On p.180, the author asks if the ordination of women would not "be compatible with the unity of faith and ecclesial communion?" She is asking why we cannot imagine a future in which all the Churches will be in ecclesial communion while accepting that some Churches ordain women while others do not. The question is asked of Orthodox, and perhaps of Roman Catholics, since the Churches with a Reformation history have already approved such ordinations. At the moment, we Orthodox refuse to ordain women feeling that there are some fundamental theological and dogmatic reasons that prevent it. These reasons are not always clearly stated, but our intuitive reaction tells us that they do exist. Is it really possible, however, for the Orthodox, on the one hand, to abandon the high theological and dogmatic ground and to accept in principle that women's ordination is only a disciplinary matter, while on the other, refusing to allow Orthodox women to be ordained or to accept women priests from other Churches?

I can understand the position that accepts and justifies women's ordination, and I can understand a refusal to do so based on various grounds. I do not see, however, how a middle ground is possible. It seems to me that the middle position, suggested by Elisabeth Behr-Sigel as a possible Orthodox position, is untenable because of what it would say about the Orthodox mentality. "It is all right for you Anglicans and Protestants, to ordain women, we agree the principle is not heretical, but we Orthodox will not ordain women or accept your women priests because ... well ... because ... Well, why not?"

If we accept the principle but refuse the practice, 1. suppose we would have to admit that we are part of those who, as suggested on pp. 179-80, are still in the Middle Ages while the rest of the Christian world is "progressing" into the future. The only thing for us "backward" and "dense" Orthodox to do is to get out of the "woods" and join the 'modern" world. This characterisation is. of course, the opinion of many people about the Orthodox position, and the middle position only highlights and lends credence to that perception. I think that there are, in fact, only two essential positions:

(1) Maintain that women's ordination is somehow not part of God's plan and develop a justification based on theological and dogmatic grounds or

(2) simply admit that there is no viable justification for an all-male priesthood, ordain women to all orders, and get on with more important problems.

I imagine that most Orthodox Christians, I put my self among them, suspect that there is some deeply rooted reason for a male priesthood. At this stage of our dealing with the question, I think we are operating on an instinctual and intuitional level. For--us, this question is relatively new, and most of the answers thus far offered are first attempts to justify this intuition. I do not think we are ready to give a fully thought-out and mature justification for our instinct. We are very much like those who had to face the first assaults of the iconoclasts, or had to deal with the Arian controversy. Orthodox instinct told those Christians that something was wrong with what Arius was saying and what the iconoclasts were doing, but it took many years before a mature theological answer was formulated. I feel Orthodox Christians today are in a similar position. Intuition tells us that somehow this is not right, but we have not yet lived long enough to really think through the question on the basis of our own principles and theological vision.

Although we Orthodox are involved in ecumenical dialogues on this and other questions, we really need an inter-Orthodox dialogue to hammer out a reasoned and reasonable answer to the questions of Protestant and Roman Catholic Christians. It may be that our answer will not convince them, but it will be a position we can live with and defend in faithfulness to our theological orientation.

What I have said so far assumes that there is, in fact, a theological undergirding for our intuition limiting the priesthood to males, that our attitudes. Is this a reasonable assumption? Or are we Orthodox really "dense" and "backward"? All I can say is that I suspect that there is such a foundation, and I am willing to maintain the present practice so that the Church's consciousness can have a chance to express itself on the conceptual and verbal level, following the model of past controversies. I am personally greatly impressed by the universality in time and space of the masculine priesthood. Nowhere in history, except in heretical groups, do we have examples to the contrary. If we believe that God speaks to us through history, then we should be very careful about overturning such a tradition, which may in fact be Holy Tradition. I again suspect that given time, someone like the Cappadocians or St John of Damascus, will arise and crystallise Orthodox tradition on this question in a way that will seem natural and coherent to those who stand in that tradition. This is not to say, that others will yield their ground, but at least the distillation process will have worked. At the present, that Orthodox voice has not yet appeared. What we need is time. In the meantime, all of us lesser lights are allowed to make our contribution

In the previous section, I called for an inter-Orthodox reflection based on our own theological vision. One of the points we need -to1righlight for ourselves, and for those non-Orthodox we talk to on the question of women priests, is the following: we have a sacerdotal conception of the ministry whereas most of the Reformation Christians we dialogue with reject any association of priesthood with that ministry. Even the word ministry is one coined in opposition to priesthood. The Church very early on, however, began using priestly terminology, and concepts from the Old Testament and paganism in reference to the work of its ministers, after a necessary transformation of the content of these words and ideas. This association was not seriously challenged until the Reformation controversies. The Church also identified the monastic life, essentially a lay person's movement, as prophetic. Other non-clerics (authors, confessors, poets, martyrs, medical missionaries) have exercised a prophetic ministry. We have therefore, a Church whose leadership is composed of priest and prophets while those who have women "priests" have seriously undermined or completely eliminated the priestly side of ministry.

To be faithful to our own vision, we Orthodox need to remind ourselves and others of the difference between what is priestly and what is prophetic, though sometimes the two are combined in one person. In the Old Testament, the priesthood was highly structured and regulated, open only to a select few, for example, the tribe of Levi ' and able-bodied men. Why were the Levites chosen and other tribes not? God simply decided it that way. On the other hand, God could choose anyone to be a prophet, men or women, or children, from any tribe. Their job was to announce the Word of God to the people, in agreement with or against the king and priests. Though the two orders were sometimes combined, they were never confused. We have a similar structure in the New Testament: the apostles and the prophets. The bishops, presbyters, and deacons are the successors of the apostles in the priestly work, and the monastics and others succeed the prophets in their charismatic work. We as Orthodox need to remind ourselves that we often dialogue with persons or groups who do not share our priestly/prophetic vision of the ministry. Reformation Christians, from whom most of the questions about women priests come, seem to lay a heavy emphasis on the prophetic notion of the ministry. The role of the minister is to announce the Word to the people; the sacraments are a part of that ministry but historically Reformation Christians have tended to neglect the ministry of the sacraments.

I find it significant that those Churches that have ordained women are precisely those who have traditionally rejected a priestly notion of the ministry. On p.161 of her book, Elizabeth BehrSigel also notes this division. Those Churches who have a priestly conception are those who have rejected women's ordination. I do not think it is an accident that the supporters and opponents of women's ordination divide along the same lines as those created by the controversy over the nature of the ministry. For us Orthodox to forget this distinction and to carry on the dialogue as though all the partners in the discussion hold the same conception of ministry is to put ourselves at a disadvantage since we are using the categories and terminology, that are not at all our own. Perhaps the mature Orthodox response to the question of the ordination of women, a response I hope will eventually be worked out, will be based in part on a deeper reflection of the difference between priesthood and prophecy.

We Orthodox often speak about mystery, and rightly so, but in so doing, we have a more difficult time presenting and defending our positions because we can never carry one aspect of the question to its "logical" conclusion. Whatever has a mysterious quality to it is essentially undefinable and for that reason, the word mystery puts many people off because it seems to muddle the discussion. We must. nonetheless, be faithful to ourselves and speak, in this case, about the mystery of the human person in its masculine and feminine modes. I feel that we are called to defend the position that women and men are equal in being but different in mode of being. We must reject the notion that equality is sameness, and we must equally reject the notion that equality excludes order. To many today, equality and order are indeed mutually exclusive, but as Orthodox Christians, who are trying to be faithful to the biblical revelation and Holy Tradition, we are obliged to defend several pairs of apparent opposites. What is more natural for those who stand in an apophetic, antinomical tradition where mystery plays a great role.

We say that God created Adam and Eve as equal beings but in a certain order. Adam first and Eve second, it was only after the Fall, after sin had corrupted their harmonious relation of equality in order, that Adam's first place became domination and Eve's second place became subordination. Masculinity and femininity are not essentially the same but not essentially different either. We are partially the product of social conditioning and partially the product of an unchanging human nature. Where the lines of distinction lie is not always easy to discern, and this is where the problem lies, both for ourselves and for others. By pushing one side of the antimony too far, we run the risk of distorting the mystery of the human person, a mystery that eludes all rational definition.

When we talk about men-women relations, we Orthodox are sometimes handicapped precisely because we must balance apparent opposites in the face of those who have chosen to be more 11 consistent" and less mystical. But in the process, they lose something of the ineffable quality of human life. If others think we are " dense" or "backward", while we are being faithful to our own theological vision, which is different from theirs, well, so be it. We must first of all be true to ourselves.

In the appendix to Elisabeth Behr-Sigel's book, a study group in Paris asked some practical questions about the way women and men are treated differently- the Church exclusion of women from the altar, churching of baby girls, practices based on women's menstrual cycle etc. My point here is not to debate these questions. I feel that the whole notion of blood impurity has no place in the Church, it is almost demeaning to have to argue the point. The study group says that "we are told that these are but minor usages without any great importance and that they will fall into disuse by themselves" (p.222) Evidently those who do the telling are aware of the difficulty of defending not only the practices but their justification as well. I assume that "those who do the telling" are in positions of authority in the Church -bishops?

My question is this: if we are agreed that such practices and their justification are not in line with the Gospel. whose responsibility is it to take action to change things? Do I as a parish priest have the right, the duty, to speed up their "falling into disuse"? Is it enough simply to let the right thing happen or should we promote the right thing ?

If we agree that only men will be ordained to the episcopate or the presbyterate - the diaconate is another question - what is the justification for excluding women from other orders: readers, subdeacons, acolytes? What do I tell my daughter when she asks me why her brother can go into the altar as a server but she has to stand outside? Personally, I have nothing to tell her. I feel ill at ease because I really do not have any valid reason. Am I a coward for not acting on my convictions when I am convinced they are just? Are bishops cowards for not openly abolishing these "minor usages without any great importance," when they believe "they will fall into disuse anyway"? I feel at ease maintaining a male episcopate and presbyterate, but all the rest? And if, in fact, there is no reason based on the Gospel and Holy Tradition, then am I justified in not letting some practices "fall into disuse" but actually killing them? Who will take the initiative and be a prophet not only to say openly that such practices are in fact against the Gospel but to help eradicate them from the life of the Church?