possible that I have misunderstood the intended meaning of "tacitly suggesting boxes for people".
AC 1937,
Not sure I can help you. What we call "stereo typing" or "boxing" is likely to be a part of this discussion. I am willing for that to be the case as I see stereotyping as inevitable and I also think that it is not always wrong to act on stereotypical characterizations. However, I think it helps a conversation to point out when it seems that stereotypes are being suggested.
Brian
Alaina, thank you. I loved this, and I was grateful to be reminded of those sessions at this year's Assembly. It definitely lit a fire in me, which has burned more or less brightly in the last few months. You've just fanned the flames.
I think it's interesting that your time at Frank Rose's discussion was so challenging. From what I heard, some groups had very different experiences. Some were painful and emotional, some very uplifting. My group was exciting and inspiring (thanks largely to Brian Smith's very thoughtful and courteous manner when he took the "red card" seat). I actually thought that Frank's structure and process lent itself beautifully to an emotional attuned and nonaggressive discussion. He prevented people from chucking truths around like rocks, trying to break the opposition's rocks. I am truly sorry that you met with such an inflexible communication style, and I know that you weren't the only one who walked away feeling bruised. Hopefully the ensuing conversations can keep the rock-chucking to a minimum.
Great piece. I look forward to reading more of your thoughts.
I really like your piece, Alaina. I think you've articulated how women have a two-fold obstacle in making progress with this issue. The first obstacle is the obvious one, that men currently dominate the priestly structure and so get to vote on whether or not anybody else gets to join. The other issue is a more subtle, but perhaps more culturally egregious one: let alone being ministers, are women even given an equal voice in determining what constitutes a legitimate debate? There are some deeply cultural patriarchal assumptions to be mined from how the debate itself is often carried out - where men form an argument with words (based on other words they've read), and content with themselves that they've created a logical structure, resist any other forms of communication to the contrary. In other words, instead of humbly striving for a community consensus that such-and-such institutional policy is wise and true and good, they will perhaps enforce a longstanding policy simply because it's longstanding, regardless of the feelings of the community (particularly those effected by the policy).
This passage wouldn't make a very good word cage for me to make a logical argument with, but I think it's relevant anyway, from CL 291: "It is one of the known facts of life in the world today that after the first days of a marriage are over, rivalry over rights and power begins to affect the couple. They speak of rights, asserting that equality is laid down by the terms of the compact entered into, and each has his proper place in performing the duties of his station; of power, asserting that men insistently claim the superiority in all matters at home, because they are men, and they assign inferiority to women, because they are women. Such rivalry in households today are due to nothing but the lack of any consciousness of truly conjugial love and the lack of any feeling of how blessed that love is."
The first thing that's interesting to me about this is Swedenborg's casual mention of how often patriarchal behavior suffocates women and ruins marriages early on. He doesn't bring this up as a problem that we should be working on, however, but as "one of the known facts of the world today." That "of the world today," is the second interesting thing to me, as it's repeated in many places, and has always struck me as a tacit admission from Swedenborg that he's writing from a particular cultural context, tied to the time and assumptions of the world he lived in. As time marches on and cultures change, his "known facts" will change with them, and so the passages that follow will become unhinged from the culture they were trying to describe. It's another matter for debate whether this has happened already since the Writings were written - as I type this blog response on a laptop in Mexico, I'm inclined to think it has.
I also take a third interesting thing from this passage, something I do agree with (conveniently, I suppose), that such disputes between men and women exist because of a lack of consciousness, and only rear their heads when we forget that love is meant to be the primary incentive behind any action, decision or communication. Swedenborg's very clear throughout the writings that pursuing what's true is secondary to pursuing what's loving, so why should the church only employ the truth-oriented half to do its work?
I am quite pleased to see that between Dylan's and my comments, we will be quite officially breaking the debated 'boxes' of above.
I am a woman. I love the fact that we, women, can be emotional. I love the fact that religion (which I'd like to clarify here as being, in my mind, each individual's spirituality and walk with the Lord) IS life, it IS personal, it IS love and emotion. What I would like to ask is this: even though feelings and emotions are useful, indeed integral!, to each person's own walk with the Lord, are they useful to religious organizations? I would argue that religion and religious organizations are two very different beasts. Religion, as I perceive it at least, is almost perfect... it can only be messed up by one member of the party - the imperfect human who has a relationship with the Lord. Religious organizations have SO much more potential to be imperfect because of all the imperfect humans involved in trying to interpret the doctrine, interpret what still applies from the doctrine (see Dylan's comments above, although I don't condone going through with the trash bag quite yet), putting the rules into affect, etc. It is a difficult job and I believe I can truthfully say, no one does it perfectly. The best we can do is try to be as detached from our innately imperfect, human desires while trying to do all this sorting and interpreting of doctrine. So, although it may not be a popular opinion among women, I would suggest that removing a degree of emotion from official ministry discussion and decisions may be the best way to relay the Lord's tenets most accurately.
With that said, I would say it shouldn't matter what sex the minister is: any man or woman who can remove their innately selfish desires and emotions ENOUGH (because it's quite likely that no human can do this entirely) should be allowed to be a minister and make those doctrinal decisions. But how do we measure or test this? It is a difficult one. It has been clearly demonstrated in the above article that it is difficult for at least a few women to remove emotion from this discussion. And I don't blame them! We are women! The Lord gave us the biology (which was made to sound like a curse above) and the loving, emotional nature to carry children, to raise them and influence them, and therefore to raise and influence His kingdom. That is an awesome gift.
I am not trying to give my own personal opinion on whether women should be in the ministry or not because it's not up to me, and my one opinion won't turn the Titanic anywhere, all I want to do is ask: Should emotion be a part of the ministry? For this question, my answer is, No.
Hi friends,
Thanks to everyone who's reading and considering, and thanks to New Church Perspective for giving this essay a home. AC 1937: thanks for your astute comment about the irony of Brian's regrets about the "tacit boxes." In my experience, the General Church lives and breathes gender division (or gender boxes) - when you come down to it, that's the whole reason my essay was written. I also hope that most readers don't come away believing that I'm trying to stereotype men as people who refuse to participate in group discussions - if that's what is happening, I wish I had expressed myself more clearly. Yes, there were many men who did not want to participate, as my essay shows - but I think this essay also shows that there were other men who attended, listened, and spoke from the heart.
I look forward to hearing anyone else's thoughts about this. I'm really enjoying the discussion so far and feel fortunate to be a part of it.
I believe there are two principles here that require clarification. First, in spiritual terms, men and women are both gendered and individuals. Second, we need to make a distinction between emotion and emotional intelligence.
First, the Lord made men and women according to the same spiritual principles, with both a will and understanding that are related in such a way that we can participate in the process of regeneration. Each person's individual relationship with the Lord is sacred and the relationships between men and women can serve to drive our regeneration. However, individuality is not subordinate to gender. They exist in a distinct oneness, a reflection of the divine order that is the Lord Himself. But am I to understand that the Lord made my will and understanding separate enough to allow me, by the mechanics of regeneration, to become an angel in heaven, but not separate enough for me to serve as a minister in an earthly New Church institution?
Second, when women are excluded from following a deeply felt call in the church of their heart, of course there are emotions to be felt: bitterness, anger, grief. And it is not appropriate to remove the expression of these feelings from this discussion. Church policy has real world ramifications that should be faced straight on. But it is a fallacy to believe that men would not feel the same in a similar situation, that this reaction is somehow more natural to women. Men feel emotion, obviously, and are triggered to feel emotions in the same human way that women are. However, women can often more easily give words to what emotion feels like to them and they often have more immediate access to the ability to contextualize emotion within relationships. (I accept that these are generalizations). When the Writings speak of the different inclinations of the sexes, I believe they are speaking of emotional intelligence rather than raw emotion. And rather than something that has no place in the priesthood, emotional intelligence should be a prerequisite for ministry. Otherwise you have a clergy that is very good at developing church policy and terrible at being a church, which I define as sustaining and nurturing a community of followers. In my own experience, I don't love "being emotional." I love being fluent in how emotions relate to the world around me.
Thanks Alaina, for a great article.
Shada,
I appreciated the clarity of the distinction you raise. I'd like to push this distinction a little further.
Let's assume that Chinese citizens were barred from ordination instead of women, but in all other respects we assumed that Chinese people were similar to those who were ministers. Should the feelings, especially the negative and hurt feelings of this group enter into the consideration of whether or not they should be included? These negative and human feelings would certainly stir the pot and perhaps cloudy the discussion somewhat, but perhaps the conversation would be improved by finding ways to include the force of these feelings in the conversation.
In the second case, let's assume for the moment that we agree that women have a distinct "emotional intelligence" or manner of approaching problems from that of men. Should we include this approach, this type of intelligence, in the conversation or should the conversation be restricted to the more abstracted/objectified approach that is more characteristically masculine?
These are both important questions to me and quite distinct from each other.
Furthermore, both of these are questions about how the issue should be approached and addressed, rather than being directly about the issue itself, of whether the feminine quality should be included in the ordained priesthood.
This conversation on NC Perspective is restricted to textual communication but open to the approach of men and women. It is also open to people making abstracted rational arguments on the subject or directly introducing their personal feelings on the subject.
Alaina's piece so clearly articulates some ideas about a real distinction in what women may bring to the conversation - both personal feelings about the exclusion of their gender and a manner or approach to life which we could call "emotional intelligence." And the comments so far seem to share a comfort with moving forward with certain assumptions about male and female boxes. I find this a very productive way to enter the conversation, but I am curious if we will also hear arguments representing the idea that there are not material, measurable or meaningful differences which hold across gender lines. ie, that exclusion of one gender is meaningless as the distinction between the genders is effectively meaningless. (I believe this was a more common approach to gender issues in the 60s and 70s)
Brian
Alaina,
You pointed to an "irony" in your piece, which I believe was the fact that one answer from the clergy is to a) affirm the value of a woman's perspective and emotional intelligence but then b) argue that this emotional approach should be excluded from the conversation on the policy of ordination.
I guess I see this as potentially frustrating but not really ironic. I think rather it is a consistent position. If a person assumes that the feminine mind is unqualified to participate in the doctrinal study and leadership of the church, it follows that this same approach be barred from the doctrinal study which underlies a policy about ordination. Now even though I think this is a consistent, rather than ironic position, I do not think it is wise to extend the position further to a complete lack of interest/willingness and effort towards seeking out and listening to the feelings and thoughts of those excluded from formal participation.
Brian
Shada, I just needed to repost this bit: "When the Writings speak of the different inclinations of the sexes, I believe they are speaking of emotional intelligence rather than raw emotion. And rather than something that has no place in the priesthood, emotional intelligence should be a prerequisite for ministry. Otherwise you have a clergy that is very good at developing church policy and terrible at being a church." Beautiful!
Brian, I take issue with one of your comments. You say that if women are unqualified to participate in doctrinal study and leadership of the church, then it follows that they should be barred from the doctrinal study involved in this discussion. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I find that quite offensive (please note that I'm not hurt or angry, but I do feel the need to stand up for myself here.) What exactly is it that women are unqualified for? Should we stop reading the Bible too?
Kristin - Brian was not saying, as I read it, that he believes "women are unqualified to participate in doctrinal study." His original wording: "If a person [aka: one or many male clergy of whom there were complaints in Alaina's original article] assumes that the feminine mind is unqualified to participate..., it follows that..." This is a conditional sentence presented about a hypothetical case! It doesn't mean Brian condones such a thought. It was meant to point out Brian's belief that the two positions Alaina presents as frustrating or irony, are in fact understandably and rationally-linked in the mind of someone (again, a hypothetical clergy man, unless you have any names for us) who might enter the doctrinal discussion/study with the idea that the feminine mind isn't suited for that kind of discussion. It's not understandably linked in everyone's minds, or all male minds, or even in Brian's own mind; only that particular case. So, you can be offended if you want, but it seems to me that you'll have to find some other culprit.
Brian - thanks for being brave enough to participate in this female-dominated discussion about a very sensitive and charged topic.
I take the irony in Alaina's piece to be the affirmation first and then subsequent exclusion of feminine perspectives. Yes, church policy on the ordination of women has been very logically consistent according to a specific set of derived doctrines. The irony, to me, is the claim to love, affirm and value the feminine perspective but then to shut out the very same perspective. Then what does it mean to value it? How can you value something or someone, truly, and then not listen to them? (And I'm not trying to be rhetorical here, I'd really love to hear an answer).
Brian, as for your Chinese hypothetical, I can appreciate where you are trying to go with it but it feels like an artificial construction that tries to answer one question while ignoring another. The idea that a group of peoples, in all ways similar to another, is denied the privileges said other, is inherently wrong, so of course there would be negative feelings about it. To me, it begs a larger question: what are feelings for anyway? Emotions are a spiritual gift, our barometer for truth. The Writings are clear that we recognize truth due to the way we feel about it when we perceive it, such as joy, peace, a flash of recognition, a nagging feeling, exhilaration, etc. We literally cannot perceive truth without an attendant feeling. The purpose of spiritual work is to cultivate an awareness of the genesis of those feelings, so we can be sure we are following the Lord. So, I reject the idea that emotions can be excluded from this discussion at all. The question of whether or not something, like a policy, is true, can never be fully divorced from its effects, nor should it. Effects are how we know the usefulness of a thing. True observation of effects, and a commitment to learning about the heart of what they are telling us, is how we become wise. So, is this an issue because some New Church women are jealous that we are not treated in the same way as men, that we do not have access to a certain privilege and we are angry about that? No. This is an issue because some New Church women are saying that they feel called by the Lord to serve Him as ministers in their church, and they feel disenfranchised, rejected and sad about that they cannot follow it. It is worth something to listen to these reactions because they say something about the usefulness of the policy. Truth is true because it is a form of good, and good is good when it is useful. How is it useful to reject a soul that is called?
Kristin, - as Lauren said, I was trying to dissect and clarify the argument, not advocate one way or another for its validity.
Lauren, I learn from conversation and even (shock!) from conversation with women, so I very much appreciate the opportunity to participate and continue to explore the issues.
Brian
I have visited to see these comments evolving, and I have to say that as a writer, there is nothing more gratifying than to see such well-thought, well-written responses to my essay - even if the comments happen to disagree with my ideas. Kristin - thanks for stepping up with your reaction to Brian's response about the logic of banning the female perspective from doctrinal study on the issue, since women are banned from being priests. I'd also like to say that though I appreciate Lauren's pointing out that this is not necessarily Brian's personal opinion, this statement left me icy. Thanks also to Shada, who has re-articulated exactly what I do still believe is a major irony: claiming to value female perspective without actually listening to it. Thanks also for your lovely words about emotions as a "barometer for truth".
I cannot wait for the day when a majority of General Church ministers realize that the exclusion of women (or their perspective) is not simply, as Brian puts it, "potentially frustrating". Shada beautifully illustrates the real impact felt by women who are genuinely called to General Church ministry - from what I've seen, their feelings at their exclusion reach much deeper than frustration.
Shada,
So I'm hearing you answer with a resounding "yes" to the question of whether emotions/feelings/reactions/effects of a policy should be included in the consideration of the validity of that policy. I hear you on this. I think it is a reasonable position. Thanks for articulating this.
My answer to the part of the question is something along the following lines: I think the effects and the emotional responses of a decision or policy should always considered, observed and listened to (where possible). I do not think that the feelings should always be given an equal or necessarily any place at the table for reviewing the decision and ultimately for making the next decision. (An example, might be that I make a rule that my children need to go to bed at a certain time. When they have different feelings on the subject, I should try my best to listen to, respect and learn from their alternative views, but I am not necessarily going to take the issue to vote with my children receiving equal votes).
(please understand - I'm describing a situation where a certain behavior makes sense to me. I am not trying to make any comparison between women and children.)
Taking that same example further, I have some sympathy for the people who feel convicted about the value of a male only clergy. When these folks feel that the answer is crystal clear, that a decision has been made and that reasons and explanations have been given, I can understand when they don't feel like rehashing the issue every year. In the same way I don't feel like debating bedtime with my four year old every night.
That said, my impression is that this question is of pressing importance in minds of many people associated with the General Church and these wide spread feelings, for me, demand to be regularly and meaningfully engaged - whether or not the status quo is maintained.
But if this question, and these feelings, are to be engaged, what does that look like? Or as Shada asked, "How can you value something or someone, truly, and then not listen to them?"
Here are a couple of my answers. I talk with my wife. I have asked her about this issue numerous times over the past several months - (she may be getting sick of being asked because its not a pressing issue for her right now). But for me, it is very important to hear her responses. I also converse with other people in my life whenever the subject comes up. Along with a bunch of other ministers and men I attended the workshops led by Hannah Reynolds and Frank Rose, a minister. I've also read papers and articles and informal discussions blogs on this topic.
Any other thoughts on what the conversation could or should look like?
I have a belief about this subject. Clergy as a group may study this issue, write papers and come to conclusion - to temporarily maintain an exclusively masculine clergy. However, I am convinced that the General Church will NOT maintain this position long into the future IF the conclusions and teaching of the clergy is not accepted and seen to be from the Word by significant portions of female membership. I guess I am content that the women of the church ultimately do have power and that the policy will ultimately stand or fall (or the church split) based on what the aggregate of female members believe about this issue.
Brian
Shada,
I think the concept of "call" is fairly key. I have no way of knowing what kind of call different people perceive and what it means to them. As a result I think that a responsible position for the General Church looks like this:
"Our policy, based on best current understanding of the teachings of the Word, is to not accept women for ordination."
I think an irresponsible position looks like this:
"The truth is that women should not be ministers, therefore when Jane says she feels a call to the ministry, we know she must be delusional and wrong."
Brian
Thank you Alaina for a great essay. And thank you Brian, and everyone else who has contributed to a very important conversation.
I think that in terms of this discussion (not just in this forum), there tend to be varying combinations of thoughts and feelings that exist in people. From what I’ve seen and experienced, the main thoughts and feelings I’ve seen in people are:
I am uncomfortable with women being priests (feeling)
I disagree doctrinally with the idea of women being priests (thought)
I am comfortable with women being priests (feeling)
I agree doctrinally with the idea of women being priests (thought)
I don’t care about the issue (feeling)
And people tend to have different combinations of these going on. For example, in my case, I am comfortable with women being priests (feeling), and doctrinally I still want to do more study to understand how what the Word says applies to that idea (thought). Other people I know are comfortable with women being priests (feeling), but disagree with it doctrinally (thought). Other people I know are uncomfortable with women being priests (feeling), but also don’t really know what the Word says in that regard (thought). And I also know people who really don’t care about it, and would be fine either way (in terms of feelings or thoughts, or both).
I think that an improvement to the Frank Rose conversation format (and he did a good job, and I was there too), would have been for people to choose red, yellow and green cards for both thoughts and feelings. For example, I would have chosen a green card for my feelings (positive feeling towards women in the priesthood), and a yellow card for my thoughts (undecided thoughts about it). Other people might have actually chosen a green card for feelings, and a red card for thoughts.
In terms of the actual conversation, there are two aspects of the issue that I find interesting. One has to do with religious representation, and the other has to do with consistency in policy. In terms of religious representation (as you indicated in the beginning of your essay Alaina) one of the factors in this conversation is whether or not women can represent the Lord in a church service. In the literal sense of the Word the Lord is almost exclusively represented by the male form. But in the spiritual sense of the Word that is not the case. For example: Sarah represents the Lord’s Divine Truth. I’m surprised whenever I hear someone say that the Lord is male. Jesus Christ was male, but the Lord (as we understand the Lord in the New Church) is not limited by gender, since the Lord is the source of both genders. There’s a lot more that could be said about this, but I think it’s one of the important parts of the conversation.
Also we have the issue of consistency in policy in the GC organization. The organization is fine with employing women as teachers in higher education, as well as employing women in roles of administrative and organizational leadership (such as the president of the college). The only exception at this point is the priesthood. This presents some inconsistency in our organizational policy. An extreme conservative position might argue that women should not be in any of those roles. So if that is part of the argument then (at least for that part of the argument) there are some issues of inconsistency.
Another part of the conversation that I think we need to consider carefully is the question of how much women can separate their emotions from their thoughts. In terms of salvation, a woman wouldn’t be able to regenerate unless she were capable of separating her emotions from her thoughts. This is an essential human capability. I sometimes wonder if this idea is a misunderstanding of CL 169 which is really just saying that women think more consistently about their husbands, based on their love for them, than husbands do about their wives.
Shada, I love that phrase that you used: “emotional intelligence.” I think that is a great way to describe especially women’s wisdom, which the Writings speak very highly of. And the stories that Swedenborg relates of husbands and wives in heaven indicates that they respect each other for their wisdom and judgment (CL 155r.4), or to state it more blatantly, men respect women for their wisdom and judgment. I think the concept of emotional intelligence is not only something that needs to be considered when considering women in the priesthood, but also when considering a conversation about women in the priesthood.
I think the Writings indicate that it’s important to come to a balance between our feelings and thoughts. Married couples needs to come to agreement, rather than control of one over the other. In a similar way goodness and truth, or our will and intellect, need to come to a state of agreement, rather than one controlling the other. For a time it may appear that our understanding needs to control our corrupt will, until we gain a new will. But in the end, the functional relationship is balanced, complementary, and mutual.
I do believe that feelings need to be considered here. Not from a sense of our feelings dominating our understanding of the Word, or even from a sense of how our understanding of the Word dominates our feelings, but from a sense of how our feelings and our understanding of the Word can eventually come to agreement. And just like in a marriage, this involves mutual change. So as the two move closer to agreement, both our feelings will adjust, and our understanding of the Word will adjust.
We do need to use our intellect to analyze the risk of bias in terms of our feelings and emotions. But this doesn’t necessarily mean that those feelings will always be corrupt and untrustworthy. There may be times when a genuine feeling (perhaps from remnant goodness implanted by the Lord) indicates a flaw in our intellect. Our intellect would be remiss to disregard a chance to gain greater accuracy in thinking. A feeling of unfairness may point our intellect to reexamine a situation to find out if that situation truly is unfair or not. In some cases it may be accurate, and in other cases it may not.
Good analogies can be hard to find, because every situation is different. One analogy that might be more similar to this conversation is what happened with women’s right to vote. I’m sure that a lot of what drove that movement was feelings. That doesn’t mean that it was wrong. Those feelings actually pointed out flaws in the way our cultural intellect thought about women’s rights.
Love is our very life (DLW 1). As you mentioned Alaina, we do have to be careful of a kind of faith-alone in terms of this issue. “Our discernment [intellect, understanding] simply sees, and it sees things that have to do with wisdom or truth but not things that have to do with love or what is good.” (DP 39) It’s not just about what is true from the Word, even though that’s an essential component of any issue. It’s about what is true, kind and useful. And truth by itself can often appear to be different from truth that is married to kindness and focused on what is useful.
This is a conversation that I am very interested in, so thanks again everyone for engaging in it. I look forward to more.
Well...I wrote a great response. But it got deleted. So I guess it wasn't meant to be.
Thanks for the clarifications -- I do think I misunderstand Brian's comment before. And I know he wasn't really saying that women should keep away from doctrinal study.
I think there is a misunderstanding with regard to the nature of emotion as found in the Bible, and as expounded by Swedenborg. In his work, the word more often used is affection on the spiritual side and desire in contrast on the natural, while it is desire on the spiritual side when it is craving on the natural. In either case, there is a sense in its exploration that goes beyond mere ‘feelings’, in that such desires and affections are the actual stuff of what is visible as its containant. Consequently, to hear New Church ministers stating the doctrinal case and telling us to be wary of our feelings is ironic in a tragic sense, for there we find a way of arguing or debating that assumes from the outset that such debate has no place for feelings, and the doctrines they then speak of are emptied of value.
When considering the nature of a covenant, we are actually looking at a reciprocal relationship, and in it there is a bending on both sides. Consider the state of the Israelites, forever stiff-necked and back-sliding, yet at every point of their desire to be chosen, they are accommodated. It is an accommodation on the side of God. However, when doctrine is insisted upon divorced from the emotive life seeking a nearness with the Divine Human, it becomes faith without charity in no time, and one need only see how Christ himself plots the gradual demise of the church which begins with doctrinal disputes that become so separated that they lose sight of their roots.
We are not immune from this kind of decline, and perhaps we should remember that salvation itself is concerned with the joining within us of the heart and mind. Furthermore, it should be recognised that gender is not hard-fixed in terms of its role since it inverts in the celestial from the spiritual in terms of its symbolism.
For my part, I am a member of the New Church because of the depth of extraordinary perception the Bible contains which reading Swedenborg has given me. But more often than not, and sadly so, I find that the ministry itself is beginning to become very watered down and similar to the Christian church I left many years ago. Consequently, it is very sad that this is actually an issue. In that desire and affection are both terms that imply an attraction or drawing towards, one would have thought this was well-known and an integral part of church theology. If women feel drawn to the service of ministry, the Lord in his mercy would not prevent it.