When He's Wrong He's Really Wrong, But When He's Right He's Fantastic

"It's not racist to oppose refugees." - Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby

For the last several years I have been telling my liberal-lefty friends that calling us "racists" doesn't work anymore, hence why the editorial statement in this article resonates with me: "The fact is, I no longer give two hoots whether standing up for my country is seen as racist." Fewer and fewer people care when they are labelled as such, and that's largely because they view liberal-lefties along with their stupid PC opinions, and worse, policies, with increasing contempt. And now that we have Justin Welby++ saying it, we can be reasonably confident that the magnitude of that contempt is beginning to saturate even that part of Western society that isn't ideologically conservative. Know hope.

Too bad we can't discern the same degree of realism in neo-Anglican jurisdictions such as the Anglican Church in North America, which carries on with the shoddy "stranger" theology that underlies its Anglican Immigrant Initiative.  One of ACNA's sons, Governor John Kasich, is currently running for president.  If elected, here's the kind of said shoddy theology that would inform his immigration reform program:

Though it has transpired without much attention, Kasich has quietly amassed a string of bizarre, peculiar, and extreme statements on immigration that places him to the furthest leftward reaches of not just the Republican President field, but the Democratic Presidential field as well. This perhaps underscores an element of seriousness to Kasich’s previous declaration, which he had intended in jest: “I ought to be running in a Democrat primary.”

Below are just some of Kasich’s most bizarre and radical statements on immigration, which have flown under the radar.

1) “God Bless” Illegal Immigrants

Illegal immigrants are a “critical part of our society,” John Kasich told the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce last October. “For those that are here that have been law abiding, God bless them,” Kasich said—arguing that illegals “should have a path to legalization.”

2) “I couldn’t imagine” enforcing our current immigration laws: “That is not… the kind of values that we believe in.”

On the GOP debate stage in February, Kasich told millions of American voters that enforcing the nation’s immigration laws is not “the kind of values that we believe in.”

“I couldn’t even imagine how we would even begin to think about taking a mom or a dad out of a house when they have not committed a crime since they’ve been here, leaving their children in the house,” Kasich said. “That is not, in my opinion, the kind of values that we believe in.”

3) Kasich likened deporting the illegal population to Japanese internment camps

“To think that that we’re just going to put people on buses and ship them to the border—look at our World War II experience where we quarantined Japanese—I mean it’s a dark stain on America’s history,” Kasich said in November.

“We shouldn’t even think about it,” Kasich said of the “nutty” idea:

“I don’t know many people that believe we should deport 11 million people—just because people shout loud doesn’t mean they’re a majority. I think most Republicans would agree that you can’t deport 11 million people. We shouldn’t even think about it. What are you going to do? Break their families up?”

4) Illegal immigrants “are some of the hardest-working, God-fearing, family-oriented people you can ever meet.”

As Newsmax reported in August, when a New Hampshire town-hall attendee asked Kasich about illegal immigration and the burden illegal immigrants place upon the nation, Kasich dismissed the voter’s concern.

“A lot of these people who are here are some of the hardest-working, God-fearing, family-oriented people you can ever meet,” Kasich said referring to illegal immigrants. “These are people who are contributing significantly.”

Kasich made no mention of the fact that 87 percent of illegal immigrant households with children in 2012 were on welfare, according to a 2015 report based on Census Bureau data.

Kasich similarly made no mention of last year’s report from the liberal Migration Policy Institute which found that there are nearly one million illegal aliens in the United States with criminal convictions (820,000). This figure was not an estimation of total crimes committed by illegal immigrants—which would be a much higher number—but only those illegal aliens successfully identified, arrested, tried, and convicted.

5) Allowing ICE officers to do their jobs is not “humane” 

Kasich told CBS last year that he does not support deporting the illegal population: “I don’t think it’s right; I don’t think it’s humane.”

Kasich also compared illegal immigration to cutting in line at a Taylor Swift concert: “I don’t favor citizenship [for illegals] because as I tell my daughters, you don’t jump the line to go to a Taylor Swift concert, you just don’t do it,” Kasich said.

However, Kasich has made clear that he is open to giving illegal immigrants citizenship. Moreover, a report from Columbus Dispatch suggests that Kasich favors green cards for illegal immigrants, which is the main pathway to citizenship.

6) America can’t deport illegal immigrants because they are “made in the image of the Lord” 

In June, the Columbus Dispatch reported on a meeting that took place between John Kasich and an illegal immigrant and her son. After their meeting, Kasich said: “They’re just good people. They’re made in the image of the Lord, and you know, there’s a big element of compassion connected to how we treat people who are trying to find a way to a better life.”

If being “made in the image of the Lord” provides an exemption to America’s immigration law, then that would mean that all of the world’s seven billion people would be free to violate America’s immigration laws.

7) Kasich has called for implementing an open borders-style policy where workers can come and go as they please.

In July, Kasich told Fox News’ Sean Hannity that we need to “have a guest worker program so people can come in, work, and then leave. Our program is too narrow now.”

Kasich claim that the nation’s guest worker program, which admits an unprecedented number of foreign workers into the country, is “too narrow” is astonishing—and places him squarely in the tiny minority of the Republican electorate, only seven percent of whom want to increase immigration.

Moreover, Kasich’s call for a guest worker program that will allow workers to come and go as they please represents the central pillar of the open borders philosophy. Under this global one-world theory, any willing employer should be able to hire any willing worker regardless of the country in which they reside—thus removing any right that American workers be entitled to get American jobs. This is similar to the policy European countries have within the European Union—namely, people are entitled to move freely from one country to another. Kasich is essentially laying out how the same legal structure could be adopted for the United States and all the foreign countries of the world.

8) Kasich would enact amnesty within his first 100 days.

In last Thursday’s CNN debate, Kasich told voters that he would enact the largest amnesty in U.S. history within his first 100 days in office. “For the 11 and a half million who are here, then in my view if they have not committed a crime since they’ve been here, they get a path to legalization. Not to citizenship. I believe that program can pass the Congress in the first 100 days,” Kasich said.

9) America shouldn’t address ending birthright citizenship because it’s “dividing people”

Kasich has made clear that he does not want to discuss birthright citizenship as an issue. While Kasich previously supported ending birthright citizenship, he has since reversed his position—meaning he now supports giving citizenship to all children of illegal immigrants, or of tourists and guest-workers, who are born on U.S. soil.

“I don’t believe it should be a fundamental part of this whole thing because I think it remains dividing to people, to be honest with you,” Kasich said trying to take the issue off the table. “Let these people who are born here be citizens and that’s the end of it. I don’t want to dwell on it.”

“If you are born here, you’re a citizen. Period. End of story,” Kasich told the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce last October.

10) Illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay because “they’re here”

“With the 12 million—they’re here,” Kasich said explaining why he supports a path to legalization. “If they have been law-abiding, then I believe they should have a path to legalization… look, they have become a very important part of our society.”

When PBS’ Gwen Ifill pressed Kasich on how his position on the issue “rubs a lot of Republicans the wrong way,” Kasich said: “Well, what do you think we’re going to do? Go chasing them down? And put these big lights on top of cars? And go into neighborhoods hunting them down? That’s not—that’s not what America is.”

Kasich again repeated his talking point likening illegally entering the United States and residing here in violation of U.S. immigration law, to cutting in line at a Taylor Swift concert: “Look, nobody likes that they broke the law, they ditched the line. I have told my kids, as much as you love Taylor Swift, you don’t ditch the line to get into a concert.”

You'll notice that all these statements are emotional, platitudinous, and marked by an extremely superficial understanding of Holy Scripture as it pertains to the issue of illegal immigration.  As noted here, in the final analysis the Bible does not provide arguments for amnesty at all, but fully recognizes the God-ordained nature of sovereign national borders.  What's more, illegal immigrants are lawbreakers of laws that are legitimate not only from a divine point of view but one grounded in the kind of canons derived from rational and natural law on which political legitimacy is based.  The strict enforcement of immigration laws is well within the scope of what St. Paul infers in Romans 13:1-7, and for Anglicans or any other Christians to go against this biblical grain is to acquiesce in this lawlessness.

All of this is why it isn't "racist" to oppose either the onslaught of Muslim refugees into Europe or the onslaught of Latinos illegally entering the United States.  What's more, it is positively wrong from both a biblical point of view and a rational one NOT to oppose it. 

Comments

[Embryo Parson]

"Do you know that Arius had been condemned by his bishop but still attended Nicaea?"

"But then you know this already, don't you?"

I don't think you've yet posted anything I haven't known.

"Canonical" Orthodoxy, while definitely critical of some of the liberal-left insanity that characterizes the WCC, is still involved with it. The Greek Orthodox Church I used to attend does "ecumenical" services now and again with area Council of Churches liberal Protestant churches. You won't find any Continuing Anglican churches or even Anglican Realignment churches worshiping with apostates.

"Glad you accept the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Should you bring the group you are currently up to speed?"

What would be the point of that? I'm not going the change their minds. Better for me to start aligning with Catholic Anglicans who accept them.

[Stefano]

Do you know that Arius had been condemned by his bishop but still attended Nicaea?

But then you know this already, don't you?

"I don't think you've yet posted anything I haven't known."

Then why do you make stupid assertions that the Church Fathers would have rejected dialogue with heretics?

Now I was going to write a thorough response on the St. Nina's Quarterly like you asked but on two previous occasions you have accused me of giving weasel answers so I'd like you to answer these questions before I give you my response. You seemed really keen for my opinion but this is my condition. Yes or no answers are enough.

1)Do you acknowledge that there was an order of deaconess in the early church?
2) Are women allowed to read the epistle in church?
3) Are women allowed to be choir leaders?
4) Are women allowed to president or treasurer of a parish council?
5) Are women allowed to attend as delegates at clergy/laity conferences?
6) Are women allowed to be missionaries?
7) Do women have the right to vote (in political elections)?
8)Do women deserve the right of equal pay for equal work?
9) Are women allowed to be elected to political office?
10) Are women allowed to own and control property in their own right?

[Embryo Parson]

"Then why do you make stupid assertions that the Church Fathers would have rejected dialogue with heretics?"

Before I give my full answer, kindly point out where I made such "stupid assertions". Once again, you're either not carefully reading what I've written, or you're willfully distorting my words. I've warned you repeatedly about this, and so your penalty tonight will be the deletion the other two inflammatory comments your posted at another article. I won't stand for unprincipled debate. You're about this | | close to being banned from this blog, and I'm giving you one more chance to redeem yourself. So, either point out where I asserted "that the Church Fathers would have rejected dialogue with heretics", or acknowledge that I never asserted this. Do this, and you might get one more reprieve.

[Stefano]

I said the following ....."And you know that they are tiny groups with loud voices who are often in conflict with each other. They give themselves pretentious titles and loudly proclaim themselves the true church. When ROCOR became Orthodox in 2007 it showed me that much of what they complain about like modernism is just rhetoric. I think that Orthodoxy is right, and as I pointed out I know clearly who is Orthodox and who is not."

You said the following, implying that I didn't have any evidence...... "Perhaps so, but I note that you are mute on the question of whether the Fathers would have supported them or your "canonical" Orthodoxy. Telling, this."

Now if you knew the evidence that I referred to (you know there is much more) as you said, then why question me for not including it?

[Stefano]

Here is another reminder of what you said........"Too simple. Many of those Old Calendarist bishops don't think you "modernists" are Orthodox because of your relationship with "ecumenism", your fiddling with the Calendar, etc. Who's right? I think it's a good guess that the Fathers might have been more in agreement with them rather than the bishops of "canonical" Orthodoxy."

Certainly seems like you are asserting here that the Church Fathers wouldn't dialogue with heretics?

[Embryo Parson]

I said the following ....."And you know that they are tiny groups with loud voices who are often in conflict with each other. They give themselves pretentious titles and loudly proclaim themselves the true church. When ROCOR became Orthodox in 2007 it showed me that much of what they complain about like modernism is just rhetoric. I think that Orthodoxy is right, and as I pointed out I know clearly who is Orthodox and who is not."

You said the following, implying that I didn't have any evidence...... "Perhaps so, but I note that you are mute on the question of whether the Fathers would have supported them or your "canonical" Orthodoxy. Telling, this."

Now if you knew the evidence that I referred to (you know there is much more) as you said, then why question me for not including it?

Which is to say that you missed the point of my reply entirely, which is that the Fathers were FAR more traditional than the "canonical" Orthodox and accordingly FAR more likely to agree with your Old Calendarist critics. That was it, the point. How you've managed to twist that into something about "evidence" leaves our lower jaws on the floor. This goes to the heart of why I'm about to ban you. You simply cannot, or worse, will not, read my arguments carefully, and I find responding to all this to be a colossal waste of both my and my readers' time.

Here is another reminder of what you said........"Too simple. Many of those Old Calendarist bishops don't think you "modernists" are Orthodox because of your relationship with "ecumenism", your fiddling with the Calendar, etc. Who's right? I think it's a good guess that the Fathers might have been more in agreement with them rather than the bishops of "canonical" Orthodoxy."

Certainly seems like you are asserting here that the Church Fathers wouldn't dialogue with heretics?

Again, that doesn't even **remotely** follow from what I said. Ergo: it's not that my assertions are "stupid". The stupidity lies in your reading of my argument, though in charity I ought to say that you are very likely *willfully* misreading me, which means that you're not stupid but merely unprincipled. And unprincipled critics don't get to stay here. That's my final warning.

As to your list of questions about women, the answer to No. 1 is complicated, but all 1o questions are irrelevant to the issue of whether or not women should be ordained to the priesthood, and accordingly deserve no answer from me. That being said, my answer is a qualified "yes" to Nos 1 and 2, and an unqualified "yes" to 3-10.

Based on those questions, however, it appears as though you might just agree with your nest of radical feminists. Is that really the case?

[Stefano]

Here is my long awaited response St Nina Quarterly Website

Let me start with the story so far…..

Now that I've answered your question, Stefano, maybe you'd like to share some thoughts about my post below challenging liberal-left Greek Orthodox to repent of their liberal-leftism. And I'd really like to know your thoughts about St. Nina's Quarterly. Do indulge me. :>)

Looking forward to your thoughts on St. Nina Quarterly. That's a radical little nest of feminists you have, right there. :>)

No, but it's starting to "follow the crowd" in the ways I've mentioned (e.g., feminism). Give Orthodoxy another 200 to 300 years of interaction with the liberal West, and we'll see what happens.

Here are the questions I asked to clarify your position:
1)Do you acknowledge that there was an order of deaconess in the early church?
2) Are women allowed to read the epistle in church?
3) Are women allowed to be choir leaders?
4) Are women allowed to president or treasurer of a parish council?
5) Are women allowed to attend as delegates at clergy/laity conferences?
6) Are women allowed to be missionaries?
7) Do women have the right to vote (in political elections)?
8) Do women deserve the right of equal pay for equal work?
9) Are women allowed to be elected to political office?
10) Are women allowed to own and control property in their own right?

Here are your answers:
As to your list of questions about women, the answer to No. 1 is complicated, but all 1of the questions are irrelevant to the issue of whether or not women should be ordained to the priesthood, and accordingly deserve no answer from me. That being said, my answer is a qualified "yes" to Nos 1 and 2, and an unqualified "yes" to 3-10.

It seems to me that on the issue of feminism you have been following the crowd yourself – ten out of 10. In 1900 they would have called you a feminist for holding the beliefs you do.

My response
1) The website isn’t exactly a buzzing hive of radical feminism. As a matter of fact it isn’t even a buzzing hive. It is an inactive website. The most recent posting is from 2009. This is really just an archive. I’m not sure why it isn’t active.
2) Under the heading ‘Women in Ministry’ there is the massive of 4 articles. Three on women lay chaplains and one on female altar servers. They aren’t exactly going all out on this issue.
3) The mains aims of the website are hardly radical. You called them ‘radical little nest of feminists’ but their list of aims is not radical at all. I’ll post them here for you:

Goals and Objectives
In Mission and Ministry

• Maintain an editorial policy consonant with the spiritual values expressed by the St. Nina Quarterly mission statement and philosophy
• Encourage all members of the Royal Priesthood prayerfully to promote and develop initiatives that uplift the entire body of the Church while working to eliminate discriminatory practices and customs within the Church which are contrary to the loving and affirming theological tradition of Orthodoxy.
• Provide information about publicity for Orthodox women and their positive contributions, valuable ministries, leadership in, and service to the Church.
• Promote sustained dialogue and committed action toward reestablishment of the permanent diaconate, both female and male, in the Church wherever it is needed.
• Develop a plan to enhance and integrate the St. Nina Quarterly mission and philosophy in the international Church setting.
In Church and Community Enhancement
• Identify and enhance ministry and mission opportunities for women and man in local parishes and their surrounding communities.
• Eliminate localized pockets of isolation for women and men in mission and ministry by networking.
• Promote development of an electronic community of Orthodox women worldwide
Philosophy
Key Components:
Some key components for growth in service to the Church are prayer, worship, education, communication, encouragement, and dialogue. It is the belief of the St. Nina Quarterly editorial board that:
• Our participation in the journey toward theosis is rooted in accepting and acting upon the spiritual truth that who we are is God's gift to us, and what we do with the talents He has given us is our gift to God. Our strength, hope, and capacity for right service to God arises from praying, asking, listening, and trusting the Holy Spirit's action in the Church to guide our thoughts and actions.
• Orthodox Christian women, as well as men, are called to significant worthy ministries of service to the Church, and are in need of the encouragement, guidance and blessings of the Church. Ministries are considered spiritual and physical actions and attitudes done for the glory of God, which actualize one's God-given potential for using her/his God-given talents in loving service in Christ, to build up His Church and one another.
• Active support and encouragement of diverse ministries, blessed by the Church as gifts of the Spirit, contribute positively to the fullness of the Church and to each Christian's full personhood.
• Communicating information, listening to people's needs, and engaging in education and creative dialogue support and encourage vitality and growth in the service and ministries of women and men in the Church. These actions also promote compassion, harmony and understanding among Orthodox sisters and brothers across all boundaries, and are appropriate spiritual goals.
• In the Incarnation, our Lord Jesus Christ assumed our entire human nature. This means we address the whole person in Christian love, attending to the psychological, emotional, and physical, as well as the spiritual needs of others.
The St. Nina Quarterly acts on these beliefs by:
• Providing a forum for the exploration and discussion of women's leadership in ministry, mission, and spiritual life as members of the royal priesthood, which includes hierarchs, clergy and laypersons.
• Providing a place for creative ideas and dialogue responsive to the variety of needs of the Orthodox Christian Church and of her women and men.
• Providing opportunities for Orthodox Christians to have access to ongoing education about mission, ministries, and spiritual life by publishing articles, book reviews, letters to the editor, and news.
• Providing a clearinghouse for information about active persons, parishes, programs, conferences, seminars on Orthodox women and men, and their service in the Church.

Do you notice that they have agenda no about female priests? Please tell me what you find radical about this?

4) There is an article about deaconesses. It is called ‘Newness of spirit: The Ordination of men and Women.’ by Maria Gwyn McDowell published in May 2004. It was published in response to an article by Fr, John Morris. The article claims that female deacons were equal to male deacons in their liturgical roles and had access to the altar. I don’t find the article convincing as I have read otherwise in better quality articles. Nevertheless it is worth having the discussion. Even you have stated there is something to the concept of deaconesses. There article also explores some of the reasons for not accepting female priests/ deacons which I don’t find very deep. The author makes a statement to the effect that ‘The argument against the ordination of women often rests on the fact that women have never been ordained and such a change in tradition is unacceptable’, which I find totally unacceptable. The article ends with ‘though the restoration of the order of deaconesses is viewed as a possibility, regardless of the question of the priesthood.’ Not exactly rabidly feminist!

5) There is a complaint that OCA bishops disallowed female altar servers. They quote the text ‘ In their concern for maintaining the integrity of the Church and its traditions, the Holy Synod of the Bishops of the Orthodox Church in America [OCA], meeting at Saint Tikhon of Zadonsk Monastery in South Canaan, Pennsylvania, October 18-21, 2004, reaffirms the ancient practice of the Orthodox Church that only males are to be admitted to service within the holy altar. Any practice to the contrary in this regard is strictly forbidden.’
The brief article that claims that female altar servers are ok with regard to church tradition and then a series of complaining posts. I’m not ok with this at all. However, it’s 10 years later and there aren’t any altar girls running around Orthodox Churches so it looks like they didn’t accomplish anything. I must say that my sisters and female cousins held candles at my children’s baptism out the front of the iconostasis. It was nice but I don’t count that as altar girls.

6) There is a copy of a letter to the ROCOR hierarchy in the recent additions section (even though it is about 10 years old) complaining that the exclusion of female delegates to the sobor of 2006. I’m ok with their complaint and your answer to question 5 shows you are too.

7) There is an article by a woman named Sarah Wilson in honour of Elizabeth Behr-Sigel. The woman is clearly not Orthodox as she clearly describes herself as ordained minister. It’s a bit wishy-washy. She is convinced that reading Elizabeth Behr-Sigel’s books put her on the path to ordination. Having read only of few of her books it seems Behr-Sigel took the line that it doesn’t matter if Protestants have female pastors because they aren’t really sacramental minsters anyway but that Orthodox have a real priesthood that should stay male.

8) There is an article on the ‘Maleness of Jesus’ by Valerie Karras from 1994. It is a perfect opportunity for an ‘radical feminist’ to push their agenda but Karras says straight out ‘I have no intention of entering into a debate here on the ordination of women to the priesthood’. She then goes on to say that the Church Fathers were interested in the humanity of Christ rather than his maleness. I agree with her fully.

9) There is another article by Valerie Karras called ‘Women in the Eastern church: past, present, and future’ from 1996. She discusses prophetess and Deaconesses, etc. In the future section, she says the following:
Education is vitally important so that our people can understand what the true theology of the Church is, and not make absolute the accretions and ideas of Old Testament ritual impurity that have crept in over time and become enshrined in the teachings of our grandmothers. Religious education is also an area where women are very strong in most of our parishes. What we need to do now is to educate the educators. Women theologians are still relatively few in number, but we are growing. Although we sometimes face discrimination and impediments, we continue in the tradition of St. Macrina, whom her brother St. Gregory of Nyssa called the "true philosopher", or, as we would say today, the "true theologian".
But women also have pastoral roles to play today. Women serve as lay assistants in some Orthodox parishes, and I know several who are chaplains serving in prisons, hospitals, and hospices. Their ministry is far more pastoral than sacramental in nature, and they work well with local priests to fill the sacramental needs of their patients. Women chaplains, too, face difficulties and obstacles, but they are convinced of their calling and strengthened by the Holy Spirit. Lay assistants and chaplains are the modern-day equivalent of deacons and deaconesses. What better path could we take than to reinstitute the historical order of deaconesses, at the same time revitalizing it for our modern needs by expanding it to married and younger women outside the monastic life.
The most important priority, therefore, is to encourage women to fulfill their spiritual calling in every way possible, which historically has included virtually every area of life the Church has to offer teaching, preaching, pastoral work, and liturgical functions. If women had such a diversity of active ministries in a time when women's societal roles were limited, what might we do in the Church of Christ in the 21st century?
You have already said you have no problem with female theologians. If Karras was going to advocate female priests this would be perfect, but she doesn’t.

9) Another article called ‘The Witness and Ministry of Orthodox Women in the 21st century’ by Christina Shaheen Reimann says about the same thing except calling for a more active and viable monasticism for women. I’m cool for more nuns. Monastics are the lifeblood of the church.

10) There is an article by Valerie Karras ‘Flesh of my flesh – Greek Patristic exegeses of the Creation of Eve’. Nothing radical in it at all. I have included the conclusion below. I love the critique of Augustinian anthropology as I am rabidly anti-Western. Again, a missed opportunity for ‘radical feminist’ exegesis? If the author really wanted to push a radical agenda then this would have been the place. I note that the Church Fathers are not called 'sexist' or 'patriarchal' or any of the radical feminist buzz words
Here is the conclusion of the article:
"In concluding, it is necessary to situate the discussion of the creation of Eve within the general context of Greek patristic views on anthropology and, specifically, on the ontology of gender. Patristic anthropology understands that human beings by their nature need companionship, and that God in His wisdom provided most perfectly for that companionship by using gender, which the Greek Fathers unanimously assert was added by God to human nature from animal nature because of His foreknowledge of the fall. The element of sexual desire that gender adds to human companionship is thus seen not negatively, but simply as part of the post-lapsarian condition of humanity. The inequality of the sexes and their division of roles occurs only on the economic level, that is, on the level of functionality within the fallen human condition.
The Greek Fathers' exegeses of the Biblical account of the creation of woman contrasts sharply with, on the one hand, traditional Latin patristic exegesis - exemplified in Augustine - which makes the male human the norm for humanity, and on the other hand, much of twentieth-century theology, both Eastern and Western, which sees woman as essentially other (Paul Evdokimov in the Orthodox tradition; Karl Barth in the West with his notion of Eva als andere). To the contrary, by far the most common Greek patristic interpretation of Eve's creation from Adam's rib is that of its significance in underlining the shared nature of their being. The Fathers' vocabulary supports their theological-anthropological views: homoousios, homotimos, homogenis, tis autis physeos (of the same nature). The theological significance of these terms leads to the extrapolation of Trinitarian theology to the anthropological level: humanity is a communion of persons sharing the same nature, an imperfect reflection of the Godhead as Three Persons sharing One Essence."

My Conclusion
I suspect you hadn’t read much (or any?) of the articles before you jumped in and presumed they were radical feminists. I have spent the last week reading a great many of them. Not much offends my conservative Orthodox eyes and ears. There are a few things My verdict = mostly harmless.

[Embryo Parson]

The following is an exceedingly long response to the argument posted by Stefano on March 28, two posts above. Stefano's comments are in italics:

Here are your answers:

As to your list of questions about women, the answer to No. 1 is complicated, but all 1of the questions are irrelevant to the issue of whether or not women should be ordained to the priesthood, and accordingly deserve no answer from me. That being said, my answer is a qualified "yes" to Nos 1 and 2, and an unqualified "yes" to 3-10.

It seems to me that on the issue of feminism you have been following the crowd yourself – ten out of 10. In 1900 they would have called you a feminist for holding the beliefs you do.

Yes, well, this isn’t 1900, and inasmuch as I’ve only given “yes or no” answers, two of which are qualified, you still don’t know much at all about where I stand, so allow me to enlighten you. I am “to the right of Attila the Hun”, best described as an advocate of patriarchy. I am anti-egalitarian and anti-feminist to the core. Does that help any?

1) The (St. Nina Quarterly) website isn’t exactly a buzzing hive of radical feminism. As a matter of fact it isn’t even a buzzing hive. It is an inactive website. The most recent posting is from 2009. This is really just an archive. I’m not sure why it isn’t active.

The fact that it is inactive is a wholly irrelevant observation. These women are still active hither and yon in Orthodox and “ecumenical” circles hawking their feminist wares. It would appear that after abandoning the project at St. Nina Quarterly they are focusing their energies on the “restoration” of the female diaconate, which to them must be a "liturgical" diaconate, not just one of service, and which accordingly would create the same kind of deacon that is the first step to the priesthood. They are clearly trying to get their foot in the door for the ordination of women to the priesthood.

2) Under the heading ‘Women in Ministry’ there is the massive of 4 articles. Three on women lay chaplains and one on female altar servers. They aren’t exactly going all out on this issue.

3) The mains aims of the website are hardly radical. You called them ‘radical little nest of feminists’ but their list of aims is not radical at all. I’ll post them here for you: [Snip]

I’m not reproducing all those aims here in order to manage the length of my reply. (Some additional comments of Stefano’s have been snipped below. Readers can scroll up to Stefano’s previous comment to read them.)

So, Stefano, my response to this part of their web page is simply that they are buttering readers up to make them think they really aren’t the nest of radicals they are. However, as we shall see, the devil, metaphorically and literally, is clearly in the details.

Do you notice that they have agenda no about female priests?

Uh, read on.

4) There is an article about deaconesses. It is called ‘Newness of spirit: The Ordination of men and Women.’ by Maria Gwyn McDowell published in May 2004. It was published in response to an article by Fr, John Morris. The article claims that female deacons were equal to male deacons in their liturgical roles and had access to the altar. I don’t find the article convincing as I have read otherwise in better quality articles. Nevertheless it is worth having the discussion. Even you have stated there is something to the concept of deaconesses. There article also explores some of the reasons for not accepting female priests/ deacons which I don’t find very deep. The author makes a statement to the effect that ‘The argument against the ordination of women often rests on the fact that women have never been ordained and such a change in tradition is unacceptable’, which I find totally unacceptable. The article ends with ‘though the restoration of the order of deaconesses is viewed as a possibility, regardless of the question of the priesthood.’ Not exactly rabidly feminist!

Ah, so you admit that “Ms.” McDowell argues there for the ordination of women to the priesthood. And indeed she does. Here is a link to the article. And here are a couple of pertinent snippets from her article, with my commentary:

“This is all to say that the fact that women have never been priests in Orthodoxy does not necessarily mean they cannot become priests. Change is a part of the life of Orthodoxy; our practice has never been static. We are a community constantly responding to the work of the Spirit in a changing world, a world in which God is working. Such changes need to be thoughtfully discussed rather than rejected out of hand. Change in the Orthodox Church is not arbitrary reaction, but the faithful response to the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit in our midst, who is calling us as a community to a more full recognition of what it means to live the reign of God on Earth.”

Sounds very much like what they were saying in The Episcopal Church back in the 60s and 70s. More below about the ongoing “Episcopalianization” of the Orthodox Church.

Again, McDowell: “One of the changes resulting from the concern of feminists (emphasis mine) in particular churches is a greater attentiveness to the language we use in our worship.”

LOL, quite! Manipulation of the Church’s language is how feminists have destroyed a number of Protestant churches, and how they would thus destroy the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches if they could. It’s radical feminism’s main modus operandi.

Here we have “Ms.” McDowell’s bio, which I quote:

“Maria Gwyn McDowell is a doctoral candidate in theological ethics at Boston College, and holds an M.Div. from Fuller Theological Seminary. She is the secretary of the Orthodox Theological Society in America and on the editorial board for the St. Nina Quarterly (emphasis mine). Her areas of interest are in ethics, contemporary Orthodox theology and gender theory. Her dissertation, entitled "Metaphorical Virtues and enGendered Presbyters", brings together gender studies, virtue ethics, and Orthodox sacramental and liturgical theology to argue for the moral and spiritual importance of ordaining both men and women to the sacramental priesthood (emphasis mine). As a lifelong-Orthodox who has been a member of parishes in a number of Orthodox jurisdictions, she is also interested in considering the unique shape of North American Orthodoxy, influenced as it is by a pluralistic and democratic society.”

So, in answer to your question, “Do you notice that they have agenda no about female priests?”, you yourself posted an article from their site that clearly evinces the fact that they do have such an agenda. You, sir, just shot yourself in the foot. Read on to see why it’s not the only wound you will sustain in this argument.

5) There is a complaint that OCA bishops disallowed female altar servers. [Snipped, as irrelevant to our discussion.]

6) There is a copy of a letter to the ROCOR hierarchy in the recent additions section (even though it is about 10 years old) complaining that the exclusion of female delegates to the sobor of 2006. [Snipped, as irrelevant to our discussion.]

7) There is an article by a woman named Sarah Wilson in honour of Elizabeth Behr-Sigel. The woman is clearly not Orthodox as she clearly describes herself as ordained minister. It’s a bit wishy-washy. She is convinced that reading Elizabeth Behr-Sigel’s books put her on the path to ordination. Having read only of few of her books it seems Behr-Sigel took the line that it doesn’t matter if Protestants have female pastors because they aren’t really sacramental minsters anyway but that Orthodox have a real priesthood that should stay male.

In fact, Elizabeth Behr-Sigel has defended the argument for ordaining women to the Orthodox priesthood. See here and here.

8) There is an article on the ‘Maleness of Jesus’ by Valerie Karras from 1994. It is a perfect opportunity for an ‘radical feminist’ to push their agenda but Karras says straight out ‘I have no intention of entering into a debate here on the ordination of women to the priesthood’.[Snip]

9) There is another article by Valerie Karras called ‘Women in the Eastern church: past, present, and future’ from 1996. She discusses prophetess and Deaconesses, etc. In the future section, she says the following: [Snip]

9) Another article called ‘The Witness and Ministry of Orthodox Women in the 21st century’ by Christina Shaheen Reimann says about the same thing except calling for a more active and viable monasticism for women. I’m cool for more nuns. Monastics are the lifeblood of the church. [Snip]

10) There is an article by Valerie Karras ‘Flesh of my flesh – Greek Patristic exegeses of the Creation of Eve’. Nothing radical in it at all. [Snip]

Of your nest of feminists there at St. Nina Quarterly, “Ms.” Karras is clearly the most coy about what it is she truly believes. However, if you’d merely read between the lines you’ll see why she’s a fellow traveler with the likes of Elizabeth Behr-Sigel, Maria Gwyn McDowell, Kyriaki Kridoyanes Fitzgerald, Nonna Vera Harrison, Susan Ashbrook Harvey, Leonine B. Liveris, Eva Catafygiotou-Topping, Demetra Jaquet et al. Here’s a a fairly recent article responding to an article from Karras.

The following links take you to sites that reference St. Nina Quarterly and its contributors’ radical feminist agenda re: ordination of women to the priesthood in the Orthodox Church:

1) Orthodox Wiki: Ordination of Women

"Nevertheless, the existence of the diaconissate in the Church's history has led some writers to suggest it as a basis for ordination of women to the priesthood:

I'm puzzled that the ordination of women to the diaconate is even a question. The [female] diaconate is in our history. It is canonically part of our history. The Coptic Church right now is showing how lively and vital that ministry can be. I think the question of the ordination to the priesthood is where I would put my sights. It is, of course, my conviction that there will be no ordination of women to the Orthodox priesthood for the next few hundred years. But it is also my conviction that there someday will be. The reason is not because of women and their place in society but because the priesthood is something to which the Holy Spirit calls the individual, and the Holy Spirit calls whom the Holy Spirit will. We cannot tell the Holy Spirit whom to call. Women are called to the priesthood—we know this, we see this. Women leave churches that don't ordain women if they must have that call fulfilled. Women have always had to respond to the call of the Spirit in ways that can be disturbing to society. The stories of women saints are full of such actions." —Susan Ashbrook Harvey, St. Nina's Quarterly[1] Quoting: this article.

2) Azkoul” Order of creation; Order of Redemption

"The Orthodox partisans of women in the priesthood view their "bold initiative" as a new enlightenment. The late Elizabeth Behr-Sigel (often called "the grandmother of Western Orthodoxy"), Kyriaki Kridoyanes Fitzgerald, Nonna Vera Harrison, Susan Ashbrook Harvey, Leonine B. Liveris, Eva Catafygiotou-Topping, etc., argue that their efforts have not the intention of overthrowing Tradition but giving to it a "new perspective," a claim they have evidenced in literary vehicles, such as the feminist-ecumenist journals, Massachusetts' own St. Nina Quarterly and Australia's Mary/Martha. They have been encouraged by the support of the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch who have arranged conferences—with no little help from the WCC—by means of which the proponents of woman's ordination are given the opportunity to publicly ventilate their frustration."

3) The Phoebe Center: For The History Of The Deaconess: Foot in the door. Note the presence of a number of former St. Nina Quarterly gals here.

4) Orthodox Deaconesses: Foot in the door

5) Female Priests: Women and Ministry in the Orthodox Church

"For several decades now, some Orthodox Christians have been calling for greater public participation of women in the life of the church. This includes restoring the office of the deaconess and, for some, even opening the priesthood to women. The late Elisabeth Behr-Sigel was at the forefront of this movement. Even those who opposed her appreciated the way she challenged them to develop their own reasons for keeping women from serving behind the altar. . . .

So I guess you could say I am for the revival of the female diaconate and even a female priesthood. But I also recognize that I hold this opinion at a particular moment in history, and that a majority of my sisters and brothers, past and present disagree with me. But, for what it’s worth, the conversation about women’s ordination is not just happening among feminists and “liberals.” Orthodox scholars who once strongly opposed women’s ordination are becoming less sure of themselves. The most prominent is Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia, who says he is not convinced by any arguments for or against female priests. Metropolitan Anthony Bloom actively supported Behr-Sigel.

Of course, I am a lay theologian, so I can afford to be a bit more bold. After all, I never speak for the church. I speak from the church as one with the church.

I also speak as a father with a daughter who wants to know why she cannot be an acolyte. I respond that she cannot be an acolyte “for now.” Some will disagree with this and say I am giving her “false hope.” I understand that, but I do not think such hope is necessarily “false.” After all, the church once did give women a more prominent role in public ministry than it does today, and there is no telling where the life giving stream of our tradition may end up taking us."

6) Whose Church Do I Belong To: My Church or the Orthodox Church of Christ? Note especially the section entitled “A First Attack: Feminism, The Church, and Human Rights”.

7) The Apocalyptic Body of Christ?

"So far, no one from within has outright petitioned the Orthodox church to ordain women to the priesthood, though many have suggested the possibility in their scholarship. It is not surprising that Orthodox women are at the front of the debate. Among them are Leonie Liveris, editor of the journal MaryMartha in the 1990s; a number of American Orthodox connected to St. Nina’s Quarterly, including Teva Regule, Maria McDowell, and Valerie Karras; and scholars such as Eva Catafygiotu Topping, Susan Ashbrook Harvey, and Kalliope Bourdara.

The most prominent Orthodox woman to speak on the subject, however, was Elisabeth Behr-Sigel (1907-2005), a French Orthodox theologian who, after many years of studying Russian theology and spirituality as well as promoting ecumenism, turned at the age of sixty-nine to the question of women in the Orthodox church. She was the keynote speaker at Agapia, where she endorsed the views of Paul Evdokimov, who had proposed that the division of the one humanity into male and female mirrored the self-revelation of the Father in the Son (=masculine) and the Spirit (=feminine). But no more than five years later, she parted company with Evdokimov and shifted from opposition to support of the ordination of women in the Orthodox church. Her work remains the standard in the discussion.

It is not a little surprising that several male Orthodox theologians have gradually moved toward Behr-Sigel’s position. Metropolitan Anthony Bloom’s public support of Behr-Sigel left little doubt as to his opinion.[4] Kallistos Ware has admitted that the proffered reasons against women in the priesthood do not persuade him anymore,[5] and Olivier Clément could see no compelling reason not to ordain women.[6] Metropolitan John of Pergamum confessed that he had seen no good theological arguments about the ordination of women, either for or against![7]"

7) At a discussion at this page, one Salemlemko writes:

“Awwwww come onnn, the Boston cathedral of the OCA has been a cesspool for liberal gay and feminist activity for decades. This is the place where the infamous Hopko discussions took place on the ordination of women. It is the birth place of the St. Nina’s Quarterly crowd and the parent of permissive gay Orthodox-theological devilry.

So, no more shock amazement and horror over the righteous indignation and outright disgust at that cesspool in Boston! No thank you!”

Salemlemko’s observation is verified here, in an article where Rod Dreher describes the ongoing “Episcopalization” of American Orthodoxy.

8) The Ordination of Women: A Point of Contention in Ecumenical Dialogue. The article is reproduced at this page by Demetra Jaquet, whose pic at St. Nina Quarterly can be seen here. Jaquet also contributes to the above referenced blog The Phoebe Center. Her radical views on the ordination of women to the priesthood in the Orthodox Church can be read here.

All of the articles, etc. to which the links above will take you should prove instructive, Stefano.

By the way, I happen to know one of the Orthodox feminists at St. Nina Quarterly. I was privy to a discussion once at church in which she clearly voiced her support for abortion.

And why shouldn’t she? She’s a radical feminist.

Advocacy of women's ordination, abortion, gay marriage, etc. Look around at the Orthodox Church in North America, Oceania, and parts of Europe, and you'll find a vocal, and in some instances influential, minority defending such things. Continuing Anglicanism has no counterpart whatsoever. We have no group of radical feminists who agitate for the ordination of women or who support abortion and other left-wing causes. Dreher is right: your church, as I noted in my first article here at OJC about Eastern Orthodoxy and to which you have strenuously objected, in vain, is slowly but surely becoming “Episcopalianized". Continuing Anglicanism, on the other hand, left Episcopalianism behind.

And so, in closing:

My Conclusion
I suspect you hadn’t read much (or any?) of the articles before you jumped in and presumed they were radical feminists. I have spent the last week reading a great many of them. Not much offends my conservative Orthodox eyes and ears. There are a few things My verdict = mostly harmless.

Yes, well, my conclusion is that after shooting yourself in the foot WRT “Ms.” McDowell’s St. Nina Quarterly article, you then fired a squib round and then a successive round resulting in the explosion of the firearm and injuries to the head and neck WRT to Behr-Sigel, Karras, Jaquet and the other feminists associated with St. Nina Quarterly. You, sir, are the one who has not read carefully, not me. But then again, your not reading carefully has been central to my criticism of your attempts to refute me here at The Old Jamestown Church, hasn’t it?. That proclivity of yours, the fact that I have now shown your response to be the silly thing that it is, and the fact that I am not about to *waste my time again* and write another lengthy response is why I am officially closing this discussion.