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)
I am puzzled by the anecdote related in CL 175 regarding authoresses. I find the anecdote too brief for me to sense with reasonable certainty what motives its relation. As I see it, there are two distinct possibilities: (1) it is reported as a confirmation or example of what is already known or has already been established; and, (2) it is reported as evidence from which it might be inferred that no woman is capable of judgment and wisdom (of the kind presumably alluded to).
If (1) is the case, then why, in discussions regarding the differences between men and women, should the anecdote be relied upon rather than its established precursor? Given the brevity of the anecdote, would not the established precursor, assuming it exists, have more meat and substance to it, and therefore be, if not more convincing, at least less ambiguous?
On the other hand, if (2) is the case, what is to prevent anyone from righty making the same inference regarding those theological writings of learned male authors which also have "elegance and fine style of verbal composition" masquerading as judgment and wisdom? Picture the inevitable consequence: Since there are theological writings of learned male authors lacking in judgment and wisdom, it follows that no man is capable of judgment and wisdom.
But this last conclusion clearly is absurd. And it is absurd because it is founded on or patterned after a fallacy, the fallacy being, "Some X are Y, therefore all X are Y." The truth is, what is true of some members of a group is not necessarily true of all members of the group. Additionally, if it should happen that it is true of all members of a group, it isn't true for all members for the reason that it is true of some members, but for some other reason(s). And if it cannot be rationally said that all men are incapable of judgment and wisdom because some men have shown themselves incapable in this respect, then it cannot be rationally said that all women are incapable of judgment and wisdom because some women have shown themselves incapable in this respect.
If for this reason I can rule out (2) as the motivation underlying the relation of the anecdote, then I am left with (1). And being left with (1), I am also left with wondering where it had already been established, or whether it was simply 'known', that no woman is capable of the judgment and wisdom (of the kind presumably alluded to).
Another thing about the anecdote which puzzles me is that it is said that the exploration or examination of the authoresses' writings took place in the spiritual world. Truthfully, it isn't so much that it took place in the spiritual world which puzzles me, but that Swedenborg was so general in saying where it took place. The spiritual world is comprised of heaven, the world of spirits, and hell. If the exploration took place in or from heaven, why not say so? That it wasn't said so doesn't mean it took place in or from somewhere else; but not saying so introduces an element of doubt. And this element of doubt understandably might extend to the credibility of the conclusion.
Further, even if the exploration was conducted in or from heaven, this would not, I wish to say without offending, render its conclusion infallible--Swedenborg himself corrected the considered opinion of angels on at least one occasion. See, e.g., AR 961.6.
And although it is mentioned in the anecdote that the authoresses were present during the exploration of their writings, it is not mentioned whether they, like Swedenborg in AR 961.6, had an opportunity to invite a closer inspection of what was inside the thoughts underlying the (in this case) written speech. Nothing was said about this one way or another, so I can only wonder.
As for the Writings not delineating in an inarguable manner those duties proper to men and those proper to women, a clue possibly may be had from one of Swedenborg's letters. I refer to Letter 30, wherein Swedenborg writes, "[T]he Lord our Savior leaves things which concern temporal (worldly) matters to my intelligence and judgment, and reveals to me only such things as treat of heaven and eternal life[.]"
Coleman, thanks for your comments. They help. Especially when you said, "I think I'm spiritually much better off dismissing my own comments than I am dismissing yours." This is very kindly said and comforting, and it's definitely a subject where kindness and comfort are lacking for me.
AC 1937, thanks for your mention of letter 30. It seems funny that I should use Swedenborg's letters to help me challenge the authority of some of his writings, like Married Love or the unpublished works or the letters themselves. But it does seem like a viable place to get advice about how to read the Doctrines.
Kristin,
I don't see the statement from Letter 30 as challenging the authority of any of the Writings, only as suggesting what that authority mostly pertains to.
AC 1937
I am delighted to have a FB friend alert me to this post. I am now a woman minister, but had to find a different route than the GC church I had grown up in (3rd generation even). When I felt called to ministry 7 years ago I thought it was wrong; after all for >50 years I had been told women couldn't be priests/ministers. So I did a huge search for the (non-existent) doctrines that excluded my calling and found...NONE! Yet I'd heard that nothing should be part of General church policy that wasn't based on the doctrines. As you so rightly pointed out folks...this one isn't based on any NC Doctrine - just the "derived doctrine" about the relationship between husbands and wives, the proposed silence of women in the non-inspired NT books and the fact that Jesus Christ was male. As for the latter: true the doctrine speaks of the necessity for God to appear as truth, that is as a male, but God is so much more than gender. Also logistically: just how well would Christianity have taken off if God had descended as a woman in the cripplingly anti-women era of the Middle East (Still is)!
If you take a look back at the discussions of the early Academy movement (I wrote a paper on The role of women in the priesthood when I took the MARS program) those Victorian gentlemen thought women should SING their acquiescence of this move as they were to keep silent in church! It wouldn't have occured to them to even consider women as priests - at that point women didn't even have the vote.
No - the reason women aren't in the GC ministry is because it was set up as a male priesthood - pure and simple, and that makes me sad. Like Hannah my take on the NC favors the GC position not Convention, even though I love the folks there, plus there are few openings for any new priests in Convention. Unless people opposing women in ministry get to see how a woman leads worship they'll never know what they're missing - it's not an inferior masculine version - it's completely different. I believe the GC will die if it doesn't allow the healing ministry of women to enter its hallowed enclaves. Women ARE ministers - it's their natural calling, whether it's to their kids, their fellow widows, to the sad or crippled, to keep marriages alive and well, etc. Why is their vital use being shelved at best and denied at worst? Women are allowed to perform these uses as volunteers but, except for some notable exceptions, they aren't expected to be paid for it. This sounds like the reason nurses were so poorly paid - they were supposed to be doing it for love alone!
I decided to stop banging on the GC door and go a different route. I have a MARS degree, chaplaincy training, am a certified Specialist in Pastoral care through the Wayne Oates institute, and am in the process of becoming an ordained interfaith minister through the School of Sacred Ministries in Doylestown, which will happen in Dec 2012. I have been a paid hospice chaplain for 15 months now after 18 months of volunteer pastoral care and hospice work at Abington hospital. So I am working as a minister already, despite the GC stance, but it makes me sad to think we are losing women over this and denying the church I love the special ministry of women it needs.
So at the last GC assembly I told Tom I would write the paper he's requesting, although I want to call it "Why shouldn't women be in the priesthood?" and I don't believe it should just be a good doctrinal paper (that's masculine isn't it?): it should also include feminine wisdom. I plan to write it with the help of other women ministers and have no intention of just sending it to him. The only way I'll give it is to present it to the Council of the Clergy: communication is 80% body language after all.
Happy to discuss the doctrinal aspects with all! Julie Conaron
One passage relevant to this discussion is Arcana Coelestia 8994. In part it reads:
This passage speaks to this discussion because a female priest, as the priesthood is defined in the Writings, would necessarily be a woman who “concentrates on gaining knowledge” and would therefore be “not liked” by “those who are spiritually perceptive.” The context makes it clear that the type of knowledge specifically referred to is religious knowledge.
The relevance to the priesthood is especially shown in the sentence: “This also is why those of old said that women must keep silent in the Church.” It is even more clear if the reference to “those of old” refers, as appears to be the case, to Paul’s first epistle to Timothy 2.11,12 “Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man but to be in silence.” Also to Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians 14.34,35: “Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says (Genesis 3.16). And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.”
The Writings don't typically support Paul in these kinds of statements, but they seem to do it here.
Even though this passage makes only indirect reference to the priesthood, it is worth mentioning because the work of the priesthood from the beginning was to “go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16.15,16), “teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28.19,20). We read: “Does anyone love a bishop, or any church minister, or a person in holy orders, except for his learning, uprightness of life and zeal for saving souls? (True Christian Religion 418). Learning and knowledge of the Word is a primary tool in the hands of the priesthood, as it is defined in the Writings, and it is ironic that what is loved in a bishop or minister is said here to not be liked in a woman.
Whether or not we think that this passage shows opposition to a female clergy, it would not seem to be one that many people in favor of women priests could easily accept. It aso supports similar passages in Conjugial Love and Spiritual Experiences.
In the discussion above a point that has been made is that what Swedenborg writes may have been influenced by his culture and time, or even his own prejudices, and is therefore invalid. The irony is that while this may or may not be true, the topic here is the General Church priesthood, whose founding principle is that the Writings are the Word of God. Does it make sense to argue that what Swedenborg writes may not be true, while at the same time arguing for a policy change in the General Church?
It ends up being an argument that questions the entire founding philosophy of the General Church.
Jeremy,
I want to point out the end of that passage, since I think it broadens the picture of the nature of men and women. From Arcana Coelestia 8994:
I don't think this final point says much about whether women should be preachers, since Heaven and Hell 225 says, "All the preachers are from the Lord's spiritual kingdom; none are from the celestial kingdom" - but I do think it is worth noticing all the places that the Writings expand on the simple idea of men as truth and women as good to show that in reality, men express truth from good, and women express good from truth, which provides a fuller and more complex picture of the complementary nature of the sexes.
Coleman,
Thanks for pointing that out. I discuss that at length in the paper that Alaina references in this essay.
Basically, though, you are right that the point isn't terribly relevant to the question of women in the clergy, since we are not celestial (although we all have the potential to be), and if we were there wouldn't be any preachers, much less women preachers.
But this goes back to a point I made earlier about why it is problematic to talk about religion at all, and why celestial people don't do it. This is a point that I think is hugely relevant in this discussion.
Jeremy
Jeremy is right, these questions do go to the heart of how we believe the Writings to be the Word of God. I wonder if we aren't (as a church) being called to try and find a middle way. Clearly, the Writings cannot be literally true due to various scientific impossibilities, and Swedenborg was obviously in possession of his own wits while writing, so he was no mere tool. Yet, it is also clear to those of us moved by the Writings that there is revelation present - a powerful, overarching narrative of the Lord's love and wisdom. If God was guiding Swedenborg, the question is "how much?" If he was guiding him completely, why the mistakes? If he was guiding him incompletely, then what's His game? How are we meant to respond to revelation by proxy?
My own personal evolving approach is to look for the beautiful and pure generalities and little by little bring them forth into the complexities of human life. If certain details or illustrations in the Writings contradict a principle, then I will question them. As in the case of AC 8994, I approach it with the lens of:
a) as an individual I am formed with a will and an intellect capable of regenerating in a vacuum.
b) women and men are formed to be complementary
with the understanding that both of these ideas are true at the same time: a paradox. Much that pertains to God is paradoxical, and Swedenborg was a human, with a human mind, and the human mind struggles with paradox. In AC 8994, I see a human mind struggling to express, with human words, two seemingly contradictory but true principles, as well as representations, correspondences and generalities. As an individual, I do have an affection for the knowledge of truth and Swedenborg would have known that. But this number is trying to express truths about representations and ultimately about marriage, the deep truth being that men and women are made to be complementary so that we don't end up loving ourselves. We are made to save each other. And we are also made to save ourselves. We are in the image of God when we are in a marriage, and we are in the image of God as individuals, all at the same time, without one diminishing the other in the least.
When it come to interpreting the Writings, we don't have an easy out. I think we need to get used to paradox.
I lost my original posting so am trying to recreate it:
I wanted to respond to Jeremy's comments regarding the following from AC 8994: "So it is that those who are spiritually perceptive have a liking for women with an affection for truths, but not for women who concentrate on gaining knowledge." I dislike pulling passages out of context but in the interest of brevity am doing so. I don't believe women ministers want to lead like men - they'd end up being inferior men and/or ineffective. A woman minister does her job differently to a male priest and it is still valid and mportant in the life of the church. Let men be priests - that's a masculine approach to spiritual leadership; I think women ministers deserve to own that title - we have ministered to others for centuries and need to share the spiritual leadership of the church to make it balanced.
I try to touch people's hearts every day in my day to day work as a chaplain and I pray to the Lord every day to lead me accordingly. Why is the feminine way of leading not considered a valid ministry in the GC? It's surely different to a masculine approach but does that mean it's invalid?
I find it distressing that the old adage of women keeping silent in church gets dug up when denying women the right to be spiritual leaders: the Writings speak of their being silent in church "of old," It does not say: "and therefore they should be quiet in church!" My reading of the Writings leads me to believe that much of it is descriptive, not prescriptive; they emphasize the need for freedom and rationality more than obeying Levitical style laws. I believe they were given to us by the Lord but He leaves us free to arrive at our own conclusion. Some passages are obviously prescriptive, such as following the Ten commandments, shunning evil as sins, the importance of Charity as a primary tenet of the church, etc, but others leave us in freedom to make our own decisions, and the priesthood/ministry is one of them. All the arguments in the world, including Joel's recent ones, aren't going to change my mind, although it was well written. I love and have read all the Writings, and continue to read them: they speak to my heart. But why is the great wealth of feminine wisdom not allowed to reach the people? Why is the church organization so bent on keeping itself entirely masculine? I will continue to pray that its leaders will one day see the light. In the meantime I will continue to serve those who do accept me as a minister and spiritual servant of the Lord.
Thanks everyone for your thoughtful posting, and thanks Alaina for your well-articulated (as always) discussion-generating articles!
There was a time in my life when I loved debate, and as I've read this my mind has been racing with all the many responses I could have - most of what I find fascinating about this is the cultural/lens/philosophical aspect of it, rather than the actual question of "should" there be female priests at this point. At this point in life, I really don't enjoy debate, so it's not really my intention to jump in here with strong opinions at all. I'm very aware that my reactions are a huge weedy garden-bed of mixed thoughts and feelings, almost all of which are inclined to "balance" things and above all, protect and value the feelings, passions, and dreams of everyone involved.
One point I do want to make is what several others have mentioned - that the General Church was founded on the principle that the Writings of Swedenborg are "the Word." In reality, I think many people of my generation (I'm in my late 20s) are not of clear mind on this. Many of us are undecided at this point just what "the Word" means. Even if we did all purely agree that the Writings are the Word of God through and through, to the letter, it's still true what others have said - that the Word itself is open to interpretation by the laity, and always will be so. That said, there is a Church Government, and I do believe that any organized group of people should have a right to worship and/or believe as they see fit. Therefore, if the "majority" of the General Church really does believe the priesthood should be all male, it has every right to maintain that position, and a "vocal minority" as I've heard this group (sometimes insultingly) called can't just try to make the organization what they want it to be.
Now, my questions are really about who the "majority" is, who makes these decisions, how the policies could ever actually be changed, and what exactly we're intent on doing with the changes.
It strikes me that I've heard a lot of people on both sides of the argument say that "the Church" will not grow if we DO change the policy, or conversely that it will not grow if we DO NOT change the policy. I'm not sure that any policy should be based on how many people will come into the General Church... I would certainly say it should be based on truth as the organization sees it. I think most would agree.
But what is that truth? Who is the "majority," and are they really the ones making the decisions or not? I don't know if this is true, but I tend to feel like most of the people I knew in high school have either removed themselves from the General Church or are still around but their position on truth is guarded. I also know quite a few who are still very clear that it's their church, and exactly what its Doctrine means to them. The problem of declining membership, especially amongst the younger generations, is a problem being faced by churches all over the nation, not just here in the GC. My generation is a "spiritual" generation - yes, I generalize, but most people I know well, either from NC backgrounds or other, ascribe to mixed views. A little of this, a little of that. And they don't tend to want to sign on completely to any organized religion - they often want to get together in smaller spiritual communities, or to do things independently. A lot of others may flock to a church, but primarily for the community rather than the doctrine. I realize I generalize, but if you look up statistics on churches everywhere, this appears to be true. At this point I am pretty sure that the Church is going to have to change shape or become extinct. But what new shape can it take? And how deliberately can this take place? I suspect that regardless of the shape it takes, its membership will decline. I don't mean this pessimistically at all, because I believe that around the world, people are becoming MORE spiritually inclined, MORE fascinating in their quests for truth, MORE humanitarian and accepting, and MORE desiring of real and meaningful relationships with God. I believe humanity will be okay, cause the Lord's taking care of that, regardless of what happens to the GC. So, should the GC determine its doctrine to accommodate a drifting membership? If so, then the question of which interpretation will bring in more people is highly relevant. If not, then why are we so afraid to become two (or more) separate churches?
I think the "majority" of the General Church right now is pretty top-heavy when it comes to age. Right now, the people making the big decisions are still mostly people born before 1970, certainly before 1980. I have a feeling this church will evolve as the next generation starts to gradually step into leadership roles. How will it evolve? Chances are, it will eventually include a female priesthood, regardless of what you might want to see right now, because that appears to be what the world calls for, and because the GC membership is becoming inevitably and increasingly more a part of "the world."
I am wondering what the actual viewpoint is of the entire GC membership. If only we could poll people and ask every single individual where they stand! But for now, my biggest question is this: who DOES make that decision? Jeremy, thanks for chiming in on this conversation. Obviously, you have a perspective that many of us don't, being the longest-standing member of the clergy whom I have seen participate in this discussion. You said something about how the Bishop would be unlikely to make this decision knowing that most of the clergy are not in favor. Imagine that suddenly, tomorrow, two thirds of the GC clergy openly stood up and said they wanted to start ordaining women? Would there be some kind of official vote that would be cast? And would the decision ultimately rest with the Bishop? And then, how much do the clergy represent the laity, and how much are the laity supposed to follow the wisdom of the clergy? What if the whole clergy thinks one thing and the whole laity thinks another? I'm not trying to be pert, or suggest that it's literally that polarized at all - I really want to know what the due process would be if it did ever come time to ordain women? As the system stands now, could that even possibly happen?
I hope none of this has sounded rude or uncaring. I am totally fascinated by this conversation, and I honor the intense feelings on all sides. It's tricky for me, as a woman who grew up with the conservative viewpoint but later began to question many cultural assumptions I'd previously held - a female priesthood is not my personal battle, because I don't feel powerfully and personally affected either way. It has never been my calling, but I have loved many female friends who have felt deeply hurt. Their pain is my pain. And I do know that at some point I expected that listening to female preachers in the Convention setting would make me uncomfortable, if only because I'd been familiar with something different. Surprisingly to myself, it was not shocking or unpleasant at all. In fact it didn't feel different, short of the Convention "flavor" and the distinct personality of the given preacher. I think part of the reason I don't want to fight a battle over it is because I personally believe that churches who organize under a particular set of doctrines should be allowed to operate as they see fit. Personally, if I don't feel at home in the church, I'm comfortable not being directly involved in it. This feels like healthy boundary-making for me. I don't try to change others - I simply choose what I am willing to support and be part of. I love many many things the GC has been for me throughout my life. I honor it for what it is, and I disagree with parts of it. Yes, it can be emotionally hard to let go of the things I loved and felt familiar with, but the GC policies do not inform my personal understanding of the Writings, nor have I ever felt any member of the clergy telling me I should believe him over the Word.
But again I ask, who is this "they" that makes the decisions? Who is the "majority" and at what point is one group or the other (or both) willing to separate? Is there a reason it's terrifying to become smaller churches?
Sorry if this isn't well-organized. Maybe the reason I stopped liking debate is partly because I could never be good at it.
Miriam, I think you've done a wonderful job of not just contributing to the debate, but also (and maybe more importantly) observing the moment that the debate exists in.
It occurs to me that I've been checking back on this debate fairly often, and that it represents the most contact I've had with a "general church" dialog in quite a while. I live in San Francisco where there is no gc church (though Talis and I do sometimes attend the convention service), but I'd also place myself squarely in your generalization about pursuing spirituality more actively than religion. And you're right about this trend affecting other churches, as Talis and I also alternatingly attend the Catholic services that she was raised with, and the homilies unwaveringly consist of complaints about our generation's departure from organized religion for nebulous, devil-may-care spirituality.
Of course, churches aren't the only institutions undergoing rampant disruption and upheaval right now; I'd challenge anyone to name a public institution that isn't questioning the very underlying assumptions of its existence. What are schools meant to teach? What is government for? Why aren't there jobs anymore? Our generation is full of people flooded constantly with information, who nonetheless possess no answers to any important question. it feels like a fever pitch of anxiety and restlessness, embodied by things like Occupy Wallstreet. The world is changing.
And a big reason for these changes, among so many, is that modern technology has drastically changed the very wiring of how are institutions are set up. We've already seen newspapers and the recording industry fall to their knees because they were built primarily on assumptions about how to best communicate information. And though that information remains valuable to society, the mechanism for delivery turned out not to be so eternal. And what does a church actually do, if not communicate information? Why wouldn't it be vulnerable to these same forces?
In the true spirit of 21st century communication, these blog comment-thread debates are the only forum in which I actively engage withh the gc these days, because the issues and doctrines being discussed here are tricky and require a level of reflection and analysis not usually present in an 11am Sunday service. And in this theological/philosophical exercise, the women are conducting themselves (I think) at least as well as the men, including the ministers. And doesn't that already kind of answer the question at the center of this debate? Of course, an Internet forum is no substitute for a paid position with an organized congregation, but for all the reasons mentioned in Miriam's post, those aren't exactly a sure thing for men these days either.
I notice several people mentioning that they created posts and then lost them. It just happened to me. Does this happen a lot?
Dylan, thanks for your affirmation and well-thought out commentary. I was really only thinking of the religious climate in the nation, but you're completely right. The same can indeed be said of almost any secular institution, business or organization anyone could name. Things are pretty "up-heaved" right now all around. Maybe it sounds ridiculous, but "I blame the internet!" You and I probably first got online at about the age of 13-14. That was the opening up of an entire world, during the formative years of our impending adulthood. I know that for me, getting involved in online games, message boards and forums, and instant messaging programs at the age of 17-18 sowed in me the first seeds of "doubt" about what I'd been raised to believe. More and more, ours is a world of instantly available differing viewpoints.
Yes, the world is coming in - and the GC won't be able to keep it out, nor should it try. I really am interested, though, in how it can preserve its doctrine. While this currently debated issue may be open to some variety of interpretations, I think there are plenty of things in the Writings that are completely straightforward, that the world will not like. Many people in today's society, for example, don't believe in marriage at ALL. Forget gay marriage, just marriage itself is changing form - what it means to be loyal, what kind of people get married and at what age, what the purpose of it should be. The GC must remain free to hold onto a belief system and operate as it sees fit, regardless of the majority view in the world. But how can it also be adaptable and flexible and fairly poll its own membership to make sure the "official" doctrinal positions match that of its people? Big questions!
Jeremy (and others), be careful when posting! There is a second page that asks you to enter a code to prove you aren't a computer program. Could that be why some things have gotten lost? When I made my first post, I thought I posted it but then it wasn't there! Fortunately for me, I have long-ago become paranoid about losing forum posts in that manner, so I always copy the entire text before I hit "post," so I didn't totally lose it. This is good practice in general... things do seem to go missing easily. Jeremy, I hope you muster up the energy to recapture what you were going to say! Looking forward to it... but I know that can be frustrating, and it never comes out the same way second time! >.<
Oh, and I just wanted to say to Shada, that in general I love the way you articulate things. I don't know you well, but you have a gift! Thanks for your thoughts.
Miriam, I typically do just what you do. But I didn't do it last time. I know about the added page, so it wasn't that. I just wondered because several people seem to have lost their posts.
You ask who are the ones to make these decisions. The answer is that the General Church is designed so as to put the clergy in charge of these kinds of questions. All that needs to happen to change the policy is for the clergy to become convinced that this is the right thing to do. Given the rules for engagement in the General Church, of course, this means that the case has to be made that this is what the Writings teach. One thing that surprises me in this debate, which has been going on for more than thirty years, is that no one, in my opinion, has ever produced a document laying out that case.
Dylan, I like the way you put things in your post above. I agree that the world is changing. One of the most important changes is that progress in communication, education, and transportation has shrunken and flattened the world. Like never before we are able to access and understand the worldviews of cultures other than our own – and realize that the western mindset is not the only one that matters.
We may think that the trends around us in relation to religion and spirituality are universal, but if you travel to Asia and Africa, whose populations dwarf our own, the reality is much different. You are so right that the questions affecting the General Church are not specific to us, they are ubiquitous in western culture.
Julie, I love your approach to this question. The only thing I would say is that the way that you are defining ministry is not the way that the Writings define it. I agree with you in not liking what Paul has to say on this question, and I don’t think that the Writings are in complete agreement with him. The point is just that 8994 sums up the truth of Paul’s statements about women by talking about what “people who are spiritually perceptive” like and dislike. This is confirmed in several other passages, such as Marriage Index I 116, 93, 109 and other places.
Shada, I appreciate your sensitivity to the importance of the question of how we believe the Writings to be the Word of God.
Anyone is free to understand the Writings any way that they wish, and to believe or disbelieve anything they say. The General Church, though, is founded on the idea that they are true, and that there are no significant mistakes in them that impact the spiritual truths they deliver.
Arguing that the General Church should change its position on the ministry by questioning the nature of the Writings is a little like trying to persuade the A.M.A. of a medical procedure by questioning the scientific method, or arguing a legal case by pointing out that the Constitution may be wrong. These things can be wrong, and it is good to question things, but those aren’t arguments that are likely to be successful within those organizations.
A successful argument in favor of women in the clergy in the General Church needs to either affirm that the statements in the Writings are true as stated, or persuade the clergy that the General Church approach to the Writings has been wrong all along. At least that is how I see it. Not that we couldn’t be wrong. We are probably wrong about a lot of things.
The point is that the clergy does not hold the view that it does on this issue because they have anything against women, or even because they care very specifically about women in the clergy. I'm just as happy to listen to a woman as to a man on any subject. Instead ministers care passionately about this because it challenges the organizational view of the Writings themselves, and this is what the church is based on.
Ok, I am finally going to comment after following along silently.
Thank you so much, Mr. Simons! I love what you have written. There are a lot of different debates taking place on this thread and I like what both you and Miriam said on that subject. I wish this could just be a doctrinal discussion of what the Heavenly Doctrine says about the masculine and the feminine and the role of priests etc, rather than all the tangential debates on the authority of the Writings, and the way the world is. Of course we need to be aware of the world changing, but that doesn't mean we change our doctrine, just the way we present it.
I also feel the need to comment because so far no woman has commented in favor of an all male priesthood. And though I don't have tons to say on the matter, I do want people to know that there are women in the church who do love and support the male clergy. I do not feel discriminated against or hurt by the church's policy. I love the Writings (all of them!) I especially love the teaching in Conjugial Love about the differences between men and women!
And thank you people for your comments. I am really enjoying reading them all!
Hey folks --
I feel a little misunderstood, so let me clarify. I'm not challenging the authority or truth of the Writings. I meant to highlight the fact that there are different approaches to their interpretation, within the clergy as well as among the laity. As a matter of fact, I do think that you can "resolve" the anti-female-preacher trend in Married Love by simply being a little more strict about context and extrapolation, and a little more forgiving when it comes to those ideas that are descriptive rather than prescriptive. You don't have to throw anything out as untrue.
As to whether Swedenborg's personal bias resulted in flaws, I think it can't be denied that there are flaws in the external and literal letter. I actually do agree with you, Jeremy, that these mistakes do "not impact the spiritual truths they deliver." I just think that it's important to read with an analytical eye, and ask "How would Swedenborg want me to hold this?" Based on what I have read and learned about his actual process, I have developed some hunches in answer to that question. For instance, I don't think he intended that his preparatory (unpublished) materials should be considered Doctrine; I also think that many examples from Married Love are dated and that it's okay for me to think of them as such. I try very hard not to read the Writings just looking for the message I want to hear, as I'm sure you all do as well. I don't want to be written off as a "nonbeliever." But I know that if I tried to make Swedenborg perfectly infallible first, and then make sense of what he wrote, I would be lost.
I agree that the General Church clergy as a whole leans more literal in its reading of the Doctrines than I do. But I don't think I'm so very heretical, and it's been my understanding that the clergy have very few "party lines" on which they all agree. I didn't think that there was any official GC position on the nature of doctrine. And even if the GC was historically founded on certain general attitudes, does that mean those are the attitudes one must adopt to work as a minister? <--- Not a rhetorical question :-)
Jeremy, you say that no one has ever laid out a document making the case that women ought to be ordained. I've heard of one by a current clergyman from a few years back, Julie says she's working on one, and I'm hoping to write one as well eventually. But the very important problem here is that it's nearly impossible to prove that a text doesn't say NOT to do something. All we can do is say, "But look! There's nothing!" What I want to see is a thorough, yet succinct, and convincing document laying out the case that women should be excluded in the first place. I'm afraid the burden of proof falls to the other side, as Leif suggested a while ago. You can read more about that when mine and Brian's mini-series goes up in a couple of weeks.
I have lost posts too, by mistyping and having the whole thing vanish. It's infuriating.
Miriam -- I loved your comment. I wish my debate could be as graceful as yours. These are such important questions. I also desperately wish there were a way to poll everyone who cares about the General Church...not just the people who would show up to vote. I wonder how many of our church's lost sheep would come home if the GC embraced a more progressive culture. I'm also just ITCHING to get an anonymous poll of the clergy themselves. But there are political reasons why that is a challenge in and of itself.
If you asked Bishop Klein how women could ever be ordained, he would tell you that he has no authority whatsoever and one would have to submit a paper to the clergy and convince them. I wonder whether the clergy's decision would have to be unanimous. What do you think, Jeremy?
Sigh - I approach this knotty problem of women in the priesthood/ministry not as an attack on the male church leadership. I love and support our male priests who have inspired and taught us and I definitely need the special wisdom of men. What I am distressed about is the lack of real recognition of feminine wisdom in the organized church and women not being officially recognized as leaders in their own special way. Just as marriage needs men and women complementing each other in the union looking to God so does the church need men and women leading together. How can I, a widow, convince those of you who don't believe we can be spiritual leaders (whatever you want to call us) that we can, and that that will help the church leadership and growth? I have to PROVE from a doctrinal paper that the Writings say it's OK - and I can't do that! But neither can you prove we can't be spiritual leaders either: I still haven't heard the definitive proof despite some well-written letters to this forum. The Writings aren't like Jewish laws as I mentioned before.
I know he said it gently but Jeremy suggests I would have to doubt the validity of the Writings as the Word of God to suggest women could be priests/ministers. But I don't Jeremy. I have never wavered in my love of the Word and the Writings for the last 50+ years but my heart aches because I know my feminine perception of what is missing from the organized church can't be proved through doctrine and I will probably never serve the church in the way I would love to because my gender prevents it. I know there will always be people who don't want to be led by women, both men and women, and I respect their feelings. But I can't begin to write and tell you what it's like to have to turn away from serving the community I love in the way I know the Lord has led me.
Yet I am hopeful: I have been supported by many priests, one of which included beloved Bishop King. He read the wise words lovely Freya wrote in her copy of AC and knew there was a wisdom there that was totally different to any man's. In a paper he wrote he said that he still preferred listening to a male priest yet he knew that was because of the tradition he grew up in and he was able to perceive feminine wisdom differently after Freya died.
So in conclusion I do not believe everything we need is spelled out in the Writings - there are many issues not addressed in them and the Lord meant it that way. These works are for all time, different organizations and people. The core truths are there to constantly refer too and the issue of women in spiritual leadership is just not spelled out in the Writings. It is for all of us to read, meditate and study and then make decisions after prayer to the Lord. Obviously the GC isn't ready to evaluate its stance on a male only priesthood and I must continue to serve those outside the community who believe I have do have a valid spiritual calling from the Lord, and for this I am very grateful.
I wanted to respond to Jeremy’s comment about this quote and what relevance it has to the question of whether women should be allowed to be ordained into the priesthood. Jeremy claims that “a female priest, as the priesthood is defined in the Writings, would necessarily be a woman who ‘concentrates on gaining knowledge’ and would therefore be ‘not liked’ by ‘those who are spiritually perceptive.’”
I’ve given this passage some thought and wanted to share some things that have jumped out at me about it. First, I went to review some brief reading on how the priesthood is defined in the Writings. Here’s what I find in The New Jerusalem and its Heavenly Doctrines. Priests are “those in authority who are placed over those things among men which belong to heaven” (314); they are to “teach men the way to heaven, and should also lead them” (315); they are to “teach them according to the doctrine of their Church from the Word, and should lead them so that they live according to that doctrine” (315); they are “to teach the people, and through truths ought to lead them to the good of life” (318). There is clearly a balance here between teaching and leading. Based on these passages I do not see that the occupation of a priest is solely to “concentrate on gaining knowledge.” That is only half the job, which I see as a key point in the question of whether women can be priests.
The passage from AC 8994 quoted above distinguishes men and women as to their relation to truth and good. About men, we read, “those imbued with a knowledge of truth and good, meant by male slaves or the men in the representative sense, have no affection for truth and good, only for the knowledge of them,” whereas women “have no affection for the knowledge of good and truth, only for truths and forms of good themselves.” Neither one of these statements is explicitly about the application of truth and good. And I think both men and women, while one is delighting in truths for the sake of knowing them and the other delighting in truths themselves can put those truths to use in the second half of the work of a minister—mainly, leading. Number 315 lays it out quite clearly, that “priests who teach truths, and through them lead to the good of life, and thus to the Lord, are the good shepherds of the sheep; but those who teach, and do not lead to the good of life, and thus to the Lord, are bad shepherds.” Obviously teaching and leading are both essential. I hold teaching in my mind with the idea of gaining knowledge; a teacher teaches you what he or she knows. Leading, on the other hand, carries with it a living quality. What it means to “lead to the good of life” leaves a relatively vague concept in the reader’s mind, but it makes me think of the personal aspects of a minister’s job—counseling, pastoral care—times when the minister is one on one with individuals, making connections. Both these parts of a minister's work are essential—the teaching and the leading. A woman minister would not be concentrating on gaining knowledge alone; gaining knowledge as part of her occupation would be the means to an end—the end being the work of putting what knowledge she has gained to use in teaching and leading others, through what truths she has gathered, to the good of life.
Another part of the AC 8994 passage that has the potential for people to feel wary of women being allowed in the priesthood is the point that “it is in keeping with Divine order for men to know things and for women purely to have an affection for them, so the women do not love themselves because of their knowledge but love men; and from this springs the desire for marriage.” So there is the fear that if a woman were to become a priest and involve herself in the pursuit of knowledge she may end up becoming self-centered or self-righteous, and therefore unfit for true married love. I think this fear loses its footing when we look at another point about priests revealed in the Writings:
Whether a man or a woman, we, as regenerating human beings, constantly have the work of acknowledging the Lord as the only source of anything good or true in our lives. A woman minister, to be a good minister, would be in the daily work of shunning any temptation to love herself on account of her knowledge, but would give the honor of her use to the Lord.
I’d like to highlight one other passage I read that defines the work of a priest. It sounds similar to my ears to the quality of women explained in AC 8994, that they are in “affection for truths and forms of good themselves.” In The New Jerusalem and its Heavenly Doctrines 101, we read that a minister “who teaches the truth, and leads to good, for the sake of truth and good, practices charity.” To me I glean from this a harmony between a woman’s innate spiritual arrangement and the way to practice charity as a minister.
And lastly, I wanted to point out that I find it interesting how in the passage from Heaven and Hell 226, that has been touched on, it explains that preachers are all from the spiritual kingdom, and are called preachers because the heavenly kingdom is the priesthood of heaven! –“Priesthood meaning the good of love for the Lord.” “Good of love for the Lord” and “leading to the good of life and thus to the Lord” sound awfully similar, to each other and to the definition of a woman as “the good of truth.”
Thanks for reading,
"A woman minister would not be concentrating on gaining knowledge alone; gaining knowledge as part of her occupation would be the means to an end—the end being the work of putting what knowledge she has gained to use in teaching and leading others, through what truths she has gathered, to the good of life."
Thanks Chelsea, for putting it so well. To be able to apply truth, you have to be able first to recognize it and understand it, and not only that, but you have to have a love for recognizing and understanding it as well. I want to touch on something that has been alluded to but not directly discussed: what the ministry of a women might look like. It is sometimes said that women would preach or minister in a way that is nothing like a man, perhaps as a reaction to the reference in Spiritual Experiences, but also as a way to affirm the real differences between the genders. There are real differences, to be sure, but men and women are also human beings, so there are real similarities as well.
For example, straight out of the MARS program I entered training to become a hospital chaplain and worked as one for two and a half years. I was good at it, and I learned a monumental amount about ministering to people. But I am an introvert, and under an impossible caseload, I burned out. And I realized that I don't love that type of work, at least, not enough to be able to work at it indefinitely. The truth is, I received my calling while doing the MARS program, an intense period of religious scholarship. I feel like I need to say this: the pursuit of religious knowledges gives me real joy! To learn about and understand the miraculous landscape of God's universe; it's exhilarating! Why? Because it connects me to the Lord, to be thankful and wondrous before His creation. And in no way is it unwomanly due to the simple fact that I am a person. Every single number in the Writings that details the mechanics of regeneration supports this idea. As Chelsea said, it is a "means to an end" for me because I am not inclined to let the process end there, but what an enjoyable means it is! I think what I am trying to say is that just because I am a women, it doesn't mean that I will have an infinite capacity for supportive ministry, and just because I am a women, it doesn't mean that I won't have an interest in developing, upholding and preaching the doctrine of the church. Yes, my feminine inclinations will always lead me to have a passion for applying abstract truth to life, and to being attendant to connections between people, but my human inclinations will also have an effect on how I minister. Both are precious, valid, sacred and equally true. And this principle applies to male priests as well - we all know ministers who have a knack for applying truth to life, who are skilled counselors, or who value spiritual connections between people. I am really not trying to advocate for denying the differences between men and women, simply to be conscious of the interplay between our humanity and our gender, and how that contributes to the making of each unique person.
And just a quick thank you to all who have said kind words about my posts. I don't very naturally put myself out into forums like these, so it means a lot to be so graciously received. Thank you!
Kristen, thanks for clarifying that you are not challenging the authority or truth of the Writings. I do agree that there are flaws of various kinds in them, such as mistaken words, mistaken references, incorrect quotes, and apparently mistaken statements. Certainly there are statements that make more sense if we understand 18th century European culture, just as a similar kind of understanding helps us make sense of Old and New Testament texts. I also agree about context and extrapolation, and that it is important to be careful about what is descriptive and what prescriptive. I don’t think that there are incorrect messages stemming from the limitations of 18th century science, or that Swedenborg’s cultural biases result in false statements.
You ask if a minister must adopt the historical attitudes towards the Writings that the GC was founded on to work as a minister. In my opinion, yes. I’d be surprised if anyone would be ordained who expressed the idea that there is anything in the Writings that is untrue or that merely reflected a cultural bias. There are some ministers who don’t agree that the unpublished works are authoritative, but not many. As long as the books of the Writings were listed in the General Church Liturgy, the unpublished works, including Spiritual Experiences, were always included, and almost all ministers freely quote them in sermons and papers.
A key thing that looms large in my own thoughts about this is that no single passage establishes a truth. “One truth does not make good firm but many truths do so” (Arcana Coelestia 4197). So responsible scholarship needs to assemble numerous passages that confirm each other. This makes the distinction that some people see between the published and unpublished works less important to me, because I don’t know of anything in the unpublished works that is not supported in those that are published.
As for the difficulty of making a case in favor of women in the clergy, I see the point. What I would say is that scores of long papers have been produced opposing women in the clergy, advancing different arguments and quoting various passages. Almost all of those papers are basically in agreement, differing only as to their emphasis. To make the case for women in the clergy someone just needs to refute those arguments. Alaina refers to a paper like this that I wrote, and points out some issues with it. With a little work someone could identify and organize the inconsistencies between the arguments in papers like mine and what the Doctrines teach elsewhere, and come up with an overall case.