E.T. St Tikhon Seminary is one of the three seminaries of the Orthodox Church in America, with thirty-three fulltime students. It is located in rural Pennsylvania at the monastery founded by Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow while he was serving in America, and is dedicated to his patron saint, Tikhon of Zadonsk. Mary Ford has been teaching there since 1989. She is assistant Professor of New testament. Mary Ford teaches hermeneutics and introduction to spirituality; she has also taught other courses including introduction to dogmatics, New Testament parables and theological anthropology.

Some of her students are priests returning to seminary to take additional courses for Master of divinity. Was it strange, I asked, to find herself teaching priests?

Mary Ford. Before I did it, I was a little apprehensive; then the first day of class it turned out that they were far more nervous about going back to school than I was talking to them ... They bring a lot from their experience to the class; I'm glad to have the opportunity to teach them. It is also useful to get feedback from them; I can then tell the seminarians that priests have said this or that would be very helpful pastorally, for such and such a reason.

E.T. Do all the seminarians go on to be priests?

M.F. Most do, though some want to be choir directors and some just want a theological education. But the primary focus here is definitely on training those who want to be priests.

E.T. Does the seminary offer educational possibilities for seminarians' wives?

M.F. Wives are allowed to audit classes - some do, but many work or stay at home with small children. There are meetings periodically for wives; Bishop Herman and various other people come and talk, including some priests' wives, to help them prepare for their role. Sometimes people have the idea that you have to be some special way, so it is good for them to talk to other priests' wives and others and find out you can just be yourself, don't have to fit into a slot... It is common for a priest's wife to be involved in the choir or church school; but it varies a lot, depending on how much she wants to be involved. I've known some, for instance, who did counselling particularly with the women of the parish... Each one is very different...

E.T. Do you meet people who are surprised to find a woman teaching in an Orthodox seminary?

M.F. I haven't found any reactions like that from Orthodox; but it is very common for non-Orthodox to have the idea that because we don't have women priests, women are totally repressed and can't do anything. They are surprised, I think, because they have such a misconception of how things work in the Church, and such clericalism; they don't have any idea of lay theologians, and they expect to find the same sort of clericalism that has been in Roman Catholicism.

E.T. One might wonder what sort of background it takes to find a teaching appointment in a seminary without oneself being a seminary graduate. Mary did not start off studying theology; but as an undergraduate in English literature she had a keen interest in the use of stories to communicate theology, and wanted to do graduate work in that area. She was interested in Sufism, Buddhism, mystical experience "I had pretty much given up on christianity at that stage of my life". By a series of coincidences and providential "mistakes", Mary eventually found a sympathetic supervisor at the University of Kent at Canterbury, who happened to be Orthodox. At his suggestion she visited the Russian Cathedral in London, and never looked back.

M.F. ...After I become Orthodox it changed everything in my research; I began to see defects in liberal Protestant theology, and a great ignorance of traditional Christianity ... I ended up looking at New Testament parables and their interpretation as a model for the interpretation of Scripture generally, and how it is influenced by theology and world view.

E. T. With your background i n hermeneutics, how do you react to calls for the "inclusive language" in translating the Bible?

M.F. This is a good example of how world view influences interpretation of Scripture. There are a lot of cases where the Greek sounds less one-sided that the English, " anthropos" compared with "man" being an obvious example. But if it is clearly defined that "man" means "humanity ", then women should not feel excluded. As to what to do about it - it is hard to know for sure or to give a brief answer, since the issue is so emotionally charged, and both sides have valid concerns. One could certainly argue that in some cases, it would be more accurate to use an English word like "people" instead of "man" to translate the Greek. But you can see that the issue is much more complex, and perhaps not worth getting involved in, when you come across things like a new "inclusive language" Bible which includes "translations" like the following:

"All things have been delivered to me by God my Father and Mother: and no one knows God except the Child and anyone to who the Child chooses to reveal God" ( Mt 11: 27)

This is a gross distortion of theology, and betrays a shocking ignorance of Christian symbolism (among other things). For instance, God as Mother is appropriate as a main symbol only for pantheists, because it implies that we are part of God's body. The "distant" yet loving relationship of Father to child is much more suitable to symbolise the relationship between Creator and His creation (though of course no symbol is wholly adequate in all respects). This kind of translation (and there are worse) is the kind of thing people who are against any inclusive language fear (even where it would more accurately reflect the Greek). And there is clearly some basis for this fear with such Bibles and lectionaries being heavily promoted in our culture,

E.T. It is one thing to say that women have no need to feel excluded, whether by certain kinds of language or by other practices of the Church - but how to help the situation where some do feel excluded?

M.F. If you have been trained up to feel excluded, you have a problem... Part of the problem comes when people see everything in a very worldly way and think that what is important is fame and powerful position and so forth rather than holiness, which has always been the most important. People who think women are left out or less important do not understand Christian spirituality (which emphasizes the equality of honour, virtue, holiness etc. for women and men) and probably do not know enough about women saints or have a proper understanding of the Theotokos. Or perhaps they have only experienced a distorted kind of Orthodoxy because their priest was a poor example of teaching and living the fullness of faith, and/or because important women in their lives were ignorant of the Church's teaching and misguided them, and so forth.

Once you get into a hermeneutic of suspicion, no one can get you out of it; it is set up in such a way that no one can communicate anything else to you. It can be the height of ego-centricism and thus the opposite of Christianity which is based on healthy self sacrificial life- the only way to true joy, inner peace and fullness of life, The real question is : whom do you believe about how to have a true life in abundance - secular feminists etc, or the saints of the Church?

Even if the worst scenarios about the treatment of women by the Church were totally true, anger would not be a Christian response; it doesn't help anyone to be filled with rancour and resentment. It is perhaps relevant that in all the writings of spiritual direction, the saints are always emphatic that the most helpful thing (for men and women) is self- accusation - because then you are never the victim,

You can always do something about yourself. And often, if not always, the only way to break a cycle of evil is by doing good to those who hate or abuse us -loving our enemies as Christ taught and as the saints have always emphasised. A real chance for the "oppressors" to be truly inwardly transformed can take place probably only in this way. Some feminists could learn a lot from this. Complaining about being a victim does nothing to get you out of being a victim, you almost - force yourself to want special status, and it can aggravate the problem...

You hear women complaining that women can't do anything in the Church and don't get any official recognition. But then you contrast that with someone like Sophie Zernov in France, who didn't wait for an official role, she just started orphanages and helped all the Russian refugees. Then when she applied for French citizenship, the authorities wouldn't allow her to pay; they considered it an honour to have her, Somehow we need to hold up women like this as models, Of course, it is good to have support, and that is the ideal; but you don't have to have that.

E. T. What about those women who really are the victims of their circumstances- such as a wife trapped in a disastrous marriage, who gets nothing from her priest except exhortations to be patient and forbearing? This is bound to provoke cynicism particularly when the high standard seems to be applied one-sidedly to women-which, of course, a spiritual director of experience and holiness would not do.

M. F, That's right. Also, the spiritual writings are very realistic. You have the ideal, but it is also recognized that not everyone is able or ready to live this ideal. There is a story in the life of Ss. Barsanuphius and John, where a man asks what he should do if persecution breaks out in his area, because he does not think he would have the strength to endure martyrdom. St Barsanuphius tells him to pray three times; after that, if he does not feel an inner certainty that he has the strength to endure, he should leave. In no way should he feel that he is betraying his faith: "God does not demand of us what is above our strength". This sometimes gets forgotten...but just automatically to say to everyone "be forebearing" is not spiritual direction that a holy person would give. But there is a lot of ignorance. I'm sure everyone suffers from people who should not be giving spiritual advice - men as well as women...

E. T. Clearly, there are many unhelpful stereotypes of female- and male - behaviour which are sometimes perpetuated in the name of the Church, but which actually owe more to culture than to Christian tradition.

But where do we start to look for more authentic models?

M.F. There are some striking statements in the Cappadocian Fathers and St Maximus the Confessor about one of our goals being to overcome the distinction between male and female. St Basil sheds light on what that means when he says that the portrait of a king may be on different material; but if it is a really good portrait, you don't notice the wood or stone any more, just the portrait, and how much of a likeness It is. That's how it should be with the Christian; whether male or female, Jew or Greek - whatever the material- what should be seen is the likeness to the divine Image...

... These Fathers do seem to mean overcoming cultural, social, stereotypical roles and limitations, which are the results of the Fall. Thus through holiness one can overcome the results of the Fall. In their view, the whole way we reproduce biologically is a result of the Fall, and you do see that historically women's and men's roles have been very much determined by exactly that. But it must be remembered that although this is a result of the Fall and part of the "garments of skin", these garments and the whole new way of life were given not as a punishment, but as a pedagogy - according to all the Eastern Church fathers and theologians. Therefore, when used properly, these biological roles etc. can have a very positive value and help us toward holiness. When St John Chrysostom, for instance, speaks on this topic to married people, he emphasises that sexual love as we know it was given at the Fall as one of the greatest means of uniting men and women in the closest possible way. It is supposed to promote harmony, unity and love, and is being abused when it doesn't.

E.T. I know that you and David are working on a book on married Saints; how did you get interested in this subject?

M.F. I think it started when I was reading St Gregory the Theologian's funeral oration for his father, where there is a whole lot about his mother also, and I was struck by the beautiful partnership he depicts in their marriage. We were talking with someone about this, and she said "We don't hear anything about married saints; I didn't know there was anything like this in our Church tradition". We thought it would be a good idea to collect stories of married Saints, partly just to let people know that you can be married and be a saint, because some people have the idea that you have to be a monastic.

We are trying to concentrate on people who had a real partnership, who were an encouragement to each other spiritually, We also want to include a few examples of bad marriages, to show that you don't need to have a great marriage to be holy; you can be divorced, or have your husband beating you or even killing, you if you bear this in the right way. Although, as we said, the Church realism that not all and probably not even many are able, or called, to endure such extremes. Thus the Church recognises the need in some cases for a marriage to end, and that divorce is sometimes unavoidable in this fallen world.

Obviously no one is canonised because they are married - or because they are monastic. There should not seem to be some sort of opposition or competition between married Saints and monastic Saints, We found a very nice phrase from St Gregory the Theologian; women monastics and wives "should be one in the Lord and each other's adornment". That could apply to a husband and wife, as well as to married and unmarried women. We have about 60 lives so far,. We hope to finish the book this summer and have it published.

E.T. Is there any reason why these Saints are not better known?

M.F. Actually, some of them are well known; it is just never emphasised that they were married. Perhaps this is because in the past, there hasn't been the concern to emphasise that married people could become holy. As St Gregory of Nyssa says, people don't need to be encouraged to marry- it is the normal thing... But now marriage is under such attack that people need some encouragement. Also in America where we have hardly any elders, and people are relying primarily on books written by monastics for any kind of spiritual food, people sometimes get idea that you have to be monastic to be serious about your spiritual life. Whereas if you have a living elder to go to, that's not so likely to happen.

There are many examples from the Saints' lives, for example in the life of St Seraphim of Sarov where people come to him saying that they want to be monastics and he tells them no, that is not God's will for you. Or in the Life of St Martha , mother of St Symeon of the Wonderful Mountain; St John the Baptist himself appeared to her and told her not to be a nun, but to marry.

We'd also like to do a separate book on saintly families; there are many stories of siblings, nother and child etc. which don't fit into the married Saints category. Once again the point is to encourage people, where they are, to strive to be holy. In this parents have an incredibly important role, at least potentially, helping their children; and the husband and wife helping each other.

E.T. Serving as a theologian in a seminary and teaching future priests is obviously a position of great responsibility in the Church. What do you see as the primary goal of your teaching?

M.F. For everything, it has to be the spiritual life and to achieve holiness; to emphasise that faith is not just believing the right ideas or doing the right actions, but is a whole life involving purification of the heart and will and mind and spiritual intellect, ultimately leading to true life in abundance - life full of deep joy, peace and love in communion with God.