No Women Priests? Makes no Sense!

They
Were Made in The Image and Likeness of God!

by Bourdara,
Kalliope A 

As I have already mentioned, I
believe that women must have the possibility to become priests.

....

God is the creator of women as
well as of men. Both have their origin in God. In addition, Christ came
to redeem both women and men to the same extent, and to restore the
relationships of both sexes to God.

Theological scholarship comes to the following conclusion with regard to
the office of women deacons: the "commissioning" of women deacons in
the early church with a special form of "ordination" cannot be equated
with the usual form of sacramental ordination, just because it is
mentioned as a special "laying on of hands" for the exercise of a
traditional ministry. The established ministry of the woman deacon is
strictly distinguished from the efficacy of priesthood and from
sacramental ordination. It is related to the ministry of the male
deacon, and it is in this connection alone that the ministry of the
woman deacon in the Eastern church is to be understood. So the type of
"ordination" of the woman deacon cannot properly be explained by a
simple comparison with the other forms of ordination, but only by
reference to the specific ecclesiastical intention behind this
institution and this ministry. In accord with this intention the
"commissioning" of the woman deacon for a specific ministry is
identified with her assignment to the company of charismatic women in
the local church.



As I have already mentioned, I believe that women must have the
possibility to become priests. In my early years I was puzzled by the
fact that a priest from a neighboring men's cloister came to celebrate
the liturgy exclusively for women. Would it not be proper for a woman to
celebrate? On what grounds was this not possible if Christianity spoke
of the equality of men and women? Let us not forget Paul's "neither male
nor female." I have discussed this matter with experts and have studied
all the relevant texts. They come to the conclusion that this is not
possible, and give reasons. I cannot enter the discussion as I am not a
professional theologian. The experts have analyzed their arguments and
come to the same conclusion, that while the man bears properly the
Christocentric type of Adam-Christ, the woman bears properly a sort of
auxiliary, pneumatocentric type that finds expression in the person of
the Virgin Mary and which becomes, through the presence and creative
power of the Holy Spirit, "full of grace" and the preferred image of the
charismatic human person.5



I respect absolutely the theological approach and the holy tradition.
But I would like, as an Orthodox lay woman, to make some comments. God
is the creator of women as well as of men. Both have their origin in
God. In addition, Christ came to redeem both women and men to the same
extent, and to restore the relationships of both sexes to God. In the
holy Scriptures and in the tradition there is a distinction between male
and female. This distinction has its roots and its basis in the
historical and cultural practices of former ages. I do not believe that
this distinction means any sort of positive or negative evaluation in
the sight of God. On the contrary, this distinction is defined by God
himself as part of his plan. Redemption does not bring about the
negation of our identities as men and women, but rather the
transformation of these identities.

Conservative Guys Place Rediculous Standards on Women's Bodies

Women showing their paranoia, men showing their insecurity

 Hey guys, if you're straight, women are going to turn you on...get over it.

By Lisa

Robin E. sent us to a downright fascinating set of survey results. Administered by a Christian website, the survey questions were submitted by "Christian girls" who wanted to know what "Christian guys" think is modest.

1,600 guys then answered the survey, offering both quantitative and qualitative answers. Why would girls care what guys, as opposed to God, think? Because Christian guys, their future husbands, are judging them on their modesty. Ninety-five percent of them say that modesty is an important quality in their future wife (see the question in the upper left corner):

So, how do these "guys" define immodesty? The most common theme was dressing to draw attention to the body instead of the heart or spirit.

Something that is immodest is something that is designed to arouse lust within me (male, age 24).
Something that is immodest is something that is unnaturally revealing (male, age 20).
Something immodest draws attention to a girl's body (male, age 28).

Many of the guys stressed that they really wanted to interact with girls as people. Borrowing language from feminism, they expressed a desire to think of a girl as a whole person, not just a hot body.

Something attractive draws you toward them. It makes you respect the person. Something immodest is usually unattractive. It makes you think less of that person, thinking of them as an object… (male, age 16).
My responsibility is to not treat women as objects for my satisfaction, even if they dress and act like it. It devalues them, and makes me a user of people… (male, age 26).

In a move that is in contrast to (most) feminist values, however, girls are supposed to help men treat them like people by not dressing like an object. That is, by not dressing immodestly.
So what rules for girls did guys identify?
Well, first, guys largely agreed that revealing clothes were immodest (again, see the question in the upper left corner):


Halter tops and mini skirts, I suppose, are obvious candidates for immodesty. There were lots more subtle rules, too, though with less agreement.
Forty-four percent of guys think that designs on the back pockets of jeans are immodest (19% aren't sure):

A minority, 19 percent, think that shirts with pockets are immodest (25% aren't sure):

Forty-eight percent think that purses should not be worn across the body (19% aren't sure):

Thirty-nine percent oppose tights with designs (25% aren't sure):

Forty-seven think that t-shirts with messages across the front improperly draw attention to breasts:

But being modest wasn't simply a matter of clothes. Guys defined immodesty, also, as an "attitude" or a "carelessness." Attaining modesty was also about how you use your body and the way you act, "sexually or otherwise."

An immodest lady is loud, proud, and dresses in a way that communicates such an attitude (male, age 24).
Something becomes immodest when the person wearing it has an attitude of carelessness (male, age 17).

As one guy said:

If you are dressing to get attention from a guy, then anything you wear can be immodest (male, age 13; my emphasis).

Some examples of behavior the guys mostly agreed was immodest:




Immodesty, then, is not simply about being vigilant about your clothing (don't wear a purse that falls diagonally across your body, don't show your arms or your thighs), it's a constant vigilance about how you display your body (don't stretch, bend, or bounce). "Clothing plays a part in modesty, but it is only a part," an 18 year old male explains, "Any item of clothing can be immodest" (his emphasis).
In addition, these rules are potentially changing all the time. A "technically modest" outfit, such as a school uniform, can suddenly have immodest connotations (so watch MTV, girls, to stay on top of these shifting meanings):

This is a great deal of self-monitoring for girls. Not just when they shop, but when they get dressed, and all day as they move, and with constant re-evaluation of their clothes and how they fit. But, the rationale is, they must be vigilant and obey these rules in order to protect guys from the power of all bodies (both their own sexiness, and men's biological response to it). Guys are burdened with lust, they insist.
A lot of the guys in this survey talked about temptation. In some cases, the men would use very powerful words, such as this guy defining immodest:

Immodest: Screams that her body is different than mine. Attempts to manipulate me. Forcefully offers to trade what I want (in the flesh) for what she wants: attention (male, age 30).

This language - suggesting that women's bodies "scream" at him, attempt to control him, and "forcefully" tempt him - is reminiscent of Tim Beneke's interviews with men about sexual violence in Men on Rape. Michael Kimmel (summarizing Beneke in Guyland) discusses how lots of the terms used to describe a beautiful, sexy woman are metaphors for danger and violence: "ravishing," "stunning," bombshell," "knockout," "dressed to kill," and "femme fatale." "Women's beauty," Kimmel surmises, "is perceived as violence to men" (p. 229).
This is very much like the rationale for the burqa. Women's bodies incite men's sexual desires, sometimes to violence; they must be kept hidden.
These Christian guys, however, did claim responsibility for their own thoughts, feelings, and actions. When asked about their role in avoiding lust, many were adamant that it was their own responsibility. Many felt that innocent, shameless, platonic interaction between men and women was a team effort:

Sisters in Christ, you really have no concept of the struggles that guys face on a daily basis. Please, please, please take a higher standard in the ways you dress. True, we men are responsible for our thoughts and actions before the Lord, but it is such a blessing when we know that we can spend time with our sisters in Christ, enjoying their fellowship without having to constantly be on guard against ungodly thoughts brought about by the inappropriate ways they sometimes dress. In 1 Corinthians 12 the apostle Paul presents believers as the members of one body – we have to work together. Every Christian has a special role to play in the body of Christ. That goal is to bring glory to the Savior through an obedient, unified body of believers – please don't hurt that unity by dressing in ways that may tempt your brothers in Christ to stumble (male, age 24).

The asymmetry of this project, however, is striking. The lust is men's; the bodies are women's. It's an asymmetry built right into the survey design. Modesty is something pertains to only girls and immodesty is something that guys get to define. This may be even more pernicious than women's constant self-monitoring. It erases women's own desires and the sex appeal of men's bodies, leading women to spend all of their time thinking about what men want. By the time they do have sex, and most of them will, they may be so alienated from their own sexual feelings that they won't even be able to recognize them.

"Not Rape" is Nearly Every Woman's Story

Required reading:

 

Original Essay: The Not Rape Epidemic

 

Modeling Industry Suffers to

 

The modeling industry sets up camp at the crossroads of youth & beauty and age & wealth — and moreover, it's an arena where those qualities cleave to the most predictable gender and power divide.

Latoya Peterson's excellent essay, "The Not Rape Epidemic," a version of which was published in the brand new anthology Yes Means Yes, and was blogged about last week by Megan, isn't exactly a gentle holiday season comedown. But I was struck, reading the piece — which is both moving and important — by a strange feeling of recognition. Peterson defines a new term, "not rape" — the kind of sex and sexual attention young women get from men which is, if not outright unconsenting, some measure of coerced. Not rape is every kind of uncomfortable experience you're made to feel complicit in: for choosing to go to the party, for wanting the kisses but not knowing how to say 'No' to what came next, for ending up alone with someone you thought you could trust — or, in Peterson's case, for opening the screen door a few inches to a friend-of-a-friend one summer afternoon while her parents were out.


The essay made me think of all the times I've not been raped. And all the other women in my industry who've not been raped.