Paper given at a colloquium on 'Women and Ministry' at Palermo (November 1989); reworked for delivery at the Orthodox Academy of Crete (January 1991 ; with additional revision by the author in December 1991 ). The full text appears in Sobornost 13: 1, Summer 1991 (pp.25-40). Elisabeth has given permission to reprint the concluding comments from her paper, adding the following comment:

"The rejection of the ordination of women as it is expressed by several women in MaryMartha seems to me often very superficial and without "appropriate theology" even from the Orthodox point of view with an Orthodox comprehension of ministry. This comprehension is ignored or obscured by passion or historical tradition which are not expressions of the Tradition. I think that that in the actual situation of the Orthodox Church it would not be good to ordain women to the priesthood. But theologians have to think (discuss and write about) the problem without fear.

[Extract taken pp. 37- 40]

The Orthodox Church, in my opinion, instead of summary rejection, should consider with respect the experience of the communities stemming from the Reformation which ordain women, and they should try to understand their ethical and theological motivation. You can tell the tree by its fruits, and some of its fruits should give the Orthodox food for thought. However, the Orthodox may not simply imitate these communities. The answer to the question raised must ripen within themselves, nourished by creative rethinking of the ecclesial faith with its implications in the order of the theology of ministries. The decision taken in conscience by the Churches that ordain women must be respected. But in their turn the representatives of those Churches should abandon the idea that you can force the hand of the Orthodox by so called prophetic acts. It is only in mutual respect for consciences that we can and must advance towards unity, taking inspiration from the patristic principle: In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnubus caritas

For all that, it must be a question of advance. And so I shall conclude by indicating briefly three directions in which, it seems to me, Orthodox theological thought must make progress; three tasks to which it is called.

Three Directions

The first consists in ridding the Orthodox Church, in its historical social reality, of extrinsic elements that hide the face of the Betrothed 'without wrinkle and without stain'. Such are the sexual taboos that still persist concerning women; taboos deriving from the Old Testament, but which go back to the neolithic age when, no doubt, they had a meaning that we have forgotten. (8) From certain standpoints, this task appears to be easy and to have already been carried out to some considerable extent. Thus the theologians meeting in Rhodes rejected the idea of bodily impurity of women. But these things need to be said clearly so that the message will be heard by the simple Orthodox folk who too often remain imprisoned by archaic rules devoid of any meaning for them.

A second, twofold, task consists in unearthing the buried talent to make it bear fruit in the internal life of the Orthodox Church on the one hand, and in the dialogue with ecumenical partners on the other.

I am thinking of a deeper study of the understanding of the person. This notion was formed in the context of ecclesial reflection on the mystery of the Trinity; today it must be applied to the relation between difference and identity in human personas, in men and women in the Church. I suggested a reflection along these lines in my book "Le Ministere de la femme dans l'Englise". For his part Metropolitan Anthony recently developed similar ideas. We have both been marked by the personalism of the Fathers of the Church, creatively renewed by the great Franco- Russian theologian of our times, Vladimir Lossky.

Finally, a third direction in which I think Orthodox reflection should progress is a clarification of the meaning of Christian priesthood; a priesthood that is radically different on the one hand from the pagan priesthood and, on the other, from the Old Testament priesthood. For, as proclaimed in Hebrews, Chapters 9 and 10, Christ, the one high priest for all eternity, both fulfills and goes beyond the priesthood of the Old Testament.

It is in this perspective that we must critically examine one of the reasons often brought forward by Catholic theologians and, in a slightly different way by Orthodox theologians, in order to justify the exclusion of women from the Christian priesthood. On the Catholic side, reference is made to the fact that the priest acts in persona Christi. The Orthodox prefer to speak of the symbolic or iconic character of the priestly function ... In his liturgical function, especially during the Eucharistic liturgy, the priest represents Christ iconically. The priest's role is not limited to this liturgical function, - as the American Orthodox theologian John Erickson rightly remarked in Rhodes - but it is here that his priesthood undoubtedly finds its greatest fulfillment. The expression 'iconically' is used by St Theodore of Stoudion.

Taking this statement further, some will say that since the Son of God, becoming incarnate, assumed the condition of a male human individual, it is fitting- in line with the incarnation- that his iconic representation should be assumed by a male priest. Such an argument appears to be sound. I take the liberty, however, of formulating some relevant questions; not to deny it any importance, but to draw attention to its relativity. It is precisely from an Orthodox point of view that some objections can be raised.

The Eucharist is a memorial. But is it not also (and even essentially) an anticipation of the banquet in the kingdom that is to come, where the division between the sexes, as we know, is overcome, and, if not abolished, at least totally transfigured, this is what Christ gives us to understand (Mt 22:30) and what, after him, the Fathers of the Church say clearly. It is the risen Christ, returned to the glory of the Father (from which he was never separated) who is the one eternal high priest of the eucharistic sacrifice, in which - to borrow the words of the Byzantine liturgy - he is at once 'the one who offers and the one who is offered'. Moreover, even in his incarnation, did not the Son-of-God (anthropos) - the 'new Adam', uniting humanity to God- assume the whole of humanity in order to save it, that is, as the Fathers would put it, to make it divine?

'Christ unified man by mysteriously abolishing, in the spirit, the difference between masculine and feminine and establishing for both the reason, the logos, for their nature, free with regard to particularities of the passions'. Maximus the Confessor sums up in these words a theme which is found throughout the anthropology of the Eastern Fathers. ( 9)

Does not a heavy stress on Christ's maleness boil down to a form of Nestorianism, that is, a denial of the real union in Christ of the whole of man with the whole of God? This question was raised by one of the theologians present at Rhodes.

To that must be added that the icon is not a naturalistic portrait. The authentic icon is the human face become transparent through grace, radiating the other Face, the face of the mysterious person of the God-Man. It is this radiance of the divine-human person of Christ through a human person that every authentic iconographer tries to render; an inner light clothing the human being in glory, according to the baptismal hymn of the epistle to the Galatians, which is sung in the Orthodox Church at every baptism and in the great feasts of the liturgical year;

'As many of you as were baptised into Christ have put on Christ'.

When the martyr Blandina was tied naked to the stake to be offered to the beasts and offered herself in an ecstasy of faith and love, her companions in the struggle contemplated 'the image of Christ', from which they took comfort; She was for her brothers an exhortation, so small, so weak, so despised was she, who had clothed herself in the great invisible athlete, Christ' (So says the letter from the Christians of Lyons to the churches of Asia Minor. Is it not this sort of transparency - which is so unattainable to human effort alone- that is expected from the priest?

'You cannot be a priest according to the heart of God without becoming one with Jesus, the one Priest'.( 11) This spiritual union with Christ is a gift of the Spirit. The priest begs for it at the summit of the eucharistic liturgy in the epiklesis, which invokes the coming of the Holy Spirit upon the gifts that are presented; also upon the assembly, and on himself. It is this- and not his maleness that makes the priest, at this moment and in truth, the icon of Christ.

Does not insistence on the masculinity of the celebrant as a necessary condition mean losing sight of the epiklesis in the whole life of the Church, including the nature of the ministries exercised within the Church? These are a function of the charisms given by the Spirit, and the sovereign Spirit breathes where he wills. 'God is no respecter of persons' (Sir. 35:12).

Moreover, the Fathers of the Church and the great Orthodox theologians- from John Chrysostom to Nicolas Cabasilas- while exalting the dignity of priesthood as a specific function, also stress its purely instrumental character. In the sacraments, in which the priest-bishop is administrator, 'it is the Father, the Son and the Spirit who accomplish everything; the priests merely lends his tongue and offers his hands', states John Chrysostom.( 12) This tongue and these hands that are lent to Christ, invisibly but really present through the Spirit, can they not be those of a woman? Nothing in Orthodox sacramental theology seems to forbid it- Neither in its instrumental aspect, nor according to its iconic vocation, does the Christian presbyteral ministry seem necessarily to imply the male character of the one called to exercise it.

This is my conviction which is shared by a few Orthodox theologians who, for the moment, are very much in the minority, We are submitting it to the judgement of the pastors of the Church with a view to the conciliar dialogue which is now being undertaken on this subject. By human calculations, this process will be a long one.

But, pending the desired agreement, in the light of Christ and of the Holy Spirit, may the Orthodox Churches respect the decision of their partners who, in conscience, have entered upon the experience of women's ordination. May they look on this experience with fraternal sympathy and bear it In their prayers, while themselves advancing towards the full clarity promised to those who seek truth together, in faith and love.

Reference:

8 An article by E.Behr-Sigel and Nicole Maillard, "Le sexualite feminine et les fonctions corporelles d'apres les differentes traditions religieses. Contribution orthodoxe Female Sexuality, WCC, 1991.
9 PG 90:43.
10 Eusebe de Cesaree,Histoire ecciesiastique,Vo]2. (sources chretiennes,Paris I 955),p.
11 Un moine de l'Eglise d'Orient, Offrande liturique (Paris 1988),p.73

12 PG 59:472