|
|
 |
| ![[NewEarth Home]](http://newearth.org/images/nelogo040.gif)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
By Vera Goodenough Dyck
NewEarth home page |
New Church Women's Page |
|
A few weeks ago I caught the tail end of a radio interview with a scholar of current religions. She said that there is much less conflict and hostility between different denominations and religions today than there has been in the past. The conflict these days, she said, is not between Presbyterians and Methodists, or Protestants and Catholics, or even Christians and Jews. It is between "conservatives" and "liberals" within nearly every religious organization. It is between A)those who believe that the words of either a sacred text, pope, or council are the exclusive source of religious authority and can be properly understood in only one way ("conservatives"), and B)those who believe that the words of the text, pope or council interface with the experience of individuals striving to find relevance in them, and are therefore interpreted in a variety of legitimate ways ("liberals"). According to her, a "conservative" Catholic is likely to feel more in common with a "conservative" Methodist or Episcopalian than with a "liberal" Catholic, and a "liberal" Jew will feel more in common with a "liberal" Congregationalist than with a "conservative" Jew.
I was struck by these observations because I have noticed that this "conservative" and "liberal" split is present in our organization as well as other religions in the world today. I believe that inside our organization we have a common authority but strikingly different approaches to that authority. More than anything else, the recent discussion in this publication about women in the clergy has driven the fact of this division home to me. And more than anything else has, this issue raises what has become my question about our organization. Can we bridge this division? Does our organizational structure accommodate different approaches to the same religious authority?
I realize that asking this question places me squarely in the "liberal" camp, the one that believes that generally, there is more than one legitimate way, even to approach revelation. I feel that I could be in a church that included people with many different approaches to our common revelation. I realize that not everyone shares this position, and I see in our church-wide dialogue an incredible effort to reach unanimity on issues of interpretation and application, such as the women-in-the-clergy question.
The fact is that as an organization, we are very far from achieving unanimity on this question. What do we do about that? Do we put all our energy into trying to attain unanimity? Or do we keep talking to each other, and in the meantime accept that we do not agree and adapt our structure to accommodate differences of opinion and interpretation?
As you can probably guess, I am about to make a serious plug for the latter. Why? Because I am a "liberal" and I want to stay in this church. As I see it, the alternatives to accepting differences are A)feeling squeezed out of the church by others' intolerance of my approach, or B)waiting patiently for something (unanimity) that I don't hold as an essential value and am therefore not especially willing to knock myself out waiting for.
I realize that as a "liberal" (as defined in the first paragraph), "conservative" readers may have enough argument with my basic approach to reject anything I say as based on false premises. I do not claim that my premises are the same as as those of "conservatives" in this church, but I do claim to understand and appreciate those premises. I was raised and educated on them for the first twenty-two years of my life. I am grateful for aspects of them. And I care about this church. I feel I understand where it is coming from, and I want to support it and see it survive and grow. I also feel I understand many of those who have not found a permanent home in this church, and would like to help them, and myself, to do so.
The woman interviewed on the program I heard had edited a book whose intent was to open a dialogue between "conservatives" and "liberals" in her church. She has abandoned her original goal. She feels that her book, although having other uses, has been a failure as an invitation to dialogue. Why? Because the two sides can not find enough common ground to trust and listen to each other. This article has something of a similar purpose. My hope is that there is enough trust in our common ground (our mutual belief in the Heavenly Doctrines, Old and New Testaments as the Word of the Lord) that we can have a real dialogue.
In my view, a full dialogue on this topic would include a back-and-forth discussion of specific passages, teachings, derived doctrines, and opinions. This dialogue would include ministers' discussions with each other, ministers' discussions with lay members, and lay members with each other. This dialogue would involve looking at passages and ideas in the context of life and experiences. Many changes have been taking place in our various church societies, and in the theological school, over the past few decades. For example, women are serving on boards and in some cases as paid members of pastoral staffs; the theological school is offering a new degree for non-candidates which is open to women; all candidates for the priesthood take courses in counselling at a nearby college. Some of these changes affect the role of women in our church and its leadership. Some of these changes affect the training of our ministers, and the expectations we have of them.
Some people are enthusiastic about these changes. Some people are troubled by them. And yet very little of the exchange published here on the topic of women in the ministry has mentioned these changes and how they affect or are affected by our understanding of our doctrines.
One of the unfortunate results of this omission is that it gives the impression to many that our doctrinal discourse on the topic of women in the ministry is not connected to what we do about it as a church. As a result, some people may be outraged or dismayed that the church is apparently straying from the ideals discussed in its official publication. On the other hand, some people may be relieved that doctrinal interpretations they don't agree with aren't solely responsible for determining what happens in their societies. My hope is that in expanding the dialogue, we will make more connections between our doctrinal discourse and what we are doing in our societies, with allowance for diversity of views and practices. My hope is that whether we agree with each other or not, we can feel confident that our church and its membership is striving to be guided in its life and uses by our revelation. Perhaps it was a lack of commitment to doing in her church which was caused the woman interviewed on the radio to abandon her hope for a real dialogue there. The teachings in the Writings about the importance of use and charity are a blessing that can help us overcome this barrier to full dialogue. My prayer is that our shared commitment to doing the Lord's will can help us to listen openly to differing views on what the Lord's will is for us.
The foremost purpose of this paper is to attempt to expand
the dialogue. It may seem to some that I spend an inordinate amount
of energy taking issue with things that have been said in letters,
articles and clergy papers. My purpose in doing this is twofold: to
point out language which constricts or even paralyzes full dialogue,
and to demonstrate that the changes taking place in our church
societies are not made without regard to our doctrines. Everyone may
not agree with the doctrinal interpretations behind them, but perhaps
all may find some peace in the knowledge that even those they
disagree with are seeking guidance from the Word.
Absence of clear teachings not adequately acknowledged
The General Church has had an all-male clergy since its beginnings, and in the past I believe this was basically unchallenged. As far as I can tell, it was assumed and acceptable to all. Now that it is not assumed and acceptable to all, we are searching for the reasons behind this policy.
Is it clearly stated in the Writings that the priesthood must be male if it is to do its work effectively? If the Writings do not clearly state that the priesthood must be male, then this idea -- even if the whole clergy, or the whole church agrees, and no matter how strongly it is articulated -- is a doctrine derived from the Word by human beings. To date I am unaware of any direct teaching stating this so I conclude that it is a derived doctrine.
A derived doctrine is a sincere effort to find an answer that is based on the Lord's truth. It may be partly true, or mostly true, or true in many ways. It may be accurate in some situations, in some cultures, or to some generations, and yet not be universally true. It can not be universally, infallibly true in the way that directly stated doctrines are. Because by its very nature a derived doctrine is fallible, I hope we remember that it can not be the whole or final answer in the way that direct teachings are, and keep searching for a more full and accurate understanding of it. (see AC 6047)
The traditional explanation as to why women aren't ministers in our church satisfied me for most of my life. When I left Bryn Athyn I began to feel unsettled about it. What made me unsure was that it was based on specific applications and interpretations of teachings in the Writings. These applications and interpretations included generalizations about men and women that did not seem accurate or universal when held up to my experiences and those of people I know. I noticed that these applications and interpretations were beginning to seriously interfere with my (and many of my friends' and peers') faith in the Word, and connection to the Lord. I wanted to hold onto that faith and connection, but I recognized that in order to do so, I was going to have to find a way of understanding those teachings that was more full, and that resonated more with my experience.
Searching for a more full and accurate understanding of an idea isn't a rejection of a past understanding. It can be thought of as a development of a teaching, an expansion into a new and present situation. The Rev. Donald L. Rose wrote a paper for the Council of the Clergy in 1978 entitled, "Derived Doctrine in the Church." In it, he pointed out that one of the duties of Israelitish priests was to remove the ashes from the alter (Lev. 6:9-13), and suggests that perhaps even today a function of a priest is to remove the ashes of the old.
He notes that in discussing the Leviticus passages, AC 9723 says that "ashes" can be used in either a good or bad sense. Sometimes ashes are what remain from what is done "by the fire of self love," but when they are good, they are still to be removed, not thrown disrespectfully away. They should be placed near the altar and then taken out and put in a clean place so that they do not "stand in the way of other things following." (p.2)
I hear him saying that a particular derived doctrine might be sincerely based on some people's understanding of the Word, and be true and useful enough in one culture or time period, and yet still not be universally true. If the "fire of self love" was part of the foundation for a policy, then there would be some falsity to root out. But people in the past --or in other cultures -- were not bad or wrong for believing their derived doctrines, nor are we bad and wrong if we believe otherwise.
In Mr. Rose's own words, "I would guess that if some of those men of old [founders of the Academy] were here today they would regard things that are taking place in the General Church today as contrary to the Word. (e.g. women on councils...) What I am suggesting here is that in this kind of situation it is not for us to say they were wrong and we were right (or to bemoan the thought that maybe they were right and we are wrong.) Could we not say that they believed a certain way because they believed the Lord says so? It was the right kind of say-so faith. But for us to adopt their position without going to the Word anew and without concern for present need and uses would be the other kind of say-so faith. To speak differently from our predecessors should not disturb us. It is part of the spirit of the New Church to expect this." (p.2)
Mr. Rose notes that it is hard for us to think that the church has ever been mistaken, and that we seem to delight in confirming what we have heard in the past. Since leading people to the Word and thus to the Lord is clearly the work of the clergy, he suggest that although it is slow and challenging, it is also part of this work to "lead people away from mere tradition."(p.8) I agree with this. I personally do look to the priesthood to lead me to the Word and the Lord rather than tradition and opinion. Thus, when I (or others) raise the question of women ministers, I feel hurt and let down when what we are consistently led to is lengthy derived doctrine presented as "here's what the Word clearly says on the matter."
I acknowledge the sincere effort of the ministers doing these studies. I appreciate the depth of their desire to think from the Word, and to lead people to the Word. I just want to point out that they are not necessarily achieving this goal in this case. What would achieve this goal? Last week I asked a minister what the Word says about women ministers. He replied, "The Word really doesn't say anything about the gender of the priesthood. To be honest, the Writings say very little about church organization at all. I think the Lord left it deliberately quite open and vague so that we could work it our for ourselves according to what is useful and comfortable for us."
As a "liberal," I am relieved to know that there are ministers I can go to who acknowledge that the Word doesn't have one clear, right answer to every question. This kind of minister might say while discussing derived doctrine, "I could give you my personal opinion (what I derive from related teachings, experience, and secular studies, and based on my own assumptions) if you want it, but the Word doesn't actually say either way. It's between you and the Lord. You have many ways to learn of the Lord's will for you when written revelation doesn't have a direct answer." Such a minister could acknowledge this even on a topic such as women in the ministry where personal opinions tend to be very strong.
This is the sort of priestly leadership spoken of in Mr. Rose's paper --leading people directly to the Word, and in the case where there was no clear teaching in written revelation, directly to the Lord for themselves, rather than to tradition or opinion. I feel it has not been adequately acknowledged by the priesthood, at least within this the official publication of the General Church, that in the absence of direct teachings, our policies and beliefs although hopefully influenced by related teachings, will be founded on what we like, what we are comfortable with, and what we believe -- from sources besides revelation-- to be right and good.
Nothing thus far written by General Church ministers and
printed in this publication has acknowledged the absence of clear
teachings regarding gender and the priesthood. The Rev. Stephen Cole
acknowledged this in his paper for the clergy, but this statement was
omitted in the version that appeared in NCL. Some ministers have put
forward some interesting and helpful things on the Internet,
including lists of passages that seem to support both sides of the
debate, demonstrating the difficulty of getting a clear direction
from written revelation alone. I and many others appreciate this
leadership taken in facilitating an unbiased discussion. Still, I am
waiting for a clergy paper on women in the ministry in which the
author acknowledges up front that the Writings are not clear either
way on the topic, that therefore his opinion is based on experience,
secular studies, and related teachings. Is there room in our church
to give this sort of paper?
Paradigm of discussion is "doctrinal proof"
The public response of the General Church priesthood has been limited to those who oppose women in the priesthood. Does this reflect a consensus among the priesthood, or is it because the paradigm of discussion is "doctrinal proof?" It seems that those who are opposed to women in the priesthood believe that even in the absence of direct teachings, there is one right answer based solely on doctrine for every question. Those who are not opposed believe that there is no proof either way, so they don't present a doctrinal paper stating "their case." Their case is that there is no case either way, so they are silent. The current paradigm excludes them from the dialogue, however relevant and valuable their input might be.
As far as I know, the discussion of women in the clergy by the clergy has not expanded to include talking about the specific good or harm that might result --or has already-- by women in our organization who take on what has traditionally been considered "clerical work." What ministers have actually experienced, and how those experiences affect their thoughts on the subject, have gone unmentioned. Perhaps personal experience is perceived as potential interference with enlightenment, or at best, irrelevant. I understand that the clergy meetings strive to have truth from the Word alone as their source, but to ignore the interface between our understanding of truth and the experiences of our lives strikes me as "reasoning about the fit of a hat which is never tried on, or about the fit of a shoe which no one wears."
What I have heard from a few ministers who attended the 1995 clergy meetings is that following the presentation of a lengthy doctrinal paper concluding that women should not be priests, there was little discussion or dissent. One minister suggested that we just try ordaining women, and see what happens. Another suggested that we at least acknowledge the ministry of women with a lay office. Other than these suggestions, there was little dissent expressed at the meeting. Similarly, in this publication, there have been letters, articles, and lengthy papers from General Church ministers discussing gender, representation, and the priesthood. Everything printed in NCL on the topic authored by General Church ministers thus far has articulated solid opposition to women ministers.
One could conclude from this that the clergy, except for a few outspoken radicals (and men without Western cultural biases) is unanimously in favor of continuing to exclude women from the clergy. Unfortunately, this is the impression that many people have, and it is the source of an escalating polarization: those who agree with the status quo feel even more thoroughly convinced of the infallibility of their opinion, while many who disagree strongly with the perceived consensus feel little hope that they can find a home in this organization, and leave, fade, or maintain only minimal contact with it.
Another possible conclusion one could draw from this apparent consensus is that in our organization we do not have a climate of safety for dissent unless one is "armed with passages." The burden of proof is on those who challenge the status quo. And if there is no "proof" to be had, those who see it differently have their hands tied. Ministers who do not agree with the traditional interpretation may not feel safe or free to speak. The traditional interpretation has been articulated in such a way as to equate it with the Word itself. Thus, some ministers may fear that expressing an untraditional interpretation on this topic might jeopardize their credibility as a General Church minister.
I can't help wondering where the letters from General Church
priests are that present other views, or even just uncertainty, on
the issue of our exclusively male clergy. I have heard these views
expressed by different ministers in private conversations, but they
do not express them publicly, at least not yet within the pages of
NCL. I believe that until there is wide-spread acknowledgment that
there are no direct statements to be led by, and the dialogue among
the ministers expands to include experience, feelings, opinions,
common sense, and secular studies, it will in fact be essentially a
monologue.
Unacknowledged assumptions bias interpretation of revelation
Have you ever tried to prove to fundamentalist Christians that Jesus is not a separate person from God the Father? It can't be done. There are four reasons for this. 1) The fundamentalists believe that they can and must be led by the Bible alone, even in the absence of direct Biblical statements and teachings. This is because they are convinced that they are able to go to their Scripture, and, free of assumption or bias, simply "see the truth," that is there. 2) Their unacknowledged assumption is that the Father and the Son are separate people. 3)Several scriptural passages, when looked at with this bias, seem to strongly support this assumption. 4)No scriptural passage conclusively refutes it. Therefore, their assumption remains unshaken and they are not open to other interpretations of those passages.
If Jesus had been quoted as saying, "I and My Father are One, in Person as well as in Spirit," they could not continue to believe in a trinity of persons and still claim faithfulness to the literal Bible. Since He was not thus quoted, nothing will convince them to really listen to an alternative. They assume, from culture --from the convictions of those around them as they grew up, from the derived doctrine they were taught, or found for themselves, in some cases from a confirmation in life of the doctrine of faith alone-- that Jesus is a separate person from God the Father. They do not acknowledge that their assumptions are a lens through which they interpret scripture, and therefore these assumptions continue to heavily influence their beliefs. The fact that a trinity of persons is nowhere directly stated doesn't shake their certainty that it is so. In their minds, the burden of proof rests with those who interpret Jesus' words otherwise. They are not open to the sources which could enlighten them with the truth that God is One, such as the Writings, other books that are spiritually helpful, their experience of a personal relationship with the ONE, or even their own inner perception that God is one flowing directly into their souls from the Lord. Only if they acknowledge that their biases can't help but influence how they read the Word, and therefore become willing to allow their lens to be enlightened from another source can they be freed from the trap they are in.
It seems to me that a similar thing happens in the General Church when we discuss the question of women in the ministry. It seems that there are many in the church and its administration who can't seriously consider the possibility of women being priests for essentially the same four reasons listed above. 1)They believe that they can and must be led by the Writings, even in the absence of clear and direct teachings. They are convinced that they are able to approach the Writings with a clean slate, free of bias and assumption, and simply "see the truth" that is there. 2) They have an unacknowledged assumption that if priestly uses are to be done effectively they can only be done by men. 3) Several passages and teachings in the Writings, when looked at with this bias, seem to support this assumption. 4) No passage in the Writings unequivocally refutes it. Therefore, the assumption remains unshaken, and they are not truly open to alternative interpretations of the related teachings.
If the Writings included a passage saying that "Women are fully capable of being priests and are in fact sorely needed in this capacity," no one would be able to continue believing otherwise and still claim faithfulness to the literal Writings. But they don't make this statement, and therefore there are many who seem unable or unwilling to seriously consider the possibility of an alternative interpretation. They assume, from culture -- from the convictions of those around them as they grew up, both in and outside of the General Church, from the derived doctrine they were taught, or found for themselves --that women are not able to perform the uses of priesthood effectively. If they do not acknowledge that their assumptions are a lens through which they view the Writings, their assumptions continue to heavily influence their beliefs.
It is my understanding that it is nowhere stated in the
Writings that priestly uses can be done only by males. But the
absence of such a statement does not seem to shake their certainty
that it is so. Although there is no proof either way, in their
minds, it seems that the burden of proof is left with those who
question the assumption. As I see it, this is a serious trap for
all of us. Turning derived doctrines that make sense to some into
matters of faith for the whole church seems to me to be claiming
Divine authority for ideas that are not God's Words.
Signals that we may be attributing greater authority than is
appropriate to our derived doctrines
Mr. Rose, in his paper on derived doctrine, lists several common tendencies that can serve as signals to us that we are straying from what the Lord's Word directly states and falling into such a trap. He says while we tend towards these things out of a desire to be safely led by the Lord alone, the truth is that they render us less safe, since they claim authority to ourselves.
Reading his paper helped me to see clearly and specifically what has been so painful to me about reading many of the letters and papers that have been presented on the topic of women in the ministry. Several examples of what he describes immediately came to my mind. What I have done is quoted,in bold, some of the signals he describes in his paper. Then, I quoted in brackets what are to me examples of them, pulled out of articles and letters that have appeared in this publication or were presented at the clergy meetings. I recognize that all of these quotes have been lifted out of context, and their authors may feel I am misconstruing their meaning or intent. I want to stress that I am not criticizing the sincerity, good will, or even the ideas of the people who said these things. What I am criticizing is the language they have used to express their views, and what seems to me to be inappropriate claims of authority for these views. My purpose is not to say, "Look here! You did it wrong! Shame on you!" but rather to say, "Ouch! It feels really bad to hear it said like that with such authority. I feel hurt and angry about that statement. I feel like you are using a revelation I love to say things it doesn't say. I feel robbed and sad. I want this to be my church too and I believe we share the essentials of belief. But please don't tell me I have to agree with all your derivations and assumptions to be in the same church as you."
Predicting the future. The angels state that they do not
know things to come. This is an appropriate confession.... (DLR).
["The clergy will voluntarily continue to be all male - as long as the
Writings are our source of instruction on the topic."(Rev. Erik E.
Sandstrom, NCL,p.211, Sept. 1994). "If our would-be women candidates once
touched the sphere of those woman-angels, none of them would any longer have
a desire to be priests...." (Mr. Nagashima, NCL, p.19, Jan.1996)]
Warnings of danger. We sometimes have strong feelings
of apprehension, and we speak about dangers with so much feeling it may
sometimes seem that we are speaking from some kind of authority. There
are specific warnings in the Writings, and these are the important ones.
If we discern danger in some new thing, it is quite different from a
warning in the Writings.... (DLR)
["If we begin to think that we should picture God as sometimes male and
sometimes female, we risk dividing our idea of God and losing the vision of
the one visible God, the Lord Jesus Christ. If we lose this, we lose all."
(Rev.Cole, NCL, p.197, May 1995). "To attribute femininity to the Divine
Love...and masculinity to the Divine Wisdom...is to make God two separate
Beings.... In other words it actually destroys the real Divine Marriage and
returns us to the old heresy of (at least) two persons in God." (Rev.
Taylor, NCL,p.312, July 1995)]
Anticipating perfection. Of course when you are only
content with a perfect system you never devise a system....(DLR)
["Since they have no priests in the celestial heaven, (see HH 225), we must
depend on our guessing how the church, in which they have the priestly
office, functions with or without women angels in the spiritual heaven. Do
the conjugial partners work together all the time, or do they sometimes work
separately? And if seperately, can a she-angel ever play a role in the
church independently of her he-angel?" (Mr. Nagashima, NCL, p.22,
Jan.1996).]
Expecting a special mandate. The Writings describe a
mode of thought which is as if one would attempt nothing unless he were
put into action as one without a will. (AC 1712:3) (DLR)
["For those who do believe women should be priests, I would want to see
specific places in the Writings where it says it would be allowable."(Mrs.
Karen Hyatt, NCL, p.422, Sept. 1995)
Sometimes when religious leaders have made statements they have
spoken loudly but carried a small stick, or rather they have made
an extreme assertion without strong backing from revelation.... In my
opinion the principle would be many times more powerful if it directly
stated things from the Writings..."(last DLR quote).
["The fact [is] that the Lord God is masculine...."(Rev. Taylor, NCL,
p.312,313, July 1995.) "...an internal core reality [is that] the Lord is
only and always male."(Rev. Sandstrom, NCL, p.414, Sept. 1994). "...truth
plays the lead in defining a priest....As long as the the sight of truth is
its core, the priesthood should be a male domain.(Rev. Erik Buss, p.21,22 of
his clergy paper) "How the church operates has to...be objective."(Rev.
Sandstrom, NCL,p.411, Sept.1994) "The priesthood is the only on-going
office which is performatively self-conscious of representing the Lord."
(Rev. Cole, NCL, p.262, June 1995).]
Let the Lord speak for Himself
When no direct statement exists with which to drive a principle home, I believe we would do well to acknowledge that the principle is an opinion, or at best, has been overstated and needs to be toned down if it is our desire to keep it in line with what is actually stated in the Word. I have given above several examples of what I consider predictions, warnings, expectations of perfection and mandate, and extreme assertions, that stray from clear teachings and from these suggested guidelines of Mr. Rose's. These statements taken together seem to me to provide the basis of the argument against women in the clergy. To me they seem to be striking examples of a natural human tendency to derive doctrine in accordance with unconscious biases, such as a cultural bias against women in the ministry.
I believe that it will not be possible for our church's policies to be free of its cultural bias against women in the ministry, and to approach the question without being trapped by the above tendencies, until there is a widespread acknowledgment that it is impossible to be led solely by revelation in the absence of direct teaching. However reassuring it would be to find a clear answer in revelation for what seems, in this day and age, to be an important question, it seems that there just isn't one.
In all 60 pages of the papers given last year by the clergy on the topic, as well as all of the correspondence in this publication and others, not one direct teaching against women ministers has been presented. Since I don't know of anything else essential to His purposes that the Lord neglected to include in His revelation, I can't help thinking that if it had been essential to salvation of people or the purity of the church that women not share equally in the leadership of the church and the role of priesthood, He would have made certain that it was clearly stated. Or are the Writings not quite complete, and we need to hammer a few important points home in our own words to get across what the Lord was really trying to say?
When a person takes one way of interpreting the Writings on a particular topic and says, "As long as the Writings are our source of instruction on the subject, we will understand it and act upon it as I have just explained," I hear that person saying "We in the New Church believe and do this." When "this" is not a quote from revelation, I believe the line between the Word and one's understanding of the Word is blurred, invalidating the possibility of other interpretations. If variety of interpretations of the Writings is not welcomed, celebrated, and encouraged in our church, we have reason to be concerned. This is larger than the issue of whether women can effectively perform priestly uses and/or should be allowed to enroll in theological school on a separate track.
Are there other derived doctrines -- besides the one that women can't be
priests -- which are not acknowledged to be derived, which the lay or
clerical administration of our societies and schools place in the category
of things "we will believe as long as the Writings are our source of
instruction?" A belief in the authority of the Word serves as a requirement
for admission into theological school, ordination, and employment as a
priest in our organization. But who decides what constitutes "a belief in
the authority of the Writings?" To what extent does this mean "a belief in
so-and-so's interpretation of the Writings?" I am particularly concerned
about the above referenced statement that "Our clergy will continue to be
voluntarily all male as long as the Writings are our source of instruction."
To me it seems more true to say that as long as the Writings are our
source of instruction, no one's derived doctrine will be set in stone as the
one truly objective interpretation. Rather, differences in
understanding on questions for which written revelation contain no direct
answers, will be expected and welcomed.
Differences of Understanding
One doesn't have to look very far to find differences of understanding. A comparison of some of the basic ideas in the recent letters and papers on this topic by General Church ministers reveals some interesting differences in understanding.
The Rev. Erik E. Sandstrom states that the Lord is male, that therefore only the male can represent Him, and that the focus of the priesthood is to maintain and teach pure doctrine.(p.414, Sept.1994) The Rev. Erik Buss states that the Lord is not male, but that He is almost always represented in the Word as male because truth is the form of good. (NCL p.490, Nov. 1995) In his paper for the clergy he reaches a tentative conclusion that the priesthood is a male role, but that women ought to be encouraged to get involved in lay ministries and administrative jobs that are more on the love/leading-to-the-good-of- life side, and are not inherently "priestly," that is, truth-oriented. (p.21,22)
Steven Cole states that the Lord is not male, and that "never to my knowledge do the Heavenly Doctrines say that [masculine imagery is used for the Lord in the Word] because the masculine is the form of truth." (NCL p.298, July 1995) He believes that the reason the Lord is usually represented in the masculine form in the Word is that masculine love more plainly reflects the Lord's love. Later he says that there are "offices...of the church that carry out the mothering function..." (NCL p. 304, July 1995) but in his paper for the clergy he states that it would be inappropriate to establish any kind of official non-priesthood "ministry" position in which women could perform these mothering, good-oriented jobs (p.41).
Although the arguments of Mr. Buss, Mr. Sandstrom, and Mr.Cole are in conflict with each other at different points, they all end up with the same conclusion: women should not be priests. I hope that among the clergy there will follow a discussion in which attention is called to some of the more glaring inconsistencies between the papers. If the defining function of the priesthood is truth-oriented, why do ministers represent the Lord as to love? If the love of saving souls is the defining quality of the priesthood, why is "the sight of truth" its essential characteristic? If representing the Lord as to love is the main role of priest, why do clergy meetings and employment positions focus mostly on studying and teaching truth, and administration? If the priesthood is supposed to focus on truth-oriented work, who is going to do the good-oriented work? Do they represent the Lord when doing good-oriented work? I hope that these inconsistencies will call into question the conclusion itself, or at least the confidence of those who hold it that they have the right or responsibility to continue presenting it to the church as the clear teaching of the Word.
I certainly don't mean to say that these papers and ideas are
not valuble and useful, or that one must be right and the others
wrong. All of them contribute valuble points, different pieces of
the puzzle. It's the idea that they lead to an obvious or solid
conclusion that troubles me. As it currently stands, the argument
sounds to me like this: "The shoe won't fit --it's broken." "The
shoe won't fit --it's too big." "The shoe won't fit --it's too
small." "Well, whatever the reason, we know for sure that it won't
fit. We've gone to the Word, we've started from doctrine, and the
doctrine that we've found in the Word is that women can't enter into
the office of priesthood and perform it rightly."
Objective study?
In order to truly "start from Doctrine" in the way that Mr. Sandstrom says is necessary for objective study, (NCL p.412, Sept, 1994) people would have to enroll in theological school as babies, before any elements of culture or experience or love were able to affect them. AC 2679 says that "...those who are being reformed...cannot do other than wander into this position and then into that both in doctrine and in life. Thus they hold to that as being the truth which has been instilled into them since early childhood, or which is impressed on them by others, or which they think out for themselves, quite apart from the consideration that various affections of which they are not aware exist to mislead them."
I understand this to mean that all of us -- men and ministers included-- are inevitably both deeply and subtly influenced by our culture, experiences and loves. Mr.Buss stated: "Science has long recognized that the perspective from which we view an occurrence changes our perception of what happens.... Our perspective on doctrinal issues also differs, depending on where we are standing. The teachings which we consider central to a subject will cause us to interpret other teachings in their light." (NCL p. 443, Oct. 1995) Is this not true of other ideas as well? We view teachings through the lens of other ideas, whether they are held consciously or unconsciously. As Mr. Buss noted, this is not necessarily a negative thing. It is just something to be aware of, and consciously choose to the degree that we can.
For example, in his paper, Mr. Buss made a careful distinction between the structure and process of the mind, and showed how making this distinction helps explain some otherwise "hard teachings." (NCL p.492-500) I loved that part of his paper, and found his distinction extremely helpful in making those teachings relevant for me, and resonating with my experience. It occurred to me that the distinction between structure and process (often phrased as "process vs. product") is a popular distinction arising currently in many fields of study: education, psychology, and medicine, to name a few that I am aware of. It is an idea that has arisen in the past few decades in our culture, in our science. Mr. Buss used a clarifying idea from culture to adjust the lens through which he viewed revelation. I believed it helped him to see certain truths more clearly. I am grateful for the insights he had and shared using that new lens. I say this to demonstrate that it is not the existence of the cultural lens which is problematic. What is problematic is if we do not acknowledge our lens, and strive to familiarize ourselves with its unseen assumptions and biases.
I have noticed lately that some ministers are giving more recognition to the hidden influence of culture on people's interpretation of revelation. An example familiar to readers of this publication can be found in a sermon printed last year in NCL. In "The Ideal of Marriage to Eternity," the Rev. Douglas Taylor stated that "...false and twisted ideas...act like a pair of distorting spectacles before the eyes of many who read...[the Lord's New Testament teachings on marriage in heaven] in the Word.... Such false assumptions distort the vision of many readers, causing them to see thing that were never written." (p.100, March, 1995) He noted that due to an "unwarranted assumption made unthinkingly for hundreds of years," the Christian Church has made a point of faith out of something that is not directly stated in the text of the Word. (p.100) Is there any reason to assume that this problem would never trouble our church?
Since I generally think of male ministers as folks who are in most ways like regular folks, not so different than sincere leaders in the Christian Church, I do not believe it is possible for them to entirely leave behind all of their consciously and unconsciously held biases and assumptions when studying the Word. If they believe that they can and should, they may as a result be less objective than if they acknowledged to themselves and others that it is impossible for them to be entirely objective, and made an on-going effort to uncover their biases from culture and experience, as well as affection. As Mr. Rose said in his 1978 paper Derived Doctrine in the Church, "Humility is a great strength, because the Lord can flow in where there is humility. The church cannot be protected by the mere brilliance or competence of its leaders. If ever we think to find safety in a kind of infallibility , then we are not safe."(p.6) *1
Sometimes it happens that two ministers do "doctrinal studies" to determine an answer to a question current in their societies, and come up with opposite conclusions. They lead their societies in opposite directions on the issue, stating and believing that the Word is their guide and authority. To many of my peers, this causes a deep cynicism about the church and the Writings. They see it as proof that "being led by truth from the Writings" is an impossible sham. They conclude that General Church people turn to the Writings, like some people turn to the Bible, to justify whatever they already believe and want to do. And in some cases, this might be true.
Other people, when faced with this dilemma, conclude
that one minister's position must be right (truly objective), while
the other one must be wrong(not objective). Again, in some cases,
this might be true.
The church is from LIVING the limited truth we draw from the Word
Is there a way to value a sincere search in the Word for relevant teachings which is not based on any unrealistic notion of total objectivity, especially regarding applications? As I see it, different people, in different situations, with different loves and talents are fed by the same Word in different ways. These different understandings help fill in the pieces of the big picture which only the Lord sees in entirety. In my view, the teaching that the Church must be "from the Word" is not so much about striving to "objectively understand truth" as it is about striving above all to live and love whatever truth we, with all of our inevitable limitations and obstructions to understanding, are able to draw from the Word.
I think that "getting pure, objective truth" apart from charity and real life, just doesn't happen. And the impure, nonobjective truth that we do get, if we live it because we believe God teaches it to us, is good enough for His purposes. AC 2679, quoted above, goes on to say that "although [the ideas] are for the most part erroneous, [they] ...serve to promote growth...[and] reformation...." Similarly, AC 1043 says that everyone's conscience is based on some dogma which s/he supposes is true, and that many in every dogma are regenerated by the Lord.
It seems to me that the important thing is not that we have the exactly right truth (which is impossible), but that we strive above all to live by the partial truth we have. Mr. Sandstrom quoted TCR 245 as saying that it is "the soundness and purity of doctrine" that establishes a church. What this passage says next, however, is that "neither is it doctrine, but a faith and a life in accordance with doctrine that establishes...the special church in the individual person."
AC 7233 says that because those who are of the spiritual
church have no perception, their doctrine is not that of Truth Divine
itself. The passage goes on to state that with most people, "their
doctrinal things being from the Word does not make them Divine
truths, for from the sense of the letter of the Word any doctrinal
thing whatever can be hatched." AC 1799 says that doctrinal things
do not make a church internally, nor even externally. What makes a
church "is a life according to doctrinals, all of which, provided
they are true, look to charity as their fundamental." (see also AC
4844) AC 809 seems to me to say that if the end in view of a
doctrine is charity, then it is a doctrine of the church. Otherwise,
it is not. HH 393 says that those in the preaching office are
enlightened according to the measure of their love and desire of use,
while Charity 60 says that if priests shun evils as sins and look to
the Lord, they are affected with a desire for the salvation of souls,
and in that proportion priests are "affected by truths." (DLR p.1)
The importance of masculine objectivity in the priesthood for
obtaining pure doctrine from the Word is not mentioned anywhere that
I can see. It seems to me to be intent and life, not gender or
method of study, that the doctrines teach are the source of priestly
enlightenment and are first in importance for effective priestly
leadership.
Problem of depending on the clergy to get the "real truth" for us
My belief is that it is people's individual work of going directly to the Word for themselves, with their specific problems, questions, and concerns in mind, with prayer for guidance as to understanding, and a deep desire to apply, that is of most importance in building a church. I suggest that inspiring, guiding and supporting this personal process is what "leading by means of the Word to the good of life" is about.
Striving for "the one right answer," on the other hand, necessarily causes a desire for unanimity. This tends to evolve into a sort of unofficial orthodoxy, discouraging questions and personal study. How unfortunate! Diversity and variety of views and interpretations among both laity and clergy do much to keep a church alive and healthy. Differences and debate inspire people to go to the Word to find out for themselves what they think is taught. In our church now, this is often not the case. I have sensed and occasionally actually heard expressed, by men and women, a fear that "I won't get it right" if I read the Word myself, and that it is safer just to listen to sermons and classes by ministers. "That way I will know I'm getting real objective truth."
So I think that sometimes current priestly efforts may have the opposite of the desired effect. If priests focus on separating themselves as much as possible from experiences and feelings to get "the real, untainted, objective truth" and then speak it from the pulpit on Sunday, they may have very little feedback, interaction, or opportunity to discern whether what is being said makes any sense or connects in any way to the lives of people. They may actually be intimidating people from reading for themselves.
Mr. Buss notes that, "for whatever reason there seems to be a lack of
study of the truth by men in the church and in our culture." He goes on to
say that "addressing ways to help men and women feel good about studying the
Word and pondering its meaning is one of the strongest messages that has
come out of this study for me."(NCL p.504, Nov. 1995) I think that people
need more than a good feeling about reading the Word. I think that people
need confidence that they are actually able to adequately get truth from
it for themselves, that they do not depend on the clergy to get the
real truth for them, that in fact nothing is as important as their own
effort to do it for themselves. The way Mr. Buss frames his statement lends
insight into why some people may not have this confidence.
Objectivity of the priesthood in the new paradigm
I think that in order to teach people truths from the Word, and to lead people by means of the Word to the good of life, a minister must be aware of and concerned with where those people actually are, mentally and emotionally, and what they are experiencing. The only way to find this out is to ask, and to listen with an open mind. This kind of asking and listening is an important part of the objectivity I would like to encourage our priests to cultivate, and it doesn't strike me as being stereotypically masculine according to the traditional view. And yet without it, I don't see how ministers can hope to effectively teach and lead people from the Word.
People have been asking, "Why can't we have women ministers?" Mary Alden asked, "Why can't a woman like me be trained and hired as a General Church minister?" A response from the priesthood that I would find refreshingly objective would go something like this: "Our historical and current understanding of what the Writings teach is that for this and this and this reason, women can't be effective priests, but we acknowledge our fallibility when it comes to understanding and interpreting the Lord's Word. Help us to expand our understanding! If it is true that women must not be priests, there must be a way to explain it that will make sense, that will produce joy in the clarity of the Lord's Word, that will resonate with experience, that will not leave anyone feeling invalidated, marginalized, hurt or disempowered. Please, help us by explaining what is perceived to be missing in the church that having women ministers would improve. What do women who long to be ministers want to do for the church, and what are some ways they could do this? How can we, as representatives of the Lord, improve the way we teach, minister, and serve? How can we better empower our members, women and men, to serve the Lord and the church according to their unique, God-given loves?"
My yearning for this type of public priestly response to
Mary's questions, in juxtaposition to the responses thus far printed
in this publication from General Church ministers, left me wondering.
Is an all-male clergy actually more objective than a clergy which
includes women would be? Is the ability and desire to see truth in
the Word in a special way more important in the ministry than a
special ability and desire to connect truth from the Word with the
real lives of real people? Do the Writings teach that the masculine
capacity of raising the understanding into higher light is more
essential to priestly uses than the female reception of the
conjugial, the love of conjoining good with truth?
Strengths and weaknesses of men
What I gather from the Writings is that regardless of his spiritual state, a man has the ability to raise his understanding into the light of heaven in a way that a woman can not. This is a wonderful, important gift from the Lord. I also understand the Writings to say that without being conjoined to a woman, without being influenced by women, a man is prone to being stuck in the love of self-intelligence. He will abstract truth from good, and lack interest in applying it. So an unregenerate man, whose understanding is not yet fully conjoined to a new will, has an ability to elevate his mind and draw truth from the Word in a special way, and he tends to get attached to his own ideas, his own understanding of what the Word says. He also tends to focus on truth for its own sake, rather than for the sake of improving the lives of himself and others. He depends upon women, especially his wife if he is married, to draw him away from this tendency. (see CL 90, 188,194)
This is the way I interpret these and other related passages,
and I think it is realistic to assume that most of our ministers are
probably not fully regenerate partners in truly conjugial marriages,
and therefore they have the tendencies mentioned above. They have a
gift from the Lord, and they need to be influenced by women, and if
married, conjoined to their wives, in order to make full use of this
gift.
Men and women working together--examined from the new paradigm
How can women help male ministers be more objective? By leaving them to themselves, or by working in conjunction with them? I hold dear the teaching that men have a special ability to elevate their understandings into a spiritual light which women can't reach without them. I have doubts only that our current system is the best way to empower men to "do their thing."
In his paper for the clergy, Mr. Cole states that the passages in Conjugial Love which emphasize the importance of women's effect on their husbands are speaking only about the influence of wives on their husbands, and should not be generalized to deduce that it is important that women in general have some influence on men in general. He writes that "the feminine influence essential in gatherings of men is simply that men be inspired by the love of their wives to look to the wisdom of life."(p.3)
Suppose we accept this idea that ideally the only woman that would influence a man is his wife. Can we also suppose that marriages in our culture are anything like those in some high heavens, where partners are so united as to appear as one from a distance? We hope that we are working towards truly conjugial marriages, but can we really assume that our General Church culture is one in which love truly conjugial is fully established? Can we base our structure on an assumption that heavenly ideals are operating here and now?
Backing up a bit, I'm not sure I accept the idea that the only woman that should influence a man is his wife. CL 55 teaches that in heaven, the most interior friendships (second only to conjugial marriages) are between chaste women and men who are not married to each other. As I read it, these friendships are especially delightful because the masculine and feminine spheres influence each other, but in a non-sexual way. Still, this passage, too, is talking about people in heaven. What about people on earth?
What CL 331 says to me is that it is no more likely for a married man to cease loving his own intelligence, than it is for a married woman to cease wanting to be thought of as beautiful by all men. Learning to love his wife rather than his own intelligence is a long, painful process that hopefully begins at marriage. It is no "simple" thing that happens like magic when he walks down the aisle. I see no reason to assume that our ministers are so amply inspired by love of their wives that the presence and participation of women in the ministry is rendered unnecessary. Could it be challenging for men who are striving to cease loving their own intelligence to work effectively and chastely with women who are striving to cease wanting to be thought of as beautiful by all men, and vise versa? Certainly, at times. Is it a challenge so great that it should serve to close church leadership and clerical service to women? I tend to think not, but would like to hear what others think. If a concern about sexual attraction among people who are not married but are working together is behind the view that women can't be ministers, I hope it will be discussed openly at some point in the future.
As we discuss the topic of men and women, many of the
passages we refer to speak about angels, and we are not angels. But
both men and women who are not angels have strengths as well as
weaknesses. And it seems to me that the strengths of each gender
balance out the weaknesses of the other, making the ordination of
humans to serve as God's ministers less of a risky business.
Strengths and weaknesses of women
About women, I understand the Writings to say that regardless of their spiritual state, they receive the conjugial. This conjugial includes both the love of conjoining themselves with one of the opposite sex, and a sphere of marriage in all things, a desire to conjoin good and truth. The more regenerate they are, the more they are led by good loves towards embracing higher and higher truths. Like men, they possess a wonderful and important gift from the Lord. Without their counterparts however, they are in spiritual need. Wives need their husbands. Women need to be influenced by men if they are to be led out of lower loves to higher ones. Women need truth seen in the higher light of men to conjoin with their good. And they need to be influenced by men, and conjoined to their husbands if married, in order to make full use of their gift of conjunction. (see CL 122-3,168, 188, 296) Again, these are my interpretations. They lead me to conclude that women have much to offer that is currently --and completely understandably-- somewhat lacking in the clergy.
Mary Alden's letter was an expression of her feelings and the questions of her heart. It was a statement of her personal experience, her reality. It seemed to me that in the responses from General Church ministers there was little if any acknowledgment of or attention to her feelings, to her personal reality. Perhaps some consider this an important, even essential, quality in a minister: they believe that a minister's focus must be the truth, and that acknowledging, considering, and accommodating to the feelings of the listener would prevent him from being true to the truth. Perhaps they believe that this is one of the reasons women would not be good priests: they think that since women tend to be more concerned with feelings, they might "water down" the truth to spare people's feelings, and consequently render the truth less true.
I believe, however, that concern for, perceptions about, and
awareness of people's feelings and experiences actually greatly
enhance one's ability to instruct people with truth in a way that
connects to their real lives. And when truth is connected to
people's real lives, it ceases to be an intellectual exercise and
becomes instead something to hold onto and use. Mr. Buss wrote "A
man's job is to provide the building blocks. A woman's is to use and
to inspire the use of those blocks to create something useful." (NCL
p.495, Nov. 1995) Do we conclude from this that what we really need
to do is exclude men from preaching and ministering to those in need?
An argument could be made along these lines: men's job is to see
clearly what the Word says, so let men be the research assistants,
studying the Word and coming up with the ideas for sermons. But then
leave the sermon writing, delivery, and other ministering to the
women.
Generalizations, stereotypes, and restrictive policies hurt us
all
Although this is a logical implication of some generalizations we make in our effort to understand masculinity and femininity, it is certainly not what I would advocate. Many of us know men -even ministers- who are feelings and relationship-oriented, and women who are clear-thinking and idea-oriented. We know men- including ministers -who admit that objectivity, as usually defined, is not a strength they have, and we know some remarkably objective women. When direct teachings give way to popular stereotypes, the result is not a long-term positive for our church. More importantly, I would not want to exclude men and their gifts from whatever aspects of ministry they feel called to. I trust that sincere men and women working together to serve the Lord can do so. Mr. Buss went on to say "Men provide the raw materials; women design the house. Then they build it together." (NCL p. 499, Nov. 1995) That sounds good to me, as long as no one starts legislating who is allowed to hold the nails and who can hammer. I'd like to see individual people empowered to follow their loves and use their God-given abilities, trusting that men will do so in masculine ways, and women will do so in feminine ways.
When we believe that internal differences manifest themselves in only one way externally, and say that this is the way everyone should be, and set up institutions and restrictive policies based on that one way, we invalidate many other ways those differences could take form. We prevent the Lord's infinite variety from doing all the fantastic work that it was created to do.
I hope that we will one day set aside assumptions and restrictions about how men and women and marriages should be, and instead simply support regeneration and allow people to act in freedom according to reason. I believe we will discover much about the real differences and strengths of the sexes by empowering good loves, providing opportunities to serve by means of them, and watching what happens.*2
It would be possible to study, discuss, and reflect indefinitely about the doctrinal points regarding the nature of men and women or the functions of the priesthood. Meanwhile, there are living, breathing, hurting, spiritually hungry and thirsty men and women, in our church and in our world. I hope that the main concern of the priesthood is not so much the purity of truth for its own sake, but rather an effort to feed people with living truth, and to direct them to the Living Truth for themselves. If there are women who want to be officially involved in this effort, I would rather not turn them away. If people want to be ministered to by women, or feel they are being ministered to by women and want to ordain, pay, hire or otherwise engage them as priests, who am I to interfere?
Mr. Buss uses the analogy of trying to climb a wall. "To start, the man needs to boost the woman up onto the wall, then the woman needs to reach back down and pull him up to her." (NCL p. 539, Dec. 1995) I like this analogy and I would like to continue using it to illustrate a point. I realize it is terribly oversimplified and generalized, but I hope I can get limited use out of it.
It seems to me that over the years, the ministers of our
church have done a good job of using their abilities to boost people
up on the wall. Maybe they've even been getting better and better at
it. They've done such a good job that some women are really up there
on the wall. But when these women reach back down to pull others,
including men, up too, the ministers say, "No, no, you get down from
there, it's my job to be up there. You should come down, and I'll
climb up by myself since you don't have boosting muscles." So
everyone loses. Men fear that the women threaten to displace them;
they feel that their unique male abilities are not valued. Their
boosting abilities are only partly satisfied, and they can't figure
out why all their hard boosting work isn't making the church grow
bigger or better. Women feel sad that they are not able to use the
boosts the men have given them to pull the men up and together pull
up many in the world. Some women are so frustrated at not being able
to use their pulling muscles that they end up pulling the men down
who are trying to climb up by themselves. It's a sad scene.
Hearing and heeding a call to ministry
"Can women be ministers in our church?" When some people hear this question, they believe they are being asked whether a women could do the work currently required to graduate and be ordained, and be employed by the General Church to do the work that is currently performed by General Church priests.
That is an interesting question to reflect on, but I think it is a mistaken interpretation of what many or most people asking the question are intending to ask. If we were to look at all of the women who feel called to ministry in the New Church, there may be a few who would want to do just that. However, I suspect that the majority feel called to do something quite different than what most of our ordained priests are doing most of the time. They feel called to do something that is often not being done very much, or very well, or very often by our ministers, in many cases because of the time restrictions, job definitions, and expectations placed on our ministers by their training, tradition, and some members of their societies. This is the "leading to the good of life part" of the ministry, the upward part of the cycle in Mr.Buss's paradigm. The getting down in the trenches with people in their spiritual battles, helping, inspiring and encouraging them to get truth from the Word for themselves, for strength and power. This is the midwifery part, where the agony of an internal birth is upon people and they need the spiritual support of someone who trusts in their process and can assist if necessary.
I spoke with a woman last year who explained it to me using
the analogy of fire and water. The flames of hell are licking at
every home and person, she said. People both in and outside of our
organization are being burned, terribly burned, sometimes to death.
In the Word there is water, oceans of water, water that could soothe
the burns as well as put out the fire. But she feels that many
ministers have their backs to the fire and its victims, and spend
most of their energy admiring, studying, discussing, and preaching
about that water. This is the focus of their training, and this is
what they are expected to do by the administration. They are not
spending time with the burn victims, and they do not know how to
treat them or to lead them to healing. They do not know how to work
with people to let the Lord quiet the fire's roar. She says that she
wants to work with the burn victims, and she only wishes that the
church would begin to train fire brigades who know how to take that
water and use it for the healing of the nations, to allow the Lord's
power to come down and put out the fire. She is not interested in
being trained to admire, study, discuss and preach about the water.
She is interested only in heeding her calling without being told that
she can't possibly do that because she isn't a man, and that she
isn't very true to the ideas of the New Church if supposes she has
such a calling. Remember the wall analogy?*3
Truth-orientation, good-orientation, and the priesthood
I am not devaluing the intensive and ongoing study of the Word. An effective clergy would have to include study, reflection, and discussion (truth-orientation) combined with hands-on down-and-dirty work with real people in their real struggles(good-orientation). It requires that who is being taught is valued and focused on to the same degree as what is being taught. One aspect without the other will not truly teach the Word or lead to the good of life. Perhaps some individuals have such a balance in themselves, or they have truly conjugial marriages. Realistically though, wouldn't it be more likely to require a combination of people to effectively balance things out?
Ordaining women would not balance out the leadership of the church if we continued to offer only the one truth-oriented track that is currently offered, and simply invited women to join. I am suggesting that we recognize the importance of truth-orientation without saying it is the one and only defining aspect of priesthood. Although Mr. Buss tentatively concluded it, I have not seen the Writings define "truth-orientation" as the essential of the priesthood. I am suggesting that we welcome those into the clergy, both men and women, who feel called to it in a different way, with a different orientation. I am suggesting that it is the assumption that the priesthood must be "truth-oriented" that needs to be questioned. I believe Mr. Cole questioned it when he argued that men do not represent the Lord as to truth but as to love. The Rev.John Odhner seems to challenge it in almost every study he does.
I think it is in part the "truth-orientation" of our clergy which has people crying out for women ministers. There is a perception that if we are going to go wrong in the General Church, it isn't going to be that we are too concerned with truly helping and supporting each other to live according to the Word. It will be that we are so busy trying to perfectly understand the Word that we forget to live it and empower others to live it as we individually understand it. And I think that many women who feel called to ministry do so because they perceive that there is work needed to be done for the salvation of souls which often isn't being done and which they are able and eager to do.
So when we hear the question, "Can and should women be
ministers?" let's not interpret it, "Should and can women do what our
male ministers are trained to do?" but rather "Can and should we
support women in following their loves into the kind of ministry they
feel called to? Can and should we acknowledge that they are acting
in the Lord's image too?" Next I will take a look at how the two
clergy papers presented last year seem to me to answer this question.
I want to stress that I am not quoting them here, because they did
not directly address this question.
Support and trust women in following their loves?
It seemed to me that in his paper for the clergy, Mr. Buss answered "yes, and no." Yes, we can support women in following their loves into ministry, but only if it is "good-oriented" ministry. And since only "truth-oriented" ministry is priestly ministry, women in their ministry do not represent the Lord in a "priestly" way.
If you accept his assumption that only truth-oriented ministry is priestly ministry, it's a perfectly fine position. However, it seems to me to be in direct conflict with Mr. Cole's answer. It seems to me that Mr. Cole as well answered "yes, and no." Yes, we can support women in following their loves into ministry, but only into their husbands' ministries. So they have to marry ministers to do so, and be satisfied with using their loves to inspire their husbands to do the actual work of ministry and thus also to represent the Lord.
What about women who feel called to ministry who are not married, who are not married to ministers, or who are married to ministers and who feel called to direct their energy into different areas than those encompassed by their husbands' range of influence? Mr. Cole doesn't address these problems. Rather than encouraging women to follow their loves into the world into these and other fields that they feel drawn to, he simply suggests that we would be better off in a society that was more home-centered and valued home more(NCL p.395, July 1995). In his paper for the clergy, he acknowledges that women have been unfairly subjugated in western culture, but believes that the real problem has been the undervaluing of domestic offices, not the refusal to let women perform traditionally masculine offices. (p.28)
I believe that the unfair subjugation of women has included the undervaluing of domestic offices closely linked to lack of freedom and encouragement for women to follow their loves into whatever tasks and uses they have been drawn to in a society struggling to adapt to changes brought about by the industrial revolution. To get someone to do something that nobody values, coercion and restriction are required. If something is truly valued, coercion becomes unnecessary. I suggest that if we really value women and their contribution, we will be ready to move beyond coercion and restriction.
And do we really believe that all women are created uniquely, thoroughly, and eternally female both in body and spirit? If so, can't we trust that if they are free, even supported, they will discover their unique and feminine loves and find their own, varied, feminine ways of using them for the service of others? Even if we were quite sure that Mr. Cole's paradigm is in fact the ideal, would we be more likely to make our way there through coercion and restriction or through free choice and Divine Providence?
One of the problems I see with Mr. Cole's paradigm is that it imposes
tremendous pressure and unrealistic expectations on clergy marriages. In his
scenario, a person with a calling to ministry would always marry someone who
has the same calling --and they better know their callings before they get
married. And in order for the wife's love to play its appropriate role in
her husband's ministry, the quality of their marriage has to be on par with
angel marriages. The minister-husband must operate from his wife's loves as
fully as if they were the heart and lungs of one person. How can we expect
this of clergy marriages? Since the quality of a marriage is entirely
dependent on the regeneration of the individual partners, expecting truly
conjugial marriages is expecting regenerate ministers and spouses. Aren't
ministers and their wives pretty much like regular people, with regular,
challenging, and working-on-it-but-not-exactly-truly-conjugial marriages?
*4
Do the Writings stress or even mention the Lord's maleness?
The bulk of this article so far has addressed the question of whether, looking at it from the "new paradigm," women might be able to rightly perform the office of priesthood on a functional level. Could they do the work that needs to be done? The next section will be addressing the question of whether women might be able to perform the office of priesthood on a symbolic level. Can women represent the Lord in worship? This is a question that Mr. Cole took up in great detail. I will be looking closely at his argument, and addressing this question from my own paradigm.
"...If we really believe in the Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, we must acknowledge that the masculine form of the incarnation itself was a choice made by God."(p.197, NCL, May, 1995) I agree with this statement. And since it forms the basis for Mr. Cole's argument that only men can represent the Lord as priests, I would like to look at its implications very carefully.
What is the significance of the maleness of Jesus Christ? Can we assume from the fact that God took on a masculine body in the incarnation that He was intending to limit our visual and/or perceptual concept of the Divine to the masculine form? Just how essential to the Lord's work of salvation was maleness? Do the Writings stress the Lord's maleness? Do they talk about the gender of God, and stress that it is essential for us to view God as male? Or do they stress that we view God as Human, the Divine Human, and because of our cultural bias we have assumed that since the Divine Human walked this earth in a male body that this means His maleness must be very important, in fact, essential, to His nature? Are there perhaps other ways to understand God's choice to take on a male body to walk this earth?
Throughout the course of the Christian Church, right from the time of Paul, the Lord's maleness has been considered extremely important to church policy-makers and administrators. It has been held out for centuries as the reason women are to subjugate themselves to their husbands, as well as the main reason that women should not be seen, heard, or active in church leadership. The fact that the maleness of Jesus Christ has been used as a way to subjugate women, and seen as the reason for keeping women out of leadership, decision-making, and visibility, is an important reason that many people today reject Christianity. They recognize that whatever its line of reasoning, any religion which elevates one gender over the other can't be a very true one.
I see us in the General Church unwittingly continuing this
historical emphasis on the maleness of Jesus Christ to an extent that
does not, to me, seem warranted by our revelation. I have not yet
read passages or teachings from the Word which stress the maleness of
Jesus or of God. I believe that what the Writings stress is the
Divine Humanity of God. And the Divine Humanity of the Lord is not
merely male.
Honor your Father and Mother
HH 78 says that "as it is the Divine that makes heaven, heaven must be in the human form ... this is the Lord's Divine Human." And AC 5053 teaches that the Grand Human of heaven contains both male and female reproductive parts, societies with uses corresponding to both male and female organs. Heaven exists from the presence of the Divine Human there. Where does heaven get its female component if not from the Divine? And SS 67 says that the celestial angels obey the commandment to "Honor your father and mother" by honoring as Father the Divine Good, and as Mother the Divine Truth.
It seems to me that to obey the internal sense of this commandment we are invited to do the same, to honor a Father and Mother in One God. We are asked to honor both the Love part of God, and the Wisdom part. The explanation of the internal sense of that commandment is not followed by a warning of danger that only celestial angels should do this. It doesn't say that if we honor or envision both Father and Mother in God we will lose Jesus as our one God and lose all, or destroy the Divine Marriage and return to an old heresy.
What seems more risky to me is emphasizing the maleness of Jesus (without any doctrinal backing) to the extent that we, like the Christian Church, drive many people away from our church, and the truth we could help them see. Imagine that the doctrine of the Divine Humanity of the Lord is a gorgeous, cool, clean pool of water in a desert. For some people, whether because they personally have been burned by sexism or other social oppression, or because their politics and social consciousness are acutely sensitized to the repression, restriction, or devaluing of any group of human beings, our current policy of barring the contributions of women from the clergy based on the argument that Jesus was male, will be all it takes to drive them away from that pool as just another poisonous, fermented pond, or a mirage not based on reality. They will never get close enough to the pool to experience its healing, thirst-quenching, washing power.
Now, the church can't reach everyone, and some people just
won't give the Writings a fair shot, and there isn't always anything
we can do about that. We aren't helping anybody by sheltering
someone from a clear teaching so that they won't feel bad. But if we
are going to consciously base policies on ideas that are going to
hurt and drive away a lot of people, shouldn't we be pretty sure that
those ideas are based on clear teachings in the Word? And so far I
have seen no teachings stressing the maleness of God, or the idea
that because God took on a male body in Jesus we must never think of
God as having female aspects, and that the priesthood must be
exclusively male.
Female images of the Divine
Mr. Cole has argued that the female images for God in the Old and New Testaments are not intended to call to mind a picture of the Lord as a female doing these things, but rather that these feminine behaviors image activities of the Lord." (p.198)
If women can't represent the Lord, why would He choose to include imagery in His Word for the sole purpose of telling us that our very female behaviors do nevertheless image activities of God? If He is in fact trying to let us know that women's very female behaviors and processes do image God, I suggest that it is because there are behaviors more internal than our biological processes, behaviors which perhaps correspond in some way to birthing, nursing infants and comforting children, which women are especially adept at, which also image activities of God. Is this different than representing God? I asked one minister whether he thought women could represent the Lord and he said, "The Lord is represented in the Word by pillars of fire and cloud, by a burning bush, by a lion, a lamb, a dove --inanimate objects and mute beasts! Surely something as lofty as a woman ought to be able to do the trick!"
Mr. Cole believes that there is an important distinction to
be made between ordinary representation of the Lord, and the
"self-consciously performative representation" of the Lord that
priests do. (p.262, NCL, June 1995) He has certainly done an
exhaustive study of what the Writings have to say on the topic of
representation and the priesthood, and I respect his desire to be led
by revelation in his thinking. For some of those who believe that in
the absence of clear statements, the Writings nonetheless always
contain one right answer to every question if we only look hard
enough, his argument against women representing the Lord in the
priesthood may satisfy.
Representatives in the new paradigm --re-examining "what works"
Since I do not expect the Writings to have one right answer to every question, and they do not directly address the issue of gender and representation in the priesthood, his "doctrinal speculation" seems to me like a Rosemary stretch from the passages he referenced. From my vantage point, unacknowledged assumptions can not help but influence the direction of the stretch. Unless something a little more definitive turns up, I am inclined to think that there may not be one right answer. Rather than endlessly searching for passages on gender and representation that apparently don't exist, and deriving theories about "what makes representatives work," I am more interested in asking people what they experience regarding gender and representation, what "works" for them. Mr. Cole mentioned that in the General Church there is less interest and enthusiasm today, than in the past, for representatives. I concur with this observation. I think it is because many within our church have begun to discover that representatives that "ought" to work, do not actually help us to live better lives.
I'll give a few examples that leap to mind. Architectural designs or unhewn stones of church buildings don't create a meaningful sphere of worship if the service that takes place inside doesn't touch affections and connect the Lord's truth to real life. Pure tones of natural instruments don't communicate supplication or praise if we don't enjoy or even understand the songs we are singing to their accompaniment. Red capes in wedding ceremonies don't open us to conjugial love without commitment, repentance, communication skills, and knowing when to get help from skilled counselors or support groups.
These are just a few examples of representatives that are
perhaps "going out of style" in our organization. I have sensed among
younger generations a frustration that our forefathers and mothers
seemed to have placed undue emphasis on external representatives at
the expense of real life, relationships, and "what works." I don't
think anyone believes that there is something wrong with those
representatives; it's just that the pendulum is swinging back the
other way for a while. Perhaps we are paying more attention to what
we experience, and adjusting the externals of worship so that they
improve how we feel and live, rather than stressing their symbolic
significance.
Representation in the new paradigm --what people experience
I feel Mr. Cole has addressed the representation question from the vantage point of symbolic significance, using the paradigm of "doctrinal proof." I would like to look at it from the vantage point of improving lives, looking at people's experiences in conjunction with teachings from the Word. As I see it, a priest is effectively representing the Lord when a person is actually able to see the Lord's truth and feel the Lord's love through that priest, in services of worship or otherwise. Is representation of the Lord something that a body does, or is it a function of humanness? Men and women each have unique abilities and gifts which spring from and point to Humanness. I care less about ministers looking physically like Jesus, and care more about being able to better relate to God with the ministers' help, whatever their gender. I am looking for ministers who actually, rather than symbolically, re-present the Lord to me.
From this perspective, how do we know if our male ministers are currently able to represent the Lord? Does a belief that men are able to represent the Lord mean that every man ordained actually does? I suspect that in some cases the re-presenting of our priests works, and other times it doesn't. I suspect that most ministers successfully represent the Lord to some people, but not to others. At any rate, if people feel that a minister is not in any way helping them to see, feel, understand, or connect with the Lord, or that he is even doing something to hurt their relationship with God or the Church, I submit that for those people, anyway, the representation is not working. This doesn't mean that the ordination ceremony was a farce. It just means that the ordination ceremony and the gender of Jesus Christ, like the pipe organ or symbolic architecture, isn't enough to guarantee that an actual representation will follow.
These days, when our church societies are designing church
buildings, I think they put more effort into finding out from the
members of the congregation what they would like in a place of
worship, what uses they hope to create a home for, and what is a
responsible allocation of funds, what is realistically affordable and
sustainable in a long-term perspective, than in focusing on what kind
of architecture has just the right representations. Similarly, when
asking questions about who should be allowed to be a minister, we
would do well to ask the people of the church what they are looking
for in the priesthood, what uses they would like the church to do,
and what they would like to pay for, in conjunction with a search of
the doctrines for guiding light. I'm not sure that putting all of
our energy into poring over passages trying to discern from books the
perfect recipe for a true representative will get us there.
What messages are we giving?
Is there a fear that ordaining women and/or having women side by side with men, active and visible in church leadership, would "give the wrong message?" Would it, as Mr. Cole seems to assume, give the message that Jesus Christ is not Divine, the One Visible God? Perhaps it would, if the idea that Jesus is God was not taught as the cornerstone of our religion. But what if the church held fast to its pearl of great price, its clearly stated doctrine that the Lord Jesus is the One Visible God? Perhaps then the united leadership of men and women would give some different messages.
Might it give the message that in that One God there is a marriage of Love and Wisdom, of upward and downward, of striving and yielding, of both halves of creation? And could it give the message that the effort of male and female in all aspects of creation towards conjuction with each other is a reflection and embodiment of the Divine Marriage within the Lord (see AC 3690), and that therefore the married state with all of its ultimates is holy, pure and clean? Might it give the message, a message not heard from Christianity before, that sexuality is not a manifestation of our fallen nature, that celibacy is not the ideal, but that a healthy, happy sexuality in marriage is truly what the Lord wishes for us all? And could it give the message that because of the gradual return of the blessed state of love truly conjugial, in the New Church women will be valued and listened to and supported in their endeavors to an extent that has not been seen since the fall of the Most Ancients?
These are our beliefs, but are they reflected in our structure? Are they the messages that the world hears from us, that our children hear from us? I want to stress that answers to questions of what others hear from us simply can not be found in the Writings. If you want to know what messages you are giving to people in the world and to your children, you will have to ask them.
And I suggest that if you want to find out whether men, or
male ministers, are effectively representing the Lord, you will have
to ask the people whom they are trying to represent Him to. If you
want to find out whether women are able to represent the Lord, I
suggest that you ask people whether they have experienced the Lord's
truth or love being presented to them by a woman, in worship or
otherwise. Ask whether the re-presentation of the Lord is happening
for them. I expect people have all different ways of experiencing
this, and all of the ways deserve to be listened to and honored. In
our quest for answers on the gender and representation question, I
suggest that we sometimes put aside our books and start asking people
what they experience regarding gender and representation.
*5.
Lack of tolerance for other explanations of Jesus' gender
Several articles have been published here and elsewhere in the past year or so that give alternative explanations of why the Lord chose to come to earth in a male body, and address the question of whether this means that God is male and/or can only be represented by a male.*6 Like Mr. Cole, the authors of these articles have no passages that "prove" that their point of view is true; like his, they are derivations based on doctrinal speculation. Their explanations make more sense to me and resonate more with my experience than Mr. Cole's, and I appreciate their conscious incorporation of personal experience with doctrinal ideas, but I won't say that they are right and he is wrong. But I am frustrated that Mr. Cole does not seem to similarly acknowledge the limitations of his views.
Mr. Cole stated that "if we really believe in the Divinity
of the Lord Jesus Christ, we must acknowledge that the masculine form
of the incarnation itself was a choice made by God,"(p.197,
NCL,May,1995) He gives his explanation of why the Lord made this
choice, and seems to believe it is the only legitimate explanation.
It is possible to see different reasons, implications and
applications for this choice than Mr. Cole sees, as the referenced
articles demonstrate. I agree that we would do well to apply the
"affirmative principle" to the fact that God chose to come to earth
in a male body. But since as far as I can tell the Lord nowhere
directly explains this choice, our understanding of why this was so
and what we ought to do about it is just that --our understanding.
And to apply the "affirmative principle" to any one person's
understanding of the why's and therefore's is to elevate that person
to the level of God. Maybe Mr. Cole is right, and the Lord has been
historically represented by men because only men can represent Him.
My point is that the Word does not directly say this. So maybe Mr.
Cole is wrong. Or maybe Mr. Cole has one legitimate viewpoint among
many. Greater tolerance of variety in understanding and application
would strengthen the unity of our church on its essential doctrines.
(see AC 1285, 1288, 2982)
Would removing the restrictions that prevent women from joining the
clergy lead us away from Jesus Christ as the One God?
One of our two most essential doctrines is that of the Divine Human. Several letters and articles (as quoted above) have expressed fear that ordaining women would lead us away from the One God, Lord Jesus Christ. I'm sure there are many ways of looking at this, but I can't close without saying that from my vantage point, nothing could be less true. When I left Bryn Athyn for University I was a confirmed New Church person, but I was not prepared for the intensity of the challenge my faith would meet as I became aware of the inconsistency that exists between our doctrines and our organization. The church's traditional understanding of, treatment of, and role for women was one of the greatest stumbling blocks I encountered, and it left me feeling at times that I would have to choose between my own value and integrity as a woman, and the doctrines of the New Church. Much thanks to the recent dialogue about women in the church, I see now that I do not need to make this choice.
In the two women's symposiums, in the recent pages of NCL and other New Church publications, as well as in myriads of conversations buzzing all over the church, there has been a renewed effort to discover, recognize, honor and empower the special strengths and gifts of women. This effort has helped me, as a woman, to feel like a full and welcome member of the human race, and to see with new eyes the One who is the Source of our humanity. For the strengths and gifts of women, no less than those of men, have their origin in Almighty God, our Lord Jesus Christ.
Real masculinity and real femininity interweave miraculously with each other. (see CL 32) The heading above CL 100 states that "man and woman were created to be precisely in the image of a marriage between good and truth." I infer from this that the miracle of true marriage originates in the perfect and complete union of the Divine Love and the Divine Wisdom in the Lord Himself. (see also CL 62) Intellect predominates in men, while will predominates in women. (CL 159) But in the Divine Human, neither predominates. (see DLW 28-35) They are perfectly united, in a way that the masculine form alone does not image. As far as I can tell, only a marriage of the masculine with the feminine can come close to accurately representing the resurrected and glorified Lord Jesus Christ.
Therefore the effort, even just on paper, to thoroughly and officially
recognize women's part in serving as the Lord's ministering hands and voice,
has vigorously reaffirmed my attachment to the Lord Jesus Christ as God. It
has fleshed out the Lord for me, enlarged Him, and made Him into Someone
much more approachable for me. For although He took on a male body while on
this earth, He battled all the hells and temptations, including the
ones more likely to plague women. He conquered them, and redeemed us from
them. This Lord, much more than the one I had before when I thought only
men could represent Him, is recognizable to me now as One who can be with me
in my own spiritual battles, which are female simply because every cell in
my body, spirit and soul are female.
Perceptions of the Lord are personal
I am aware that this is not the experience of everyone! Perhaps for some the idea of women representing the Lord is as damaging to their faith as it has been helpful to mine. We all have different internal pictures of God, as the doctrines are filtered through our experiences and hidden assumptions. But I want to say clearly that the apparently unquestioning rigidity in the church on the issue of women in the clergy, together with the awareness I gained after leaving Bryn Athyn of women's historical and ideological subjugation, put me in a terrible bind. I am extremely grateful that there have been ministers and others who, partly by pointing out what the Writings do and do not say, have helped me to see that no matter what the church organization does and says, the Writings can feed even me, and the Lord Jesus Christ can be my Higher Power.
My current picture of the Lord may well be erroneous in some
ways. Does anyone have a truly perfect internal picture of God? If
you do not have clear teachings to back up your opinions, please do
not try to take away my picture of God, or tell me that it is a
heresy, even if you are sure it is! I trust that the Lord will
continue to slowly change and improve my internal picture of Him in
His time, as I change my life in accordance with my understanding of
His truth. I will try to trust that the Lord is leading you too,
even if your understanding and picture of Him is different than mine.
Ancient Church as a model
On page 1 of the preface to Mr. Cole's paper for the clergy he says, "On the one hand perception needs to be valued and not undermined. On the other hand, there must also be some way to arbitrate when one person perceives things one way, and another person in another." That we must do something when people come up with different answers is apparently so obvious to him as to not require explanation or reference.
It is not so obvious to me. I don't know that those in the ancient church had this same assumption. I have seen no indication that they felt a need to arbitrate between those who perceived the details of faith differently. Finding the "one right answer" was not something they assumed had to be done. What they had instead, as I understand, was a church structured to allow for diversity and variety of doctrine and worship, with unity on the essential doctrines of love to the Lord and to the neighbor.
Can we model our church after the ancient church with its
tolerance and flexibility? Can we give up our desire for consensus
and unanimity, and declaration by some of what is true for all? Can
we stay united on our essential doctrines, and change and expand our
structure to allow for real variety and differences on the
non-essentials?
Gender of the clergy an essential doctrine?
Are there some who believe that the gender of the clergy is in itself an essential doctrine of our church, something unity of opinion is necessary for? Is it essential that we all agree about this, or can we have a church where some people believe in and want and have women ministers, and some people do not? Is the gender of the ministry up there with the unity of God in Jesus Christ, and charity towards the neighbor? Since the Writings do not clearly state the case either way, it is pretty difficult to make a case that this is an essential doctrine which the health of the church depends upon.
There may well be people who would leave the church if women were ordained, and if the focus of the priesthood shifted away from "getting the right answers (pure truths) and teaching them to the people," and towards supporting people in getting for themselves, and living, personal answers from the Word. There are certainly people who have left the church because it has not ordained women, has said that women can not represent God, and because its priesthood has had primarily a truth orientation and focus. I expect there to be many more in the years to come if the structure of the church doesn't expand to allow for variety of needs and beliefs. Some will be outraged and want to quit if women are ordained; many are outraged and leaving (or not joining) because they aren't. And yet as far as I can tell, it is not an essential doctrine of the church either way. If our structure allowed for variety of understanding on this matter, we could disagree with each other peaceably. As long as the assumed paradigm is one in which there is one right answer, too many people on both sides of the argument feel they are in a position of either a)winning the argument and successfully convincing others of the rightness of their view, or b)leaving or fading from the church. In the new paradigm, perhaps we would recognize the turmoil and pain around this issue as the struggle of a birth rather than a battle. *7
I challenge the members of the church to weather this storm
together. I ask that as an organization we recognize differences and
disagreements not as problems to be overcome but as indications that
we are a healthy group of free individuals. I request that
allowances in our organization be made for these differences and
disagreements, both ideologically and structurally. I submit the idea
that the Lord will be better able to lead us both to heaven and to a
more ideal world through the freedom and rationality implanted in us
for this purpose than through any form of coercion and restriction
placed upon each other. I ask the members of the church to be clear
about what is essential and what isn't, to be honest about what is
directly taught and what is interpretation, and to remember that if
charity is ruling, differences in doctrine and worship do not divide.
6. See the Rev. Kurt Nemitz's article, "Is God Male?" in the Fall 1994 Theta Alpha Journal; Amanda Rogers-Petro's paper, "The Church As Our Mother," published in Connections II, from the 1995 New Church Women's Symposium; Michael David's article, " God as Mother and Father," published in New Church Life, July and August 1995.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||