The 21st-Century Debate on Women in the Priesthood Part II: “Side-Notes” and Tradition
Alaina Mabaso | Friday, October 21, 2011 Here's part two from Alaina Mabaso. Staying with the theme of the ordination of women, Alaina shifts her focus to zero in on another inconsistency in the defense of an exclusively male clergy. She points to the problem of painting the proponents of change as heavily influenced by cultural forces while at the same time grounding the supposed doctrinal defenses of the status quo in traditional cultural assumptions. Another well written, easy read which provides valuable perspective on the discussion. Find Alaina's first contribution here. This is number two in the series, Women as Ordained Priests (or Not). -Editor.
This summer, I’ve had the privilege of helping my grandparents into a new phase of their lives. Though they grieve to leave the large, beautiful house where my Dad and his sisters grew up, they know the time is right to downsize.
I’ve spent the last few months purging, sorting and packing their belongings. As devout General Church members active in their community, my grandparents have gathered a lifetime of New Church publications, sermons and papers. Through them, I discover Church controversies in the voices of the time.
One clergyman’s paper from many years ago bemoans upheaval, doubt, and emerging challenges to the authority of General Church policy, especially on questions of proper gender roles.
These problems originated in the 1960’s, he says.
This reminds me of pundits who long for America’s better days. I wonder which good old days they mean – World War I or II? The Great Depression? The Cold War? Jim Crow? Vietnam? We forget how tough things really were just in time to think that our current problems are unique.
Something tells me that challenges to the status quo (whether within the General Church or in society at large) were not invented in the 1960’s. It just seems that way when that’s the moment we’re living in.
Warnings against the influence of our current cultural context continue to weigh heavily on debates of New Church doctrine and policy, and nowhere are these more evident than in the controversy over a female priesthood.
In his 1997 article, “Preaching By Women”, Rev. Walter Orthwein expresses this apparent conflict between doctrine and modern mores: “I assume that our customs have been influenced to some degree by the customs of the world around us; the church as a human organization is not a perfect expression of pure heavenly ideals.”
“The question I hope we ask in regard to every proposed change”, he says, “is whether it represents a move away from worldly thought toward our Divinely revealed doctrine, or away from doctrine toward the way of the world.” Orthwein admits that change is inevitable in the course of the church’s growth, so he is not against change in general. But, he warns, “let’s just be sure that each change is for a good reason, and not just to keep up with the times.”
It’s a distinction New Church members have always raised as they, like society at large, debate questions of gender roles.
Generations of girls at the Academy lived these debates like no-one else. They were forbidden to wear pants to school, shivering through the winter because the doctrine stipulated that pants were unfeminine. They learned that it was improper for them to hold jobs, because according to doctrine, professional roles were exclusively masculine. They were denied organized sports because the doctrine forbade competitive women. Now, most of us realize that the Writings offer little basis for the sartorial, professional and recreational prohibitions New Church girls once experienced.
Just as many people now insist that the Writings ban women from becoming priests, many New Church members likewise argued well into the 1980’s that a female presence on the General Church board would contradict doctrine.
For example, a 1975 letter in New Church Life calls the nomination of two women to the Canadian General Church board “disturbing” (New Church Life 1975. #465.)
Women are represented by their husbands, the writer argues. They can’t function rationally: “women, who are ruled by their affections, tend to become personally involved when it is necessary to judge the matter being discussed objectively.” In addition, “few women are skilled in forensic matters.” Women also impede the work of the board: “the presence of women in a council of men tends to inhibit the freedom of debate.”
Women’s presence on the board “is in opposition to the principles held by the founders,” and is due to “the new liberal thinking… and the modern trend.”
Bishop Louis King, in a 1988 letter to General Church members and friends, lays out conflicting clergy opinions on the issue.
Some believe that female board members are not allowed by our doctrine: “if women serve on the General Church Board we will go against the authority of the plain teachings of the Writings” concerning the importance of masculine and feminine distinctions.
However, others point out that women at the College are educated in business, religion, science and mathematics, and women serve as managers, executives and financial officers in other church and Academy positions – yet we bar them from the board: “Are we not inconsistent?”
“Let us not make spiritual principles out of historic natural applications,” King quotes.
Women who reply to the 1975 letter show similar sentiment. “The fact that the presence of women on boards was ‘in opposition to the principles of the founders’ does not make it in opposition to Divine order!” says one respondent (New Church Life 1976. #26.). If all board members, male and female, were qualified and committed to worthwhile goals, the sex difference wouldn’t stifle debate: this idea “is just part of our traditional conditioning.”
It’s not a new observation to many in the General Church: ministers opposed to female ordination may be “keeping with the times” just as much as women who claim that they should have the right to enter the priesthood – it’s just that the times ministers are keeping with are the times of the late 18th century.
The debate on whether or not our doctrine actually prohibits female priesthood is a great topic for another paper – in fact, I hear that Bishop Kline has recently commissioned one from a wise, experienced and capable woman.
To me, a problem with the debate itself becomes clear when ministers who warn against current influences go on to interpret doctrine primarily through recent cultural tradition.
The fact is, interpreting the Writings is a messy business, especially when it comes to determining God’s word on female priests. A large number of the teachings ministers draw on to oppose the ordination of women do not have explicit application to the question of female priesthood – rather, they are inferences based on various teachings about married partners, masculine and feminine inclinations, or the atmospheres of different parts of heaven.
But things really get complicated when we come to Swedenborg’s Spiritual Diary. Whether or not these posthumously-published passages should comprise holy doctrine is, again, a great topic for another paper. There are also plenty of fascinating debates over the translation – and therefore the real meaning – of passages of Spiritual Diary that seem to pertain to female priests.
The point here is that to interpret these strange, harsh passages, ministers can rely on popular cultural assumptions as much as the religious progressives whose “modern trend” thinking is opposed by the same ministers.
In "Preaching by Women", Rev. Orthwein comments on a translator’s response to Spiritual Diary 5936, a particularly troublesome passage when it comes to modern sensibilities.
Basically, the passage warns that women who “think in the way men do” about religious subjects, talk about them, or preach, “do away with the feminine nature.” Furthermore, though they might seem outwardly stable, women preachers develop base sensuality and a tendency to intellectual insanity. Women belong at home (according to certain translations).
Yikes.
Rev. Orthwein counsels that we should not fear this passage because of the risk that it will be used in too literal a way, to bar women not only from being ministers, but also from leading elementary school or private home worship, or thinking or talking about religion at all. He contends the passage is viable because we’ve been reading it “for over a hundred years” without deciding that women cannot perform these small-scale offices. Talking about religion or leading student worship “are things women in the church routinely do,” he says – therefore the passage couldn’t possibly be prohibiting these things.
“I think the church has taken it for granted all these years that giving worship for little children is not the same as the kind of ‘preaching’ meant by the passage,” he explains. “And the concern that the traditional reading of the passage would forbid all thought or talk by women on religious subjects is shown by long experience to be unfounded.”
It’s fortunate that Rev. Orthwein doesn’t subscribe to the most stringent possible interpretation of this passage. But it’s interesting to see that while he declares later in the same paper that a woman preaching is as much a “departure from reality” as a man giving birth, he implies that we can take related doctrinal interpretations of women’s roles “for granted” because of a cultural basis.
Rev. Jeremy Simons’s 2002 paper, “The Hazards of Ministry”, takes a very similar approach to interpreting this passage. He also affirms that Spiritual Diary 5936 does not bar women from thinking and speaking about spiritual things. Rather, “the issue is ‘speaking much,’ or obsessively, or professionally, on religious topics.”
“Engaging in religious conversations, leading occasional discussions, and giving occasional speeches are not what is meant,” he explains. The passage happily condones women’s religious discourse as long as it’s not done often, and as long as the women are not recognized and paid for their work (they must not speak in an “official capacity”). According to Rev. Simons, the passage allows women to lead public worship services and prayers to “groups of women” and “students or children”. It is when women lead worship for “the general public” that Rev. Simons emphasizes a range of grave outcomes, including the assertion that it’s “very likely” a female minister would become obsessed with material and sensual things, and would become “crazy”.
Rev. Simons’s stipulations are interesting. I think we must ask whether New Church women are allowed to lead worship for certain people, take the Master of Arts in Religious Studies program or give occasional religious speeches because the Writings permit it, or if we infer that the Writings permit it because we’ve become comfortable with women doing that over the years.
And when we subtract children, students, and women from Rev. Simons’s “general public”, who is left?
When he effectively subtracts everyone but the men from his definition of “the general public”, Rev. Simons warns women that the risk of insanity appears only when they presume to lead men in worship.
Do the passages he quotes actually make that distinction? Or is sexism melding with comfortable, existing church practice to create this interpretation?
I’m not promoting a more stringent interpretation than Rev. Orthwein and Rev. Simons espouse. Neither do I want to denigrate their scholarship, or their devotion to the wellbeing of their communities. Rather, I want to point out that in this case, their doctrinal interpretations may be unwittingly born of an investment in current customs as much as doctrinal study.
Perhaps most telling of all, Rev. Simons admits that passages that “speak directly about women in relation to doctrine, preaching, and public prayer do not have a central place in any treatment of the clergy in the Writings.” Instead, these passages on women and priest-like roles are mostly “side-notes” which “merely confirm the long-held assumption that priests should be men, an assumption that has been remarkably consistent over time in the great majority of human cultures.” In other words, these passages are not key pieces of New Church doctrine: rather, they are valuable because they confirm a larger cultural status quo.
Rev. Simons’s own goal in writing the paper is “to discourage women from taking up the ministry as a profession, and to confirm the long-standing Christian tradition of a male priesthood.”
Am I the only one worried that a doctrinal paper states as its goal the continuation of a “long-standing tradition” that excludes women?
One of the last things I helped my grandmother to pack was a bookcase bursting with editions of Swedenborg. Along with various listings, concordances, quotation books, and related New Church literature, they filled several boxes: sober, frayed navy-blue hardbacks alongside inviting new editions, soft covers rich with color and gilt. Thick, dusty battalions of Arcana Celestia rubbed shoulders with the much slimmer “Divine Love and Wisdom”, and various editions of Conjugial Love were a veritable tour through the ages of the church.
Looking at the way the piles of Swedenborg’s books covered the floor, the New Church’s feast of doctrine struck me afresh. With the sheer bulk of the books sprawling around me, the absurdity of denying their interactions with our culture is clear. How could such a giant collection – translated, read and interpreted by so many people for well over two centuries - stay sealed within its own intellectual and spiritual realm? How could the Writings not form our cultural preferences as much as our cultural preferences form our understanding of the Writings?
Ultimately, Rev. Orthwein does not admit this possibility in “Preaching By Women”. “Until recently, I think the church as a whole saw this and was agreed on it, the women as well as the men,” he asserts of a negative view of female priests. It’s that modern thinking which is the trouble: “I have to question whether the new thoughts on this subject reflect a deeper understanding of the Writings, or whether they represent influences from the world around us,” he warns.
If women’s desire to serve in the priesthood is merely a factor of our liberal times, is it an irrelevant coincidence that widespread cultural perceptions of women’s limited roles concurred with the General Church founders’ understanding of doctrine? Were people in the church founders’ time more in tune with the Lord’s true will for women simply because they lived over a century ago – a better, more orderly time, free of the problems that modernity brings?
What is a hundred years to the Lord?
We must do away with the reflexive assumption that “the way of the world” always represents a departure from doctrine. The passage of time has brought many human and spiritual improvements to our way of life: for example, modern racial equality is surely closer to the Lord’s ideal than the segregation of the past. On a much smaller scale, few would argue today that the General Church organization was better off before women began contributing to its administration.
This essay doesn’t claim to solve the controversy over the ordination of women. But I do argue that proponents of change should not see their sincere beliefs and desire to serve marginalized as disorderly social trends, versus the doctrinal high ground of traditionalists, who claim to rely solely on God’s Word, even as they themselves justify their doctrinal positions by pointing to what is commonly done in General Church culture. As this debate moves forward, I would like proponents of the all-male priesthood to admit that people advocating for female priests are not the only ones influenced by the world around them.
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.
Reader Comments (88)
Leif,
You just wrote -
"My only concern is the logistics of this reform, and the fact that those who vehemently want this justified reform also want a few other unjustified reforms. I am not making this up - those who have responded on this panel have indicated what their basket of must-haves is. It does not stop with the ordination of women."
Please don't paint with such a broad brush. One could interpret the comments of those debating you as you did, but one could also easily parse words written above in a much more nuanced fashion. I, for one, am excluded by the black and white sentence you just wrote. I think we should ordain women in the General Church, and while I believe in gay rights and true equality under the law (read legal gay marriage under churches that wish to bestow it) I'm not convinced that the General Church should take such a step.
Thanks,
Edmund
AC 1937,
I don't think the lack of scriptural references in these two comment strings indicates an unwillingness to try to discern what the Word is saying about this issue. Rather, Alaina's essays were bringing attention to the fact that, with any derived doctrine, those who derive it will be using their own particular lens through which to view the Word. There are many lenses, and this discussion was raising the idea that these lenses exist for everyone, and that it is possible to derive the doctrines relating to the ordination of women differently than is done so currently without compromising the integrity of revelation. A close reading of scripture is important, but so is an understanding of the context in which it is read.
Perhaps a treatment of doctrine will be included in an upcoming essay?
Leif is right that the ball is in the court of those against ordination. It's rather hard for us to provide proof from the Writings that they don't say anything about a topic. But I do know that a paper is in the works addressing the theological argument for exclusion of women from the ministry.
Edmund, thanks for making the point that I was itching to. "Please don't paint with such a broad brush."
Shada, you are spot on. This discussion has thus far been primarily about cultural bias. No one here is avoiding a theological debate, it's just not the topic.
I've been catching up on the comments, some interesting thoughts.
Please try to work extra hard to keep it civil.
Dylan used the phrase: "preventing women from following their honestly-felt call." I think this is key to how I see the issue. The General Church has a policy but my question is whether or not that policy is designed to "prevent women from following their honestly-felt call."
The way I look at it, its not. Women may have a calling. The General Church may decline to ordain them. But this doesn't lead me to the conclusion that the General Church is actively preventing women from following their calling.
Brian
Leif and Shada, thank you for your clarifying comments.
Regarding "cultural bias"... has there ever been a time when it did not exist? Will there ever be a time when it does not exist? While the term itself is relatively new, that to which the term refers has existed for as long as cultures have existed. As long as there is a culture, there will be cultural biases. And as long as there are two or more cultures, there will be two or more sets of cultural biases. Even should everything in the world and amongst all peoples be standardized, cultural biases will still exist--they would simply be somewhat difficult to notice for lack of available comparisons.
A claim that the implementation of called-for changes will eradicate or remove cultural biases is somewhat disingenuous. For however true it may be that particular cultural biases will be removed, other cultural biases--the biases of the new culture--inevitably will take root and sprout. Whether the biases of the new culture are somehow better is somewhat beside the point I am making here. The point I am making here is that the fact that new biases will inevitably take root and sprout belies the original 'promise' of eradicating cultural bias. Particular cultural biases notwithstanding, cultural biases in the abstract are never removed, only supplanted or replaced.
AC 1937
Can you remove cultural biases? How do you know if you have removed them? If the doctrine of the church changes according to different lenses how do you know when you have it right?
answer: when it says what I want it to... ;P
AC, I don't think we have been suggesting that we will be able to remove cultural bias. At least this is not my suggestion. I'm fully aware that what I support is replacing outdated cultural bias with up-to-date bias. The point is not to change the doctrine, but to allow flexibility in our interpretations of it. What I see in the General Church is people clinging to old bias as if it were actual doctrine. Old interpretations have been set in stone via official policies and treated as if they somehow have more truth to them than the equally valid interpretations of my generation. This is where I take issue.
Maybe what I really do want is the removal of bias from official policy, as much of a pipe dream as that is. I think we would all be better of if the Church refused to take official stances in areas where there are clearly multiple valid opinions - allow individuals to interpret the doctrine for themselves. But maybe what I'm describing just isn't organized religion. Then again...I don't really like the idea of an organization telling me how to read the word.
Just musing.
I really think we should link arms with the other two New Church denominations. People with different proclivities can move from one "wing" to another and still be New Church. I know this is seems like creating theological Bantustans (an apartheid-area terminology, see Wikipedia) but that might be the best way to keep focused on the Church's mission and not get bogged down into endless, unresolvable debates. Also, the "walls" between these denominations can have windows and doors.
In the USA, Presbyterians a liberal and a conservative denomination. In the USA, the Lutherans have 4 with different theological stances. The Baptists have the American Baptist Convention (liberal) and the Southern Baptist Convention (conservative).
So do the Swedenborgians - we have 3 denominations in North America with different positions on the left-right spectrum. We should work with the other North American Swedenborgian bodies, exchange resources -- and, where it makes sense, membership - without competing with each other. Some of our members might be more comfortable in a liberal denomination - and we do not need to split the General Church.
And we should ordain women in the General Church - that is input from an avowed conservative who loves Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman. I wish these two would convert to New Christianity, join the GC and get ordained :-)
Leif
Thanks for the laugh, Leif.
It's very hard on me to hear talk of the other denominations, along with the implicit "go where you're wanted." I really believe that my church community is dying of a cancer. I'm not going to stop fighting for them. The sexism and intolerance that I see and feel are heart-wrenching, and I want to save my loved ones from that pain. If you believe that sexism and intolerance are not a problem in the General Church, and/or that women ought not to be ordained, you might feel that you don't need me to try to save you (and you'd be right). If I thought I were alone in my wish for reform, I would simply leave. But I suspect that a silent majority of the GC population either 1) believes that women should be ordained, or 2) are ignorant of the reasons for keeping them out, and/or 3) are unsatisfied with the reasons presented. I want to give voice to those people, and demand better communication with greater transparency. Eventually I want people to recognize that the collective wisdom of the Church may reach a different conclusion that the one previously accepted. (New Church Perspective is an awesome first step.)
For the record -- I use the word intolerance not as a catch-all for the entire "left wing agenda." What I mean by that term is an unwillingness to love, respect, and coexist with those different from us without trying to change them.
Also, a doctrinal consideration IS upcoming in at least one future essay. Stay tuned.
Kristin,
You got me COMPLETELY wrong. Humor aside, I sincerely support and believe that the GC should ordain women. All that I have requested in this debate is that:
(1) It be done in an orderly and non-disruptive manner.
(2) It not be a gateway to un-Christian "reforms" such as the regularization of "gay" marriage.
I know many social and political conservatives that support equal roles and privileges for women. Gender equality (not the so-called sexuality equality) and race equality are beloved goals for many conservatives, Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman included.
Leif
Dear Leif:
You said, on October 25, 2011 that:
"No one can read all of Swedenborg. All that we can do is search the massive corpus."
This is simply not true. Many people have read all of the Heavenly Doctrines, and even have done it multiple times. Simply read 2, 5, 10 pages a day, every day, and you will do it. And you will be blessed. It is amazing how beautifully the Lord can modify your thoughts and affections as you look to Him, shun evils, and read His thoughts.
Bill
Nathan wrote, "If the doctrine of the church changes according to different lenses how do you know when you have it right?" Though posed as a prelude to a punch line, the question is a genuine and important one. And it is tangentially addressed in the Writings, a few times at least.
Kesley wrote, "Then again...I don't really like the idea of an organization telling me how to read the word." Identified as a 'musing', it is nonetheless a genuine and important musing. And it, too, is tangentially addressed in the Writings, likewise a few times at least.
See, e.g., AC 1799.4, AC 5432.5 and AC 6047.2 (starting with the 3rd sentence), all of which also bear relation to the current topic.
Kesley,
You wrote, “I think we would all be better of if the Church refused to take official stances in areas where there are clearly multiple valid opinions - allow individuals to interpret the doctrine for themselves.”
In most cases, I agree with you; in fact, maybe in all cases. The Writings say that if a person believes differently from the priest, and “does not cause a disturbance” (and I’ve never been sure what exactly that meant), that person should be left in peace.
But in the case of ordination we’re talking about something different, because the clergy is being asked to do something, not simply to let people live as they see fit. And as Brian has mentioned, the clergy doesn’t say, “We will not allow you to be ordained” – it says, “Based on our current understanding of the Word, we will not ordain you.”
The fact is, the clergy has to decide somehow who it will ordain. This can be looked at even separately from the issue of women in the priesthood. A few people have mentioned a “call” to the priesthood. Should the clergy ordain everyone who feels they have been called? As far as I know, that has never been the church's policy - there have been plenty of men who have felt a call whom the church has not ordained. To use an extreme example, what if someone feels called to be a priest in the General Church but does not even believe in the Writings? I don’t think the clergy can base their decision on whether or not an applicant feels called – even if one person feels called to something, if that call involves another person, the other person has to make a decision based on their own understanding.
For example, think about a situation where a man feels called to marry a woman (or vice versa, but I’ll stick with this way around for the example). He may even tell her, “The Lord told me I’m supposed to marry you.” I think most of us know of cases where something like this has actually happened – it’s not uncommon. What should the woman do in the situation? The Writings say that when a woman is deciding whether to marry a man, she should consult within herself (as well as with her parents) to avoid marrying someone who she does not love. If she doesn’t also feel the call to be married, she shouldn’t marry the man, no matter how sure he is that he’s being called.
In the same way, it would be wrong for the clergy to base the decision to ordain someone simply on whether that person felt called. It should be based instead on the clergy’s understanding of what the Writings teach about what is needed in a priest, and if they see that in the applicant. If their understanding is that a priest needs to have a male mind, then they should not ordain women. Of course, that understanding may be wrong, and I’m all for talking about it and debating it, as is happening now on this site. But the fact that some women feel called to the ministry – even if that is a genuine, heartfelt call – does not mean that the clergy ought to ordain them if its understanding hasn’t changed.
A note on a sense of “calling” in general – and please do read this as a separate issue from the women in the priesthood issue, even though they’re obviously related. I’m writing this comment because I think I’ve noticed a trend in the General Church in all areas (not just controversial ones) to talk about being called directly by the Lord to do something. And I do want to say from the outset that my mind isn’t settled on this – I’m still trying to understand the way that the Lord calls people. On the one hand, the Writings do say that if a person is shunning evils as sins, the Lord will flow in and show them the good that they are supposed to do. There are the passages in Conjugial Love that talk about people knowing by an inner dictate that “she is mine,” or “he is mine.” They do talk about perception, and although only celestial people have perception in its truest sense, they do talk about lesser degrees of perception that seem to be available to less regenerate people.
But on the other hand, I do not see the majority of the passages in the Writings indicating that people receive direct, unmistakable calls from the Lord. Even in the case of a couple that meets in heaven, they deliberate in themselves and talk about it after some time – they don’t get engaged then and there. As I understand it, we should listen to where the Lord is guiding us – but I don’t know that it’s ever a good idea to think that we’ve heard completely.
A passage that comes to mind is Divine Providence 321, which is about people who look for direct influence from heaven:
Divine Providence 265 says something similar: “No one is taught immediately from heaven, but mediately through the Word, and doctrine and preaching from the Word.”
This isn’t to say that anyone who says they feels called to something is claiming that they were instructed by direct influx to believe or do something. And it’s not to say that anyone’s sense of call is wrong. It’s only to point out that the Writings seem to me to emphasize that when we feel a call, we shouldn’t rest and assume that’s all there is to it – we should continually examine it, to see if there’s more to hear, and to act based on our rationality, not only a sense of a dictate from heaven.
Coleman, there's a subtle but important perspective-switch that I'd like to apply to your argument. Particularly when you make the analogy of a man being called to marry a woman, and the idea that "if she doesn’t also feel the call to be married, she shouldn’t marry the man, no matter how sure he is that he’s being called." I think this is a valid point in and of itself, but when mapped onto the current situation, it belies an assumption that the currently all-male clergy is in a fully legitimate position to decide on their own whether women can become ministers. Put another way, it assumes that the final responsibility for making the decision lies with the clergy, and not with the total community that supports and is served by that clergy. Mind you, there's no talk of doctrinal distinctions in this analogy, but simply a designation of who wields the ultimate authority over a community issue.
Looked at in this way, it's hard for me not to draw comparisons to other historical power structures of our society. If the people in a community feel that their local government is not properly serving their needs, is it fully the place of that governing body to decide if they're right? As a civilization, we used to hold the perception that only the King could realistically possess the education, training and access to information required to make decisions for a kingdom. As the education and literacy of the average citizen has gone up, we have demanded more and more of a political voice, shifting our power structures from monarchs to parliaments to democratic elections. It is not that we were necessarily always deserving of this voice, but we became deserving the moment we had the tools to ask (and then demand) participation in the existing power structures.
One constant in this debate is that women in the last generation have had access to the same empowering forces and cultural narratives that men have exclusively enjoyed for centuries before. Regardless of how you want to hold cultural bias, I think we should expect that where women previously had no voice, they would now reasonably be expected to demand one. Fifty years ago few people would disagree that the man should make final decisions for his household, even if they run contrary to his wife. It was common wisdom that women shouldn't think too hard for fear that they'd get the vapors. You wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) get very far arguing these things today, but in a way, you are arguing that the institutional hierarchy that was built in this cultural climate should hold equal legitimacy today. Just because men happen to be the only ones in the clergy, dad still gets to decide if mom can get a job or not. I don't think that's a defensible position.
I must add that Jihadis feel called by God to commit their atrocious acts. A subjective calling needs to be corroborated by objective criteria.
Which does not directly relate to the issue of women's ordination. A woman who feels called and satisfies gender-neutral objective criteria should be ordained.
Leif
Dylan,
I'm glad you brought this up, and I think it opens up one of the big underlying questions around this whole topic: who should have the authority to ordain or not ordain? Is it the clergy and the laity together? Or the clergy alone? And even more fundamentally: who leads the church?
My understanding - and historically the understanding of the General Church - is that the church organization ought to be led first and foremost by the Lord in His Word. But there also need to be human leaders who oversee church things. And this role (as I understand it) has been given to the clergy.
The clearest teachings on this are in New Jerusalem and Its Heavenly Doctrine, in the chapter on "Ecclesiastical and Civil Government." Excerpts (emphasis added):
To me, this clearly puts the responsibility for "administering things of Divine law and worship" on the clergy - and the ordination of priests seems to me to fall squarely into this category. This isn't to say that priests should ignore the people they're trying to serve. A wise priesthood will welcome input and wisdom for lay people, and will always be reconsidering their understanding of the Word - but in the end, the final decision does rest with the priesthood.
So, does that mean that the clergy should have all the authority in the church? I think it comes down to what you mean by the church. In one sense, the church is the Lord's kingdom on earth, and specifically it is the people who know the Lord in His Word and follow Him. In that sense, the church is the equivalent of heaven on earth, and in that sense, everyone participates in being the church and leading the church. But even in heaven - where everyone makes up the Lord's kingdom - there are specific people who are especially concerned with "ecclesiastical affairs," or "church affairs":
The "preaching office" is described further: "All preachers are appointed by the Lord, and have therefrom a gift for preaching. No others are permitted to preach in the churches" (Heaven and Hell 226)
It sounds like even in heaven there is a specific, exclusive group of people who are overseers in "ecclesiastical affairs" (and, interestingly, that their primary responsibility is preaching). And as I see it, the church organization in this sense - i.e. "ecclesiastical affairs," and matters of worship - really should be overseen by the clergy.
But of course in our current church organization, ministers are also put in charge of schools, charitable organizations, visiting the sick, etc. - and I do wonder if part of the problem is that we have expanded the uses of the priesthood beyond what the Writings lay out - to teach truth and lead thereby to the good of life, and to administer things requiring the Lord's blessing (e.g. marriages), and to oversee the things of worship.
Leif,
I want to look at one of the more difficult passages in Conjugial Love. You talk about gender-neutral criteria for ordaining a priest. Now, whoever is doing the ordaining cannot know for certain whether an applicant has the necessary wisdom to be a priest - they can only make their best guess. But based on the Writings, couldn't they make a blanket requirement that a priest must be capable of "elevating the sight of his understanding into the light in which men are"? From Conjugial Love 175:
Let's talk about these hard passages. Alaina rightly points out in her article that the way we interpret these passages has changed over time, and is likely to change again. But we have to do something with them. One common solution is to say, "Women are capable of doing all the offices of men, but they do them in a feminine way rather than a masculine way." I think this may be true in many cases, but the Writings state pretty strongly that at least in some cases, even when it appears that a woman is capable of fulfilling a masculine office, and vice versa, they cannot enter "into the judgment on which the right performance of the offices inwardly depends":
Let's leave aside the question of women in the ministry for the moment, and simply ask: what are those offices that a woman does not have the requisite judgment for? And lest we focus entirely on what women cannot do, the end of that passage:
So, by the same token, what are those offices that men cannot do? Conjugial Love 174 (maddeningly) says, "That there are offices proper to the man, and offices proper to the wife, has no need of being illustrated by a recountal of those offices; for they are many and various, and every one knows how to classify them according to their genera and species if only he exert his mind to the distinguishing of them."
So, do we take the Writings at their word? Are there really offices that only women are suited for? Are there really offices that only men are suited for? What are they?