Jekyll2022-05-05T23:11:39+00:00http://deiprofundis.org/feed.xmlDei ProfundisTheology | Ethics | Liberation | Jesus. The blog of <a href="http://mariagwyn.com/">Maria Gwyn McDowell</a>.Maria Gwyn McDowellThe Ice Dragon2022-05-05T16:00:00+00:002022-05-05T16:00:00+00:00http://deiprofundis.org/2022/05/05/the-ice-dragon<figure class="image is-4x5 ">
<img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/x-WMb58bOdHT5RkRjZhPEj4t2OYtKez2iB7DlJFbr2rtMyg1D3YEgGQmCyNxJsNRGPTu-yvmvOmmN0o8L8l2esCfHRtE_g_6GM9NHZU3hlwkbaJskNSrTCgGrNWgJb_T_GpjnfzPQUw=w2400" alt="The Ice Dragon" />
<span class="title is-5">The Ice Dragon</span>
<div class="attribution"></div>
</figure>
<p>The explosion shot her out, spinning her head over tail as the sound of rocks cracking and fire crackling filled her ears. Without thinking, as if she had done this a million ages over, she unfurled her wings, their tender lacy filaments indistuinguisable from the molten red liquid that spewed her into the sky. Catching a gust of hot air, rising with it above the jagged hole forming beneath her, she pumped her wings hard. Suddenly, she broke free of the tower of ash and molten flame into the cold, glistening night. She swooped and soared, beating hard to stay aflight, sometimes gliding as hot and cold slid against one another under the starry sky, the volcanic heat meeting the icy air which blew off the glacier that had so long capped her molten home.</p>
<p>But she grew cold, and her young wings grew tired. Circling around,lower and lower, perhaps it was the flames reflected in the glistening surface that drew her, an illusion of warmth and safety.</p>
<p>Steam rose as her molten claws skittered along the ice until she caught herself on a bolder, and skidded to a rather clumsy halt. Heaving a sigh of relief, folding her wings next to her to warm them, she shut her eyes, blocking out the rivers of flame, the tumbling rocks, and the ice that reflected it all back in a cracked and jagged mirror.
Had she been older, had she had more time to learn about fire and ice, perhaps she would have known to pay attention to the sounds around her. To wonder at the shudder that ran through the ice at her feet. But she knew nothing of how quickly molten lava rising from the earth could turn ancient ice into a resevoir of water high above her; or how a small crack, created ages ago when a jolt deep in the earth shifted the ice on its surface, could suddenly give way, releasing a flood of icy water to tumble and rush down the mountainside, picking up bolders and trees. And her.</p>
<p>The wall of icy water picked her up without pause, steam erupting as water met fire, turning her head over tail yet again. This time, no gust of hot air lifted her. Instead, as happens anywhere molten lave meets icy water, stone forms. Everywhere the water met her flaming scales, they hardened. Wings outstretched to catch her balance, her molten scales hardened instantly. Swept down the mountain by the torrent, it carried her right into a boulder which caughter her wing, spun her around with current, and jammed her against another, holding her fast as the water drowned her in ice and debris, burying her in cold, icy dark.</p>
<p>But dragons, they aren’t like us. The don’t end like we end. Being made of the world itself, they can be remade by the world. Born of fire, frozen in stone made of the meeting of fire and ice, our young friend slowly but surely became that which surrounded her. Little by little, the ice, warmed by her fire melted, seeped into her brittle stone shell, met her inner fire, and added a new layer of stone. Outside, the stone forced the ice into its own shape even as the ice ground away the stone. From the outside in, layer by layer, she went from fire, to stone, to ice.</p>
<p>Likewise, the glacier grew adding layers of ice and snow, slowly sliding down the mountain with the weight of all it was carrying, all that it had gathered over the centuries, everything in its path.</p>
<p>But even ice cannot outlast everything. As the earth warmed, the glacier retreated, calving chunks of itself into a lagoon at the edge of the earth. And one day, finally, the sheet which broke off the glacier was that one bit of ice that held her tight. Plunging into the water, swept towards the ocean, she felt her prison melt away.</p>
<p>And there she floats, letting salt and spray clean away the debris of centuries, waiting for the right moment to spread her wings.</p>Maria Gwyn McDowellBut dragons, they aren't like us. The don't end like we end. Being made of the world itself, they can be remade by the world. Born of fire, frozen in stone made of the meeting of fire and ice, our young friend slowly but surely became that which surrounded her.Pascha Cheese Recipe2022-04-17T16:00:00+00:002022-04-17T16:00:00+00:00http://deiprofundis.org/2022/04/17/Pascha-Cheese<p>This recipe for Pascha Cheese was given to me by mother. It was passed around, and adjusted by, the women of the Russian Orthodox church I grew up with. I make it every year that I have time. The Pascha Cheese was a hit this year, probably the best ever. I suspect it was because of the extra lemon zest, and the real farmer’s cheese, which is only available in the early spring.</p>
<figure class="image is-4x5 ">
<img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/ZTWWqy4NsAle1uwSSOSH395YmP_xc5TB2w7BxJjUBKYbDjDnYuTqCHces5C0mL7RrLnYeb_b6eVUTQXQK9NbTrxa9EJwk7DsKrZMPynpW5zVNrVzA8vgfRmcyQk1ecBD4NggeD71LgY=w2400" alt="Pascha Cheese, 2022!" />
<span class="title is-5">Pascha Cheese, 2022!</span>
<div class="attribution"></div>
</figure>
<p>Makes 2.5 Quarts</p>
<h3 id="when-to-start">When to Start</h3>
<p>You should start this at least three days before you plan to serve it. Add a few more days if you only have wet cottage cheese available. It needs to set and drain in a refrigerator for a bit.</p>
<h3 id="ingredients">Ingredients</h3>
<ul>
<li>1LB Butter cut into small pieces</li>
<li>1/2c. granulated sugar</li>
<li>1 5-8” vanilla bean, slice down the length, scrape out (and use!) all the beans, and finely chop the rest</li>
<li>7 hard boiled egg yolks, seived (I rarely seive them, I just mush them by hand)</li>
<li>4 2/3c Farmer’s Cheese OR Large Dry curd Cottage Cheese. You can use wet cottage cheese, but you need to drain it, and leave extra time to drain the cheese before serving</li>
<li>(optional) 3T chopped almonds (or pecans) (I omit this, I don’t like nuts in my cheese)</li>
<li>(optional) 3T candied citron (I omit this too, I just hate candied fruits of most kind)</li>
<li>2t lemon juice (fresh is always best)</li>
<li>1/4t grated lemon zest (extra is very tasty, as we discovered this year)</li>
<li>1t vanilla extract</li>
<li>1/8t salt (that would be “a pinch”)</li>
<li>2/3c whipped cream</li>
<li>2/3c sour cream</li>
<li>1 Pascha Mold with double-cheese cloth, damp (<a href="https://orthodoxgifts.com/wooden-pascha-paskha-cheese-mold-large-size-5-1-4/">here is an example</a>, which you can also make)
<h3 id="steps">Steps</h3>
</li>
<li>Cream Butter and Sugar until fluffy.</li>
<li>Beat Vanilla, Egg Yolk, and Cottage Cheese into butter mix.</li>
<li>Stir in the lemon juice, lemon zest, vanilla extract, and salt, as well as the optional ingredients.</li>
<li>Whip cream in chilled bowl.</li>
<li>Fold Whip Cream and Sour Cream into mixture.</li>
<li>Pour into mold, making sure to push the mix down and out to the sides so they get the imprint of the mold.</li>
<li>Place upside down over bowl, and cover with lid, drain for about three days. If your mix is wet, you may want to put pressure on the cheese to help squeeze out the water. I often fill a plastic container with water and put it on the top (which is the bottom, because it is upside-down, remember?) to use weight to slowly squeeze it.</li>
</ul>
<p>Once it has set, remove from the mold and decorate with sliced strawberries, silver cake decorating balls, almond slivers, whatever.</p>
<div class="">
<p class="title is-3 has-text-centered">Pascha 2022</p>
</div>
<div class="grid" data-masonry="{ "itemSelector": ".grid-item", "columnWidth": 200 }">
<div class="grid-item">
<div class="card-image">
<div x-data="{ open: false }">
<a x-on:click="open = true" title="View large image">
<figure class="image ">
<img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/z12ABCbDfKjJ_zp5RTVil_euNNxoFaGXwZkWrmzEPhaGQItx9ELTmshYmGkI4ZUvgo8nFKIZRGGCNtoxTKgIhFH3cM4QQkP9pg5H4MbqxaqKH7fqY8vWA7Veq8YZvEamkSZWmIveAns=w1920-h1080" alt="" />
</figure>
</a>
<div class="modal" x-bind:class="open ? 'is-active' : ''" x-cloak="">
<div class="modal-background" x-on:click="open = false"></div>
<div class="modal-content">
<img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/z12ABCbDfKjJ_zp5RTVil_euNNxoFaGXwZkWrmzEPhaGQItx9ELTmshYmGkI4ZUvgo8nFKIZRGGCNtoxTKgIhFH3cM4QQkP9pg5H4MbqxaqKH7fqY8vWA7Veq8YZvEamkSZWmIveAns=w1920-h1080" alt="" />
</div>
<button class="modal-close is-large" aria-label="close" x-on:click="open = false"></button>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="grid-item">
<div class="card-image">
<div x-data="{ open: false }">
<a x-on:click="open = true" title="View large image">
<figure class="image ">
<img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/PW1KPtTDJtERwRRjMZJTBxZiQl39NSvTw2JNKH_uvvC47GS93lTR_qEX-6YjeUDKwyv83yxd6t8CjwcV7_FoqVHi7LJphPQ06p_O7ZDTcYdchdpXMLkMSYOCP20sn_a9nRnyxFWewPA=w1920-h1080" alt="" />
</figure>
</a>
<div class="modal" x-bind:class="open ? 'is-active' : ''" x-cloak="">
<div class="modal-background" x-on:click="open = false"></div>
<div class="modal-content">
<img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/PW1KPtTDJtERwRRjMZJTBxZiQl39NSvTw2JNKH_uvvC47GS93lTR_qEX-6YjeUDKwyv83yxd6t8CjwcV7_FoqVHi7LJphPQ06p_O7ZDTcYdchdpXMLkMSYOCP20sn_a9nRnyxFWewPA=w1920-h1080" alt="" />
</div>
<button class="modal-close is-large" aria-label="close" x-on:click="open = false"></button>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="grid-item">
<div class="card-image">
<div x-data="{ open: false }">
<a x-on:click="open = true" title="View large image">
<figure class="image ">
<img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/7E-PRvnOzToahMyUWVNPKpdJC02_8dhomINyaLh5eFXrOnwtIbFNo15JYFY3q9t7JnsF2l8D5iDRX-zP10N-xGko75XbooKswoXphJK8h-jUhU-dwBI_37r8VrRLUYLY7LfmvhIAAtQ=w1920-h1080" alt="" />
</figure>
</a>
<div class="modal" x-bind:class="open ? 'is-active' : ''" x-cloak="">
<div class="modal-background" x-on:click="open = false"></div>
<div class="modal-content">
<img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/7E-PRvnOzToahMyUWVNPKpdJC02_8dhomINyaLh5eFXrOnwtIbFNo15JYFY3q9t7JnsF2l8D5iDRX-zP10N-xGko75XbooKswoXphJK8h-jUhU-dwBI_37r8VrRLUYLY7LfmvhIAAtQ=w1920-h1080" alt="" />
</div>
<button class="modal-close is-large" aria-label="close" x-on:click="open = false"></button>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="grid-item">
<div class="card-image">
<div x-data="{ open: false }">
<a x-on:click="open = true" title="View large image">
<figure class="image ">
<img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/7E-PRvnOzToahMyUWVNPKpdJC02_8dhomINyaLh5eFXrOnwtIbFNo15JYFY3q9t7JnsF2l8D5iDRX-zP10N-xGko75XbooKswoXphJK8h-jUhU-dwBI_37r8VrRLUYLY7LfmvhIAAtQ=w1920-h1080" alt="" />
</figure>
</a>
<div class="modal" x-bind:class="open ? 'is-active' : ''" x-cloak="">
<div class="modal-background" x-on:click="open = false"></div>
<div class="modal-content">
<img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/7E-PRvnOzToahMyUWVNPKpdJC02_8dhomINyaLh5eFXrOnwtIbFNo15JYFY3q9t7JnsF2l8D5iDRX-zP10N-xGko75XbooKswoXphJK8h-jUhU-dwBI_37r8VrRLUYLY7LfmvhIAAtQ=w1920-h1080" alt="" />
</div>
<button class="modal-close is-large" aria-label="close" x-on:click="open = false"></button>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="grid-item">
<div class="card-image">
<div x-data="{ open: false }">
<a x-on:click="open = true" title="View large image">
<figure class="image ">
<img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Dk5rREx7idDhumDkwEx2d_w3zucd00DafOBs6WvURbydNs3yKEV7ReNEpUw0fNOZ6jAz7sr3TiKMJhTSGUcU2Sr8F-56QJb_ExJ_T9Xu1bz2_dGFScg-7INbwhVsEaPGu1MMBipxTNk=w1920-h1080" alt="" />
</figure>
</a>
<div class="modal" x-bind:class="open ? 'is-active' : ''" x-cloak="">
<div class="modal-background" x-on:click="open = false"></div>
<div class="modal-content">
<img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Dk5rREx7idDhumDkwEx2d_w3zucd00DafOBs6WvURbydNs3yKEV7ReNEpUw0fNOZ6jAz7sr3TiKMJhTSGUcU2Sr8F-56QJb_ExJ_T9Xu1bz2_dGFScg-7INbwhVsEaPGu1MMBipxTNk=w1920-h1080" alt="" />
</div>
<button class="modal-close is-large" aria-label="close" x-on:click="open = false"></button>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="grid-item">
<div class="card-image">
<div x-data="{ open: false }">
<a x-on:click="open = true" title="View large image">
<figure class="image ">
<img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/G7rEVxkdZjsv8Jt6TJf_XSYtZ5liu9xvZz9CrCQ2mQuOVDay8imQtNn-x-J67kxmzY6sa2ovw0VXkuqtmC7uMmv9AE4K2oKlrZVv8WYfz6QfjpKhTyMlKz7mjc-KAmjfBqXhOxhyvug=w1920-h1080" alt="" />
</figure>
</a>
<div class="modal" x-bind:class="open ? 'is-active' : ''" x-cloak="">
<div class="modal-background" x-on:click="open = false"></div>
<div class="modal-content">
<img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/G7rEVxkdZjsv8Jt6TJf_XSYtZ5liu9xvZz9CrCQ2mQuOVDay8imQtNn-x-J67kxmzY6sa2ovw0VXkuqtmC7uMmv9AE4K2oKlrZVv8WYfz6QfjpKhTyMlKz7mjc-KAmjfBqXhOxhyvug=w1920-h1080" alt="" />
</div>
<button class="modal-close is-large" aria-label="close" x-on:click="open = false"></button>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="grid-item">
<div class="card-image">
<div x-data="{ open: false }">
<a x-on:click="open = true" title="View large image">
<figure class="image ">
<img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/UwV-t7bxtySmLt92NmgYdTqlZ78dGfHrkiRdBIfzf5l5pR-X1YdJgKWN_vuCc7k1Dqq58DBj5G19yLgO-tF1Vg6IFWMsX6Jdom-jsttqC2Bzo_PUsElVQhXKg4mxnVK0YjWvnbmp9hc=w1920-h1080" alt="" />
</figure>
</a>
<div class="modal" x-bind:class="open ? 'is-active' : ''" x-cloak="">
<div class="modal-background" x-on:click="open = false"></div>
<div class="modal-content">
<img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/UwV-t7bxtySmLt92NmgYdTqlZ78dGfHrkiRdBIfzf5l5pR-X1YdJgKWN_vuCc7k1Dqq58DBj5G19yLgO-tF1Vg6IFWMsX6Jdom-jsttqC2Bzo_PUsElVQhXKg4mxnVK0YjWvnbmp9hc=w1920-h1080" alt="" />
</div>
<button class="modal-close is-large" aria-label="close" x-on:click="open = false"></button>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="grid-item">
<div class="card-image">
<div x-data="{ open: false }">
<a x-on:click="open = true" title="View large image">
<figure class="image ">
<img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/G4RLKFAZYguOkDN0UoB-_hy4YKgVXI2NMhI0Q_3MwRvJO3iTE1h7p8Niz9lBb-YWJ_RRqii25aDcT3URggdnYq2BeDSQADGsfVWit6OxhBk99usfJipdgly9bLOgwdYnEemBVCkKqhI=w1920-h1080" alt="" />
</figure>
</a>
<div class="modal" x-bind:class="open ? 'is-active' : ''" x-cloak="">
<div class="modal-background" x-on:click="open = false"></div>
<div class="modal-content">
<img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/G4RLKFAZYguOkDN0UoB-_hy4YKgVXI2NMhI0Q_3MwRvJO3iTE1h7p8Niz9lBb-YWJ_RRqii25aDcT3URggdnYq2BeDSQADGsfVWit6OxhBk99usfJipdgly9bLOgwdYnEemBVCkKqhI=w1920-h1080" alt="" />
</div>
<button class="modal-close is-large" aria-label="close" x-on:click="open = false"></button>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="grid-item">
<div class="card-image">
<div x-data="{ open: false }">
<a x-on:click="open = true" title="View large image">
<figure class="image ">
<img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/7cL8TG4gsTq30XAOBMvUCKUMnOPTf_zgdnJeyO70eniIDy9lPej67Rfg_GhUVhrXhWXfSRlGRXfEtJ702eAxWClYEpTWmUkABKyviqCFS8_wiuBt-z5XZAWrrElakAEtpde4yix6ZVY=w1920-h1080" alt="" />
</figure>
</a>
<div class="modal" x-bind:class="open ? 'is-active' : ''" x-cloak="">
<div class="modal-background" x-on:click="open = false"></div>
<div class="modal-content">
<img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/7cL8TG4gsTq30XAOBMvUCKUMnOPTf_zgdnJeyO70eniIDy9lPej67Rfg_GhUVhrXhWXfSRlGRXfEtJ702eAxWClYEpTWmUkABKyviqCFS8_wiuBt-z5XZAWrrElakAEtpde4yix6ZVY=w1920-h1080" alt="" />
</div>
<button class="modal-close is-large" aria-label="close" x-on:click="open = false"></button>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="grid-item">
<div class="card-image">
<div x-data="{ open: false }">
<a x-on:click="open = true" title="View large image">
<figure class="image ">
<img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/WPkYwdDPDQGGQo-77Di4FFsDbu509Au-AA85dczbqB7m1751LPCDmBiZ2x-OSW0uI-WVA6mNhKNrbEHkbDWkQBpK5AeaXANeQREJ6jADDLPhYcU2x-mjBbZ_DymDqzCruVnVH_C-hlg=w1920-h1080" alt="" />
</figure>
</a>
<div class="modal" x-bind:class="open ? 'is-active' : ''" x-cloak="">
<div class="modal-background" x-on:click="open = false"></div>
<div class="modal-content">
<img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/WPkYwdDPDQGGQo-77Di4FFsDbu509Au-AA85dczbqB7m1751LPCDmBiZ2x-OSW0uI-WVA6mNhKNrbEHkbDWkQBpK5AeaXANeQREJ6jADDLPhYcU2x-mjBbZ_DymDqzCruVnVH_C-hlg=w1920-h1080" alt="" />
</div>
<button class="modal-close is-large" aria-label="close" x-on:click="open = false"></button>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="grid-item">
<div class="card-image">
<div x-data="{ open: false }">
<a x-on:click="open = true" title="View large image">
<figure class="image ">
<img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/CCt7dtArAANxzw6yJiXQLUNZ2JTZRAzXLrKiUn7BRcJOR_xw-IILyrEaPTY6cnxACmW1cTrx1SNlGPGQ7TnenP3CcuEEQeHSK_XYV8bWdS2OkbrtTiSJ7hYowZxgc5ig5BQ2EAOEes0=w1920-h1080" alt="" />
</figure>
</a>
<div class="modal" x-bind:class="open ? 'is-active' : ''" x-cloak="">
<div class="modal-background" x-on:click="open = false"></div>
<div class="modal-content">
<img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/CCt7dtArAANxzw6yJiXQLUNZ2JTZRAzXLrKiUn7BRcJOR_xw-IILyrEaPTY6cnxACmW1cTrx1SNlGPGQ7TnenP3CcuEEQeHSK_XYV8bWdS2OkbrtTiSJ7hYowZxgc5ig5BQ2EAOEes0=w1920-h1080" alt="" />
</div>
<button class="modal-close is-large" aria-label="close" x-on:click="open = false"></button>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="grid-item">
<div class="card-image">
<div x-data="{ open: false }">
<a x-on:click="open = true" title="View large image">
<figure class="image ">
<img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/5Z2iX2JSYsW1qGA238JEEoTiSLk-VwxBMK8QRXEZs-WGKWpf7J83SRO2bX5yZwYbhjDpYs446DI2ofGAWhHeYzt0evmRBusEGlG7jYnW-MyZCt88jg5jmMyZq1SVd0RvYjEBWr0FwdY=w1920-h1080" alt="" />
</figure>
</a>
<div class="modal" x-bind:class="open ? 'is-active' : ''" x-cloak="">
<div class="modal-background" x-on:click="open = false"></div>
<div class="modal-content">
<img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/5Z2iX2JSYsW1qGA238JEEoTiSLk-VwxBMK8QRXEZs-WGKWpf7J83SRO2bX5yZwYbhjDpYs446DI2ofGAWhHeYzt0evmRBusEGlG7jYnW-MyZCt88jg5jmMyZq1SVd0RvYjEBWr0FwdY=w1920-h1080" alt="" />
</div>
<button class="modal-close is-large" aria-label="close" x-on:click="open = false"></button>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="grid-item">
<div class="card-image">
<div x-data="{ open: false }">
<a x-on:click="open = true" title="View large image">
<figure class="image ">
<img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/L30qPZ8wFq_vTesCuZMRKtpB2XPHMjOrvvICZX3Mi7jm2dW14hf2h_VK1zoII140hAiq0XLMo1CA2AKi-vKocJa40zSz3bpnUq5JA75NPRTjVmcyK6LStbxUIb3kmdrQfQY5r5BV1aI=w1920-h1080" alt="" />
</figure>
</a>
<div class="modal" x-bind:class="open ? 'is-active' : ''" x-cloak="">
<div class="modal-background" x-on:click="open = false"></div>
<div class="modal-content">
<img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/L30qPZ8wFq_vTesCuZMRKtpB2XPHMjOrvvICZX3Mi7jm2dW14hf2h_VK1zoII140hAiq0XLMo1CA2AKi-vKocJa40zSz3bpnUq5JA75NPRTjVmcyK6LStbxUIb3kmdrQfQY5r5BV1aI=w1920-h1080" alt="" />
</div>
<button class="modal-close is-large" aria-label="close" x-on:click="open = false"></button>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="grid-item">
<div class="card-image">
<div x-data="{ open: false }">
<a x-on:click="open = true" title="View large image">
<figure class="image ">
<img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/eKFD6c3eTW9H7VorhPhDjOL-uV3hA1NOaWvinmrNfdBN6DQz7WqEqH8ik3zdR25YMFwh0Yz-R_mB7iQtW3gydVqPHamIXGfok0OoUkNKseT3smgcL8wmQ7HU8dFfQoLpM1PMQ0jr3ow=w1920-h1080" alt="" />
</figure>
</a>
<div class="modal" x-bind:class="open ? 'is-active' : ''" x-cloak="">
<div class="modal-background" x-on:click="open = false"></div>
<div class="modal-content">
<img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/eKFD6c3eTW9H7VorhPhDjOL-uV3hA1NOaWvinmrNfdBN6DQz7WqEqH8ik3zdR25YMFwh0Yz-R_mB7iQtW3gydVqPHamIXGfok0OoUkNKseT3smgcL8wmQ7HU8dFfQoLpM1PMQ0jr3ow=w1920-h1080" alt="" />
</div>
<button class="modal-close is-large" aria-label="close" x-on:click="open = false"></button>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="grid-item">
<div class="card-image">
<div x-data="{ open: false }">
<a x-on:click="open = true" title="View large image">
<figure class="image ">
<img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/e2YWogct1YkjWv3LOZTKgDA02yYUdFvFPuvevJv6aUUptprMtHv_ExRIK8wLIND84CgWYMCAw20jZIzHiKyMSI3XjpoSXzVXGDy5k_s2WtrnR_evtuGBNavP4eQ2Dk573aMCw3vfXSA=w1920-h1080" alt="" />
</figure>
</a>
<div class="modal" x-bind:class="open ? 'is-active' : ''" x-cloak="">
<div class="modal-background" x-on:click="open = false"></div>
<div class="modal-content">
<img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/e2YWogct1YkjWv3LOZTKgDA02yYUdFvFPuvevJv6aUUptprMtHv_ExRIK8wLIND84CgWYMCAw20jZIzHiKyMSI3XjpoSXzVXGDy5k_s2WtrnR_evtuGBNavP4eQ2Dk573aMCw3vfXSA=w1920-h1080" alt="" />
</div>
<button class="modal-close is-large" aria-label="close" x-on:click="open = false"></button>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Maria Gwyn McDowellThe Pascha Cheese was a hit this year, the best ever!Is Jesus human, or male?2013-02-08T14:00:00+00:002013-02-08T14:00:00+00:00http://deiprofundis.org/2013/02/08/jesus-human-or-male-addressing-giertych-part-1<p>Recently, yet another article on why a male-only Catholic priesthood is sensible has been making the rounds of Facebook. In a <a href="https://www.ncronline.org/news/theology/why-not-women-priests-papal-theologian-explains">National Catholic Reporter</a>, the Dominican Father Wojciech Giertych acknowledges that we cannot really know why Jesus chose only male apostles despite his other counter-cultural acts, but offers some speculation as to the reasons.</p>
<p>His arguments boil down to two very familiar tropes: the maleness of Jesus and the differences between men and women. This post will deal with the first, and a second will explore difference (for another response, see: ‘<a href="http://feminismandreligion.com/2013/02/07/imagine-a-catholic-church-that-is-loved-as-only-a-woman-loves-by-michele-stopera-freyhauf/">Imagine a Catholic Church that Loved as only a “Woman” Loves</a>’ by Michele Stopera Freyhauf).</p>
<p>Father Giertych states: “The son of God became flesh, but became flesh not as sexless humanity but as a male,” the implication of which is summarized by his interviewer: since a priest is supposed to serve as an image of Christ, his maleness is essential to that role.</p>
<p>This is the classic argument put forward by Catholics, that the priest stands ‘in persona Christi,’ translated by Orthodox into the ‘iconic argument.’ For the best exposition of this, see Metr. Kallistos Ware’s <em>first</em> article on the subject, published in both 1978 and 1983 as “Man, Woman and the Priesthood of Christ.” Be sure not to confuse it with his extensive 1999 revision, which demonstrates why such liturgical imagery fails in the Orthodox context. Here, I am more interested in the salvific implications of emphasizing Jesus’ maleness, implications which unlike priestly liturgical symbolism, are shared by Catholics and Orthodox.</p>
<p>A fellow Orthodox theologian recenlty summarized this position: ‘the ecumenical formulation of Chalcedon, that Jesus Christ was perfect God and perfect human being, reaffirms this position, i.e. the male character of priesthood.’ This a very dangerous theological argument. If ‘dangerous’ seems strong language, consider the implications of this line of thinking.</p>
<p>Taking seriously the Incarnation is to declare that Christ is fully human. What he has not assumed is not healed. This is a consistent belief of Orthodoxy, and a ‘first principle’ of our entire soteriology: we are able to participate in <em>theosis</em> because Christ has taken on our humanity, all of it. It is also a principle that underlies the legitimacy of Orthodox icons: because Christ took on matter, we can depict in matter Christ as well as all those women and men who exhibit the holiness which the Incarnation makes possible (this is addressed in Chapter 3 of my dissertation, ‘The Glory of Embodied Diversity: Icon, Virtue, Gender).</p>
<p>In the Incarnation, Christ’s humanity includes all that makes both men and women human. If we say that his full humanity leads to the ‘male character’ of any human role or relationship such as priesthood, then we are implying one of two things: either he is not fully human as he did not assume whatever it is that constitutes female humanity, or we declare that only maleness contains full humanity, and that females may not actually be fully human. The former denies the ecumenical formulation of Chalcedon, it constitutes heresy. Orthodox would never agree to such a thing. At least not intentionally.</p>
<p>The second option however, subtly permeates Orthodox and Catholic theology, and, I believe, underlies many of our liturgical practices. We have no dogmatic statement that women are fully human, but we seem to believe it when we assume that women too can participate in <em>theosis</em>. However, the most recent turn in Orthodox arguments against female priests almost universally put forward male headship. This line of thinking, reflected in scripture (though hardly reflecting all of scripture’s portrayal of the relationships between men and women: think Judith, Esther, Miriam, all of whom are hymned as prototypes of the Theotokos), inevitably defines the capabilities and charisms of women according to ‘what’ they are, not ‘who’ they are. Metr. John Zizioulas rightly argues that any such definition fails to account for our full personhood.</p>
<p>On the one hand, our practices perpetuate such a view: female bodies are not permitted in our sacred spaces during the liturgy. The reasons put forward for this have varied in our history, and are quite inconsistent. Given the historical existence of the female diaconate, ordained and receiving the Eucharist in the altar, we know that blood impurity has not always mattered in the Church, as it should not. However we explain it, the visual story we currently narrate through every liturgy confirms a belief that women are not quite as human, or as capable, or as holy, as men.</p>
<p>On the other hand, this is belief is belied by the practice of the saints and their presence among us through icons. Female saints are examples of embodied virtue, that is, theosis. Their presence among us belies any theology that says women are unable to become like Christ. This is affirmed by icons of female saints. Every altar has in it the body of one woman, the Theotokos. Many have more. Which brings us back to the idea that women cannot image Christ: this is exactly what every icon, male or female, does. It brings us into the presence of a person who has embodied Christ through loving God and neighbor in some unique manner. Further, as men and women created in the image of God, every one of us images Christ when we love God and neighbor in our daily lives (addressed, with liturgy, in Chapter 4 of my dissertation, ‘Virtuous Liturgy’).</p>
<p>Our practices do not reflect a Chalcedonian theology of Christ as bearing our full humanity. The fact is, Orthodoxy has never seriously discussed this issue, and the <em>theologoumena</em> (theological opinion) put forward in hasty response has been, as Metr. Anthony once said, demeaning to women. Given our practices, we are simply articulating what we see, and failing to articulate what we (supposedly, hopefully?) believe. Visual theology, that is, our liturgy, is a powerfully persuasive tool.</p>
<p>Perhaps, since we have no dogmatic statement regarding the full humanity of women, we can preserve Christ as the paradigmatic male who is also fully divine and fully human, by dogmatically concluding that women are not fully human. Such a prospect is horrifying to me, but it is a choice that our ecclesial authorities can make via a conciliar council. Needless to say, if such a dogmatic statement were ever to be made, I would happily stand in line with those who refused to cede to the destructive theology of various councils, and make every effort to theologically resist such a statement.</p>Maria Gwyn McDowellRecently, yet another article on why a male-only Catholic priesthood is sensible has been making the rounds of Facebook. In a National Catholic Reporter, the Dominican Father Wojciech Giertych acknowledges that we cannot really know why Jesus chose only male apostles despite his other counter-cultural acts, but offers some speculation as to the reasons.On ‘This Year’s Election’: A response regarding Fr. Reardon2012-10-28T14:00:00+00:002012-10-28T14:00:00+00:00http://deiprofundis.org/2012/10/28/years-election-response-regarding-fr-reardon<p>Fr. Patrick Reardon (<a href="http://www.allsaintsorthodox.org/pastor/bio.php">http://www.allsaintsorthodox.org/pastor/bio.php</a>) recently sent a pastoral letter on how to vote to members of his parish. Since I am neither a member of his parish nor his diocese, I would normally ignore such things, except that this letter has been supported and forwarded to other Orthodox parishes. As a result, a concerned friend on facebook asked me for a resources on other Orthodox viewpoints. They then asked if I would allow them to share my response with others. Here it is. You may read Fr. Reardon's letter here on <a href="http://touchstonemag.com/merecomments/2012/10/pastoral-letter-christian-citizenship-voting">Touchstone</a> and<a href="http://frjohnpeck.com/this-years-elections"> Fr. John Peck's blog</a>. It exists on other websites as well, but it was, as far as I can tell, originally sent by email.</p>
<p>==================</p>
<p>Dear friend, I need to think more about resources for your priest, since to be frank, I am not sure what would convince him out of his position. I do agree with him that we are accountable, that our decisions have grave consequences, and so like your priest and Fr. Reardon, I take voting seriously. I also think that our choices are not as clear as he, or Fr. Reardon, think. So, let me address Fr. Reardon's points.</p>
<p>First, he is absolutely correct that whatever we term 'rights' (a non-Orthodox way of addressing human flourishing, but it is the term he chooses), they derive from our dignity as persons made in the image of God. So yes, slavery is wrong despite the fact that the founding document of the U.S. does not say so. Yet he does not account for the fact that slavery has not always been condemned by either the Church, nor some of its most prestigious members. St. Gregory of Nyssa owned slaves, and upon his death, freed the males and gave the females to his sister Macrina's care in her monastery. While we can debate all we want the difference between U.S. chattel slavery and what happened in the Byzantine empire, the fact is that it was practiced by members of the Church. So, Fr. R treats as unambiguous a practice that has been historically ambiguous within his own ecclesial community.</p>
<p>As to abortion, I agree with Fr. R. that the fetus is a valued human live. However, I am also of the opinion that criminalizing abortion does not reduce them. Rather, abortion is reduced through education, through the availability of contraception, through ensuring that children and their families are supported throughout their life. This has been statistically shown, repeatedly. A very well written article, that is quite political, can be read here: <a href="http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/6501/barack_obama%2C_pro-life_hero_/">http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/6501/barack_obam…</a>. Criminalizing mothers whose bodies cannot carry to term a child, or for whom the birth of the child guarantees the loss of job, income, family, etc. is not a gracious or merciful response. And in the end, it does not guarantee the life of the child. Good social policies reduce abortion, not criminalization. So, while I agree with him regarding a principle, I disagree with his assumptions regarding how this principle is to be effectively implemented.</p>
<p>Further, to claim that an unborn child has a "right" to life even when its birth will claim the mother's life pits two "rights" against one another. This is, I think, unavoidable whether one uses the language of rights or not. The truth is, we live in a world where such decisions are inevitable, and must be made. They are difficult, painful, and should cause us grief. But they cannot be made by the law. And Fr. R gives no indication for how such a situation should be addressed. He offers no tools for discernment, perhaps because he believes we should not be allowed to discern at all in this situation.</p>
<p>Fortunately, and this is virtually the only ecclesial resource I can think of at the moment, Orthodoxy does leave room for such discernment. The Basic Social Statement of the Russian Orthodox Church as the following to say (XII.2, <a href="http://www.incommunion.org/2004/10/14/xii/">http://www.incommunion.org/2004/10/14/xii/</a>):</p>
<p>"Without rejecting the women who had an abortion, the Church calls upon them to repent and to overcome the destructive consequences of the sin through prayer and penance followed by participation in the salvific Sacraments. In case of a direct threat to the life of a mother if her pregnancy continues, especially if she has other children, it is recommended to be lenient in the pastoral practice. The woman who interrupted pregnancy in this situation shall not be excluded from the Eucharistic communion with the Church provided that she has fulfilled the canon of Penance assigned by the priest who takes her confession. The struggle with abortion, to which women sometimes have to resort because of abject poverty and helplessness, demands that the Church and society work out effective measures to protect motherhood and to create conditions for the adoption of the children whose mothers cannot raise them on their own for some reason."</p>
<p>In short, it is the OFFICIAL position of the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia that discernment is necessary in such situations. Fr. R would do well to consider this source, even if he does not agree with all of it. The fact that it is a social statement by an official ecclessial body does not make it binding on us. That is not how Orthodoxy works. However, it is worth our serious consideration.</p>
<p>Finally, while I would take a much more open stance on same-sex relationships than most Orthodox currently writing publicly, Fr. R does not take into account Fr. Hopko's reasoning regarding the permission of civil unions. But I don't think any amount of resources is going to sway Fr. R's opinion. Rather, loving gay and lesbian couples might. But I can't imagine any who in their right mind would expose themselves to the depth of relationship with Fr. R that would allow such a change. It would require a willingness to suffer that I would not wish on anyone.</p>
<p>This leads me to my primary disagreement with Fr. R: he does not sufficiently distinguish between principles and policy. I share the first two of his principles (no, I do not agree with his third principle about marriage), but I do not agree that the policies he supports actually best fulfill those principles. He seems to believe that the law is the best tool for implementing what is "good," where as I believe the law is primarily a tool to prevent the worst. The law limits the most egregious forms of human sin by criminalizing it, giving it penal consequences. It seems to me a very typical way of American reasoning, to assume that the law is the best and final tool to implement principles. Rather, the law is our best limiting tool, but creates nothing virtuous on its own.</p>
<p>And yes, I am willing to stand before my creator and give an account of my beliefs. As a matter of fact, that is exactly what I believe I am doing in this moment, so your priest's hint that perhaps I should be worried for my eternal future is a hollow warning, a mere step away from the "turn or burn" mentality that alienates so many of God's loving children.</p>
<div class="comments">
<div class="comment columns first">
<div class="column comment-info">
<p class="author">Kellyann</p>
<p class="meta-date">Tue, 12 Feb, 2013 - 09:44</p>
</div>
<div class="column comment-body">
<p>This is the sanest, and certainly the most pastoral, response I have seen to these religious-political issues. I love your blog.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="comment columns">
<div class="column comment-info">
<p class="author">mariagwyn</p>
<p class="meta-date">Sat, 23 Feb, 2013 - 11:41</p>
</div>
<div class="column comment-body">
<p>Kellyann, thank you. I am so glad you think my blog is 'pastoral.' I love theology, but more, I hope that theology helps us become better lovers of God and neighbor. I am glad that my writing might contribute to the care of one another.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>Maria Gwyn McDowellDear friend, I need to think more about resources for your priest, since to be frank, I am not sure what would convince him out of his position. I do agree with him that we are accountable, that our decisions have grave consequences, and so like your priest and Fr. Reardon, I take voting seriously. I also think that our choices are not as clear as he, or Fr. Reardon, think. So, let me address Fr. Reardon's points.The Virtuous ‘Straw-Man’2012-09-05T14:00:00+00:002012-09-05T14:00:00+00:00http://deiprofundis.org/2012/09/05/virtuous-straw-man<blockquote><p>A kind person--a virtuous person. Between them, there is a big difference. A kind person is kind because he or she accepts people as they are, covers them with kindness. Kindness is beautiful, the most beautiful thing on this earth. Virtuous people are activists, obsessed with the desire to impose their principles and goodness and easily condemning, destroying, hating... in this world there is a lot of virtue, and so little kindness.<br /><br />-- Fr. Alexander Schmemann</p></blockquote>
<p>There are few aspects of Schmemann that I find more frustrating that his straw-man dismissals of theologies, theories, perspectives and opinions that he does not appear to make any attempts to understand. This may sound harsh, but this quote is the perfect epitome: not only does he fail to understand the breadth of virtue (as if kindness was not also a virtue), but he fails to acknowledge that Orthodox theologians consistently speak of theosis as the acquisition (or uncovering) of virtue. For Orthodox, salvation is to participate in virtue. Read Gregory of Nazianzus, or John Chrysostom, both of whom characterize the priest as the liturgical model of virtue, whose life, teaching and preaching is meant to "paint the charms of virtue" so that all may be persuaded into living virtuously. Or attend to Maximus the Confessor, the Orthodox theologian who comes closest to later Western counterparts in delineating how particular virtues relate to one another, all of which are founded upon and shaped by love. Virtue is, for Orthodox, a primary way of understanding the 'ethos' of our lives.</p>
<p>As Schmemann's journals reveal, he was a bit of a social reactionary. He excoriates the Social Gospel as a secularizing cop-out, and regularly condemns activism as if Christians have no stake in a just world. As someone whose family suffered at the hands of communism, a particularly virulent form of social activism, his reaction is understandable. But as is so often the case when Schmemann turns to social issues, he seems unable to sort the wheat from the chaff. It may be that he and I differ on what is chaff. I am considered a full citizen with a right to vote because agitating Christian men and women insisted that women too are competent images of God. Schmemann is rather dismissive of a woman's ability to engage in the public sphere, much less in ecclesial leadership. He says so, in his journals. More than once.</p>
<p>Yet the fact that he was writing this in the sixties, during the Civil Rights movement, even further reduces my sympathy with him. And here is where the false opposition between kindness and a virtuous person, who frankly seems hardly virtuous, comes to the fore. Certainly there were aspects of the Civil Rights movement that were angry and even hateful (though kindness seems to dictate that we might want to respond with compassion not condemnation). But I am hard-pressed to describe Martin Luther King, who insisted that love cannot forgo justice, as "easily condemning, destroying, hating." The person Schmemann describes is not a paragon of virtue, but someone whose is, like many of us, still becoming virtuous. Indeed, I would argue, and have argued in the context of recognizing women as fully virtuous, that the refusal to "accept people as they really are" is itself a lack of virtue. Virtue must recognize the unique dignity of each person. And whether Schmemann is comfortable with that or not, sometimes the recognition of the full humanity of another person, and the loving desire to ensure that they too are respected and treated with dignity, leads to an active challenge of ecclesial, social and political structures which perpetuate injustice.</p>
<p>I do think his quote offers at least an instinct towards something that those of us committed to ethics as social ethics need to be aware. First is that it frequently seems that a virtuous person must practice virtues that often appear to collide. While theologians such as Aquinas argue otherwise, the exercise of discernment in difficult situations indicates that sometimes, one virtue might need to give way before another, at least for a time. Yet this is what many Catholic ethicists have been arguing since Vatican II. It is unfortunate that Schmemann did not live to read Margaret Farley's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Just-Love-Framework-Christian-Sexual/dp/0826429246"><em>Just Love</em></a>, or that he does not seem to have read more closely one of his contemporaries, John Courtney Murray.</p>
<p>Second, the juxtaposition of kindness and "virtue" highlights the need to identify Christian virtues (here I do not mean uniquely Christian as if they are not valued by other traditions or philosophies, but rather, virtues which characterize a Christian). Stanley Hauerwas and Charles Pinches skillfully take on this task in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Christians-Among-Virtues-Theological-Conversations/dp/0268008191"><em>Christians Among the Virtues</em></a>. They rightly note that some classic Greek virtues and their manner of realization may not neatly convert to a Christian life. As pacifists, they challenge as debatably Christian homeric courage, defined primarily as a warrior's virtue. Christians, they argue, must redefine courage for it to be Christian. Christians may also need to put forward as virtues ways of relating that were not at all valued by Homer or Aristotle. Take for instance, compassion, the ability to suffer with another. Or kindness, which Schmemann is right to note is in short supply. Or mercy, which did not play well on the battlefields of Troy.</p>
<p>So for all those for whom Schmemann is practically sacrosanct, my apologies. Anyone reading this blog will certainly know that when it comes to liturgy, I highly respect his work. However, I often find myself wishing, as I do with much Orthodox rhetoric on social issues, that he had taken more time to constructively engage with the work of other Christians in this area before pronouncing opinions with little or no substantiating argument.</p>
<p>Or, perhaps, I am just too much of an activist for Schmemann. I wish he were still alive so that I could argue with him in person. Perhaps we would both rub off on each other a bit.</p>
<div class="comments">
<div class="comment columns first">
<div class="column comment-info">
<p class="author">Michael Plekon</p>
<p class="meta-date">Wed, 05 Sep, 2012 - 13:04</p>
</div>
<div class="column comment-body">
<p>Schmemann was many things, some very admirable, others not so at all. He is a social & political conservative, probably also better a reactionary. He is romantic about change coming ONLY from individual ininiative, much like Kierkegaard on whom I spent years of study & writing etc. AS could not fathom American activism on any level, in fact his appreciation of the America that became his home is limited if not superficial--it afforded his children incredible opprotunities for aducation, career, advancement. But he was clueless when it came to much of American culture and life, though in honesty, here & there in his journals he does encounter both. One cannot make of AS what he was not. This quote is an example of a very facile, superficial conceptulaization that probably is based on an equally thin experience. All this said, on many matters he is discerning, humane, open. Somehow is Russian perspective on women, on learning, on social change and engagement was not significantly affected by his years here.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="comment columns">
<div class="column comment-info">
<p class="author">Kerry San Chirico</p>
<p class="meta-date">Wed, 05 Sep, 2012 - 13:44</p>
</div>
<div class="column comment-body">
<p>Hi Maria,</p>
<p>I think your article is right on. We do a disservice to Fr. Schmemann if we do not wrestle with him all these years later. It would be sad for people to think of an "Orthodox position" on social activism because of Father's (relatively) few words on them. He himself admitted it wasn't his strong suit.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>Maria Gwyn McDowellThere are few aspects of Schmemann that I find more frustrating that his straw-man dismissals of theologies, theories, perspectives and opinions that he does not appear to make any attempts to understand. This may sound harsh, but this quote is the perfect epitome: not only does he fail to understand the breadth of virtue (as if kindness was not also a virtue), but he fails to acknowledge that Orthodox theologians consistently speak of theosis as the acquisition (or uncovering) of virtue.Is Feminism Hatred?2012-08-19T14:00:00+00:002012-08-19T14:00:00+00:00http://deiprofundis.org/2012/08/19/feminism-hatred<p>So tell me, my Orthodox brothers and sisters, do I, a feminist, hate my church? There are many aspects of Pussy Riot’s actions, the <a href="http://www.pravmir.ru/zayavlenie-vysshego-cerkovnogo-soveta-russkoj-pravoslavnoj-cerkvi-v-svyazi-s-sudebnym-prigovorom-po-delu-lic-oskvernivshix-svyashhennoe-prostranstvo-xrama-xrista-spasitelya/">charge of blasphemy issued by the Russian Orthodox Church</a>, and the <a href="http://www.pravmir.ru/1prot-aleksij-uminskij-zayavlenie-vysshego-cerkovnogo-soveta-sdelano-slishkom-pozdno/">political motivations of the trial</a> itself that can be debated. If you want to read excellent discussions, see the facebook pages of Nadieszda Kizenko, Inga Leonova or the group Taste and See, and debate them there.</p>
<p>I am more interested in this statement by the presiding judge: “The court does find a religious hatred motive in the actions of the defendants by way of them being feminists who consider men and women to be equal.” The judge goes on to argue that equal opportunity for men and women is upheld by the Russian State, but is not in line with either Orthodox Christianity or Catholicism. Apparently Eastern Orthodox and Catholic feminists are motivated by religious hatred.</p>
<p>Really? Because I am certain that the anger I experience towards my Church (is it shocking, disturbing, that an Orthodox Christian might be angry at his or her church?) springs out of love and hope, not hatred: love that sees that more is possible, and hope that the possible can be made real.</p>
<p>Thanks to <a href="http://womenintheology.org/">Women in Theology</a> for this excellent post: <a href="http://womenintheology.org/2012/08/18/virgin-mary-mother-of-god-become-a-feminist/">http://womenintheology.org/2012/08/18/virgin-mary-mother-of-god-become-…</a>. </p>
<p>And to the South African Orthodox Blogger Steve Hayes for <a href="http://khanya.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/pussy-riot-a-cultural-revolution/">showing a level of graciousousness</a> eschewed by <a href="http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20120725/174760458.html">prominent spokespersons for Russian Orthodoxy</a>. Apparently, we Orthodox do not forgive without repentence. So much for Jesus’ words on the cross, “Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing” (<a href="http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=212402113">Luke 23.34</a>).</p>Maria Gwyn McDowellSo tell me, my Orthodox brothers and sisters, do I, a feminist, hate my church? There are many aspects of Pussy Riot’s actions, the charge of blasphemy issued by the Russian Orthodox Church, and the political motivations of the trial itself that can be debated. If you want to read excellent discussions, see the facebook pages of Nadieszda Kizenko, Inga Leonova or the group Taste and See, and debate them there.Holding Salvation2012-07-29T14:00:00+00:002012-07-29T14:00:00+00:00http://deiprofundis.org/2012/07/29/holding-salvation<p>For those unaware, a firestorm has been ignited over the decision of Bishop Matthias (OCA) of Chicago to no longer allow laity to hold the altar cloths at communion. Apparently in his announcement of his decisions, he explicitly mentioned his discomfort that women had contact with sacred things. While he denied this <a href="http://domoca.org/news_120601_2.html">in a letter</a>, it is women who bear the brunt of this decision, and who have no recourse (short of monasticism) to obtain the tonsure that might “rectify” their lay status. Many reasons are floating around to explain away this unfortunate bind. I will address some of them in future posts.</p>
<p>Today, I am addressing the reason that woke me up in the wee hours of the morning: Female participation in liturgical service around the holy things is not necessary for their salvation. Therefore, the women who dare to desire these ministries are being told to just let it go.</p>
<p>Yes, holding communion cloths is not necessary for the salvation of the one whose hands hold the cloth. But allowing women to hold cloths is necessary for the salvation of the rest of us, especially of those those who exclude.</p>
<p>Salvation is Theosis, which can be described in a number of way, one of which is to become more ‘like’ God, whom we see in Christ, the one who is fully human. However, this process is largely dependent on how we engage in relationships, with ourselves and our neighbor. Failure to treat someone as neighbor does not mean they are not a neighbor, but rather that we are not being a neighbor to them. This the lesson of the Good Samaritan, we are called to be neighbors, not have them. Another way to say this is that if being a neighbor to others is to be, like Christ, fully human, then the failure to treat another persons as a neighbor is to be less that human. It is to miss the mark of becoming more like God in Christ.</p>
<p>So the question before us is this is this: is the exclusion of women from liturgical service treat women as less than human?</p>
<p>The answer to this depends, in part, upon what it means to treat another person as a full human being. Certainly those who are convinced that the exercise of women’s gifts is limited to the domestic sphere “by nature,” and those who similarly hold that women simply don’t have priestly gifts, believe that they are affirming the dignity of women by abiding by the way things are, the natural law of God’s creation. Of course, “nature” is defined as they see fit, rarely paying attention to the gifts of unique women (and men). “Priestly gifts” are usually left undefined, since the moment they are delineated, some inconveniently gifted woman appears as a counter-example, undermining the point that women just can’t have them. The fact that, repeatedly, the capabilities of women, some of who are saints, fail to fall within the appropriate parameters of what they define as ‘natural’ is simply ignored.</p>
<p>Instead, strange and roundabout reasons are given. Take for instance, Bishop Mathias’s decision to stop allowing lay members to hold the communion cloths. Apparently, when asked for clarification, he actually referred to “women”, a misspeak that did not go unnoticed or addressed by some of the priests present. He “corrected” his Freudian slip in a written letter since he really has nothing against women, really. Except that it is primarily to women that this decision must be explained as lay men are free to serve in the altar, and therefore, hold cloths if there is need. According to supporters of his decision, or perhaps simply those priests who must implement the decisions of a bishop they disagree with, lay people (women) should not touch the items on the altar. Really? Why is that? Mary birthed what is on the altar, according to Simeon the theologian, His flesh is from her, and when we eat of Him, we eat of her (yes, Simeon says this, see his First Ethical Discourse, X). Apparently, kissing the Gospel and cross, both of which rest on the altar, is acceptable since it is in a controlled liturgical environment. Of course, so is holding the communion cloth, so why one is acceptable but another is not is, well, confusiong.</p>
<p>Is training the issue? Yes, women lack training, just like the 7 year-old wobbly little boys who aren’t quite sure where they are supposed to go next, and who, quite logically, are directed by a more experienced boy or man. On the job training doesn’t seem to be an impediment, if you are a boy.</p>
<p>If the status of ‘laity’ is the problem, then the solution is simple: de-laicize the men and women who hold cloths. It can be a simply procedure, a mass tonsuring, just like what happens to dozens of little boys at about the age they can be trusted to hold a candle without setting their hair on fire (though this too is not always the case). Just tonsure the women for goodness sake! (Again, for argument’s sake, I am putting aside the fact that ordination is not conferred by tonsuring in our tradition, therefore, the altar is already filled with laity).</p>
<p>Oh, but we can’t. Can’t what? Tonsure women. Why not? Women can’t be ordained. Why not? Because, well, we just don’t do that. Why not? Because women can’t be ordained. Why not? Because, well, they are women. So what? ….</p>
<p>Huh.</p>
<p>And here is where the real problem lies, a problem obfuscated by technicalities like training or tonsuring or lay status or what have you. Fundamentally, in our current practice, being a woman is the problem. No amount of honor given to the Virgin Mary can balance out the fundamental dishonor it is to be a woman in our Church, especially if you are a woman who has capabilities and desires to serve the church beyond beyond parenting, baking, cleaning, singing, and educating children. All of which men can do too. And no, the existence of a few “Spiritual Mothers” and the fact that nuns touch the holy things (in the altar, quite regularly), does not lessen the deep and profound loss experienced by women who once had the joy of literally sharing the meal of God with the people of God. Who are now told they cannot do so based on technicalities.</p>
<p>These women do not experience these decisions as technicalities. What they experience is that being a woman is a problem. This isn’t just a passing experience of exclusion, an experience which defenders of the current practice are so willing to deride as the histrionics of a woman who has learned her place from the secular world rather than the Church, and must be corrected so she will feel better about her exclusion. Of course it is just histrionics, we are women. Men, if you care, speak up. Now. We women are, after all, just too emotional to be taken seriously. I am not joking here. Our experience is of no matter to many in our church, but yours is. Use your place of privilege to care for those who have none. Take seriously that the grief you are witnessing is the reaction of a woman of God who is no longer being treated as a person of God.</p>
<p>And this is why the exclusion of women is a matter of salvation. Because those who exclude are not treating their mothers, sisters and daughters with the respect they accord to the youngest of boys. Because rather than wrestling with gifts and abilities of the beautiful woman of God before them, they treat them as technicalities. When this happens, the work of God through an utterly unique person is ignored. Whatever gifts she has, which God may want to serve the community in a manner that does not fit into the straightjacket of romanticized visions of ‘Woman’, are denied. They are denied in her, and they are denied to the community.</p>
<p>Those who perpetuate practices which exclude women, whether through silence or specious reasoning, no matter how well masked as love and kindness and pastoral care, sin against every girl and women who stand before them. Since, as Orthodox, our salvation is corporate, sin is corprate. Sin against one is sin against all, and by all. The liturgy, instead of a place of joyful participation in God becomes a place of painful rejection of the gifts of God.</p>
<p>As it turns out, I misspoke when I ceded that holding the altar cloth is not a matter of salvation for the holder. Holding the altar cloth is indeed a matter of salvation for all involved.</p>Maria Gwyn McDowellFor those unaware, a firestorm has been ignited over the decision of Bishop Matthias (OCA) of Chicago to no longer allow laity to hold the altar cloths at communion. Apparently in his announcement of his decisions, he explicitly mentioned his discomfort that women had contact with sacred things. While he denied this in a letter, it is women who bear the brunt of this decision, and who have no recourse (short of monasticism) to obtain the tonsure that might “rectify” their lay status. Many reasons are floating around to explain away this unfortunate bind. I will address some of them in future posts.Gender, Ordination and Same-sex relationships: An unavoidable association?2012-06-19T14:00:00+00:002012-06-19T14:00:00+00:00http://deiprofundis.org/2012/06/19/gender-ordination-and-same-sex-relationships-unavoidable-association<p>In May 2004 I wrote a response to an article printed in <em>The Word</em>, the magazine of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocesan. In it, I argue that Orthodox theology allows for the possibility of female priests. In doing so, I was entering into a discussion with the likes of Mdm. Elisabeth Behr-Sigel, Metrs. Anthony Bloom and Kallistos Ware, Dr. Valerie Karras and Sr. Nonna Harrison, and Fr. Thomas Hopko, all of whom consider (or ‘considered,’ both Behr-Sigel and Bloom are of blessed memory) the topic an open question. At least one of the responses to my article projected that my arguments were merely a precursor for the ordination of openly (and presumably sexually active) gay clergy. </p>
<p>At the time, I was annoyed at what I thought was a shallow attempt to derail reasonable arguments with semi-hysterical fear-mongering.</p>
<p>At the time, I believed that I could challenge the stereotypical gender roles which serve as the foundation for our exclusion of women (no, contrary to the popular rhetoric, it is really NOT our theology, nor even our practice) without challenging Orthodoxy’s beliefs about marriage as between a man and a woman. I believed this in part because, as a friend once said, there is no <em>necessary</em> connection between challenging traditional gender roles and same-sex relationships. Marriage is a relationship between two unique persons who are called to love one another, and who, by doing so, grow with one another into greater love of God and neighbor. This is what Orthodox mean when they speak of marriage as a “path to salvation.” This mutual challenge to grow further into God is not dependent on fulfilling particular gender roles, such as male leadership or female nurturing. Some women lead, some men nurture. There is no <em>necessary</em> connection between the success of a marriage and filling gender roles. Therefore, challenging gender roles does not necessarily undermine heterosexual marriage.</p>
<p>At the time, I wanted to avoid the entire debate over same-sex anything because I (still) believe that my calling as a theologian is to advocate for the full recognition of the giftedness of women and the need for the Church to recognize and welcome our gifts. Homosexuality would simply derail the conversation, and any hint that I might entertain the possibility of faithful, sexual relationships between people of the same sex would discredit my arguments. People simply would not listen.</p>
<p>At the time, I was under the rather naive assumption that I could speak about the ordination of women as if it were a separate and distinct issue from homosexuality.</p>
<p>I no longer believe this is possible, and this terrifies me. It terrifies me because I want more than anything to see sisters standing next to their brothers as they share in altar service. I want to hear the preaching of a woman, and see her hands raised in prayer over the eucharist, mirroring the Theotokos who rises above her, Christ’s body in her womb and at her breast. My greatest fear is that anything I say about same-sex relationships will cause women to be obscured from view, yet again.</p>
<p>But here is the reality:</p>
<p>Every defense of heterosexual marriage I have read by Orthodox theologians rests on the belief that ‘traditional’ gender roles are “natural.” God has instituted them from from the beginning. To people like Frs. Lawrence Farley, Johannes Jacobse, or John Whiteford, any challenge of gender-roles is a challenge to heterosexual marriage.<a href="#footnote1_2rg6ueh" title="See: Farley, "What's Wrong with Gay Marriage," Jacobse's introduction to a recent radio show on civil marriages, or Whitford's comments during the broadcast.">1</a> For them, there is a necessary connection between marriage and traditional notions of what it is to be male/masculine and female/feminine. No matter that the saints hardly conform to these stereotypes. No matter that nature is not static, nor that Orthodox theologians such as Yannaras or Zizioulas roundly criticize any sort of “natural theology” (too much so in my opinion). All that matters is that, as Farley argues, gender roles cannot be properly taught unless both genders are present to do the teaching, and society will be the worse for the loss of these roles.</p>
<p>And some more reality:</p>
<p>All too frequently, when the ordination of women is addressed by its detractors, suddenly we are in a conversation about pornography, incest, pedophilia… the list of ills goes on. Is recognizing the full gifts of women really tantamount to encouraging pornography and allowing our children to be sexually abused by their elders? Hopko once associated the ordination of women to the ordination of <a href="../../../2005/mar/23/body-worship/index.html">criminals and the disabled</a>. This is not only hysteria masking as dire warnings, it is deeply insulting to women, and, since same-sex relationships are usually on the list of depravities, insulting to men and women who are engaged in faithful, loving and enduring same-sex relationships.</p>
<p>And lest you think this polemic is merely the the purview of fanatical conservatives within Orthodoxy, Farley’s articles are posted on the website of the Orthodox Church in America. Fr. Morris’s article, a factually incorrect and theologically flawed piece which inspired my first public defense of the ordination of women, is available on the website of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese, but my response is not. Perhaps this is an innocent glitch in electronic record keeping. Perhaps not.<a href="#footnote2_yyuiy67" title="The PDF version of the May 2004 article is not available online, though Fr. John Morris’s original article (Jan 2004) and a subsequent response by Fr. Matthew Sweet (March 2004) are. See: http://www.antiochian.org/theword?page=7 and http://www.antiochian.org/theword?page=6). My response is available here: http://stnina.org/online-journal/feature-articles/newness-spirit-ordination-men-and-women. ">2</a></p>
<p>Farley claims that we are standing on the front lines: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The front line today is not drawn over questions of Christology or icons, and our children are not in danger of becoming Arians or iconoclasts. The world’s frontal assault on our Faith is no longer theological. Movies and magazines and columns and blogs do not revolve around the question of the <em>homoousios</em> or the Filioque clause in the Creed. They do revolve around questions of sex. Is gay marriage acceptable? Is casual sex okay? Is virginity unnatural? May women be ordained to the priesthood? Is homosexuality a valid alternative lifestyle? What about trans-gender? What about the explosive growth of the pornography industry? What about the pervasive use of sexual images around us? We may duck these issues and refuse to meaningfully engage in the debates, but the debate will continue in our society nonetheless, and will eventually make inroads in the Church, whereas we have been called to make inroads in the World. That is why this debate is not just a debate, but also the front line in a battle. If we refuse to deal with these issues, the enemy will push us back and our children will fall prey to an alien ideology and a harmful way of life.<a href="#footnote3_w8eeh4f" title="Farley, "Being on the Front Line."">3</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes, the lines have been drawn, and not where I would have liked. We must engage in meaningful debates, and we must not duck the issues. But contrary to what Farley says, issues of sex and sexuality <em>are</em> theological issues and iconoclasm indeed rises again. We make idols of stereotypical images of gender and sex and hang them over the heads of real women and men. We are not destroying painted images, but women and men who are uniquely made in the image of God. By doing so, we fail to recognize the unique image of God within each and every man and woman, an image which cannot be reduced to gendered stereotypes of any kind.</p>
<p>If challenging gender-roles on behalf of women simultaneously causes us to consider the possibility that same-sex relationships are fruitful ground for the growth of the Spirit, the so be it. I would rather be on the side of encouraging faith, hope, love, compassion, kindness and self-control wherever it appears than associate myself with such a demeaning polemic.</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="#footnoteref1_2rg6ueh">1.</a> See: Farley, “<a href="http://oca.org/reflections/fr.-lawrence-farley/whats-wrong-with-gay-marriage">What’s Wrong with Gay Marriage</a>,” Jacobse’s <a href="http://www.aoiusa.org/blog/ancient-faith-live-tonight-sunday-june-17-8pm-eastern-same-sex-marriage/">introduction</a> to a recent radio show on civil marriages, or Whitford’s <a href="http://t.co/dwm9tzfL">comments during the broadcast</a>.</li>
<li><a href="#footnoteref2_yyuiy67">2.</a> The PDF version of the May 2004 article is not available online, though Fr. John Morris’s original article (Jan 2004) and a subsequent response by Fr. Matthew Sweet (March 2004) are. See: <a href="http://www.antiochian.org/theword?page=7">http://www.antiochian.org/theword?page=7</a> and <a href="http://www.antiochian.org/theword?page=6">http://www.antiochian.org/theword?page=6</a>). My response is available here: <a href="http://stnina.org/online-journal/feature-articles/newness-spirit-ordination-men-and-women.">http://stnina.org/online-journal/feature-articles/newness-spirit-ordination-men-and-women.</a> </li>
<li><a href="#footnoteref3_w8eeh4f">3.</a> Farley, “<a href="http://oca.org/reflections/fr.-lawrence-farley/being-on-the-front-line">Being on the Front Line</a>.”</li>
</ul>Maria Gwyn McDowellIn May 2004 I wrote a response to an article printed in The Word, the magazine of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocesan. In it, I argue that Orthodox theology allows for the possibility of female priests. In doing so, I was entering into a discussion with the likes of Mdm. Elisabeth Behr-Sigel, Metrs. Anthony Bloom and Kallistos Ware, Dr. Valerie Karras and Sr. Nonna Harrison, and Fr. Thomas Hopko, all of whom consider (or ‘considered,’ both Behr-Sigel and Bloom are of blessed memory) the topic an open question. At least one of the responses to my article projected that my arguments were merely a precursor for the ordination of openly (and presumably sexually active) gay clergy. Humility or Humiliation?2012-06-10T14:00:00+00:002012-06-10T14:00:00+00:00http://deiprofundis.org/2012/06/10/humility-or-humiliation<p>A group of students traveling in the Holy Land were given an afternoon to shop for souvenirs. The reason for their shopping excursion was, in part, to allow one of their group leaders, a clergyman, time to visit the monastery of his namesake. This monastery still retains its reputation for its members’ historical contributions to Orthodox liturgical worship. The clergyman shared his joyful visit on Facebook, to which someone commented that the students missed out by not going. The clergyman quite honestly replied that part of the reason for his solitary trip was that half of the students were women, and that this monastery does not allow women to enter its precincts.</p>
<p>Unsurprisingly, though apparently astonishing to some Orthodox, a woman objected, “how can this monastery be the source of liturgical worship…and yet, not be a whole church? By excluding a whole half of the faithful? Is this the vision of the church? I cannot imagine being satisfied with going to the door and being fed water. Why are we so happy to receive such crumbs?”</p>
<p>A woman responded: it is a blessing to stand outside, receive whatever food and beverages are offered, and venerate the relics brought out. Being received by the monks outside the doors is accepted “in all humility” for “Orthodoxy teaches us to be humble.” And a few comments later, “God does not have to justify anything to us. Whatever is in God’s will, so be it…. I repeat that Orthodoxy teaches us humility and that means accepting any crumbs that are offered.” Given the many places men and women can venerate together, “why,” she asks, “upset the balance and cause the Monks in their Holy place to feel they have to accept women?”</p>
<p>Orthodoxy, via this exclusion, is said to “teach humility.” A humble person modestly assesses his or her own abilities and worth. It is interesting to note that modesty is from the Latin <em>modestus</em>, “keeping due measure,” and reflects the idea of a balance between extremes, one of the essential marks of a virtue according to Aristotle. Humiliation, however, is to traffic in the language of shame, to deny a person’s dignity and self-respect. Is “accepting whatever crumbs are offered” without critique a sign of self-respect, or an indication of a well-learned lack of self-respect?</p>
<p>The question is heightened by the fact that the exclusion of women from male monasteries (and men from female monasteries) is perceived by a faithful member of the Church as “God’s will.”<a href="#footnote1_sqcn4nm" title="Of course, there is no woman’s monastery that truly excludes men, since without men they would be without the sacraments. I am sure that many women’s monasteries which exclude men in general welcome visiting male hierarchs (if not presbyters) to share a meal. Male monastics have the option to exclude women, female monastics do not. The power dynamics of such ‘exclusions’ are entirely different as women remain dependent on men in a way that men with an identical call do not">1</a> God’s will requires no explanation. Yet it is not God who excludes, but particular communities and rarely do these communities ascribe their decision directly to “God’s will.” Exclusion is the choice of a community, based on perceptions of its own needs. Many monastic communities do not restrict the participation based on sex. We too quickly identify everything done by a particular member or group of members of the Church as “God’s will,” especially when someone objects to the practice. As a result, we do not carefully listen to those who experience nothing of God in a given practice. The sadness and anger felt by those who are denied the ability to worship in a particular place simply because of their sex is ignored, or worse, identified as a lack of appropriate humility. Suddenly, the desire to worship in a holy place, and the grief experienced at being excluded, is now an inappropriate desire to step out of one’s place. A holy desire is now interpreted as the presence of sin. This is “God’s will.”</p>
<p>The irony here is that the metaphor of “crumbs” from a banquet table hearkens back to the story of the Syrophoenecian woman who emphatically <em>did not</em> accept mere crumbs.</p>
<p>This woman learned of God in a culture where, each morning, some faithful Jews recite blessings, the “Birkhot HaShachar.” Among them are three rather controversial “blessings”, quite obviously recited by men:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><em>Blessed are You, Eternal One our God, Sovereign of the Universe, who did not make me a woman.</em><br />
<em>Blessed are You, Eternal One our God, Sovereign of the Universe, who did not make me a Gentile.</em><br />
<em>Blessed are You, Eternal One our God, Sovereign of the Universe, who did not make me a slave.</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>These blessings are ancient in origin. A corresponding saying, floating around ancient Palestine among Jesus’ contemporaries was, “Thank God I am not a Gentile, a woman, or a dog.” The association of the three is somewhat obvious in the story of the Syrophonecian woman (<a href="http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=206370130">Mark 7:25-30</a> or <a href="http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=206370130">Matt. 15:21-28</a>). Jesus is confronted with just such a person: a woman, a Gentile, and therefore, a dog. Their conversation reflects the prejudice of the day. She requests a miracle from a Jew who repeats (only after initially ignoring her according to Matthew) back to her the belief of their shared cultures which apparently held that the God of Israel was for the Israelites, not “dogs.” And yet this astonishingly, even inappropriately, bold woman refuses to let sleeping dogs lie. In her perhaps ironic answer, she indicates an understanding about the Creator of the Universe that Jesus recognizes as faith: there are enough crumbs to go around.</p>
<p>The crumbs here is the gracious presence of God, and the point of the passage is <em>not</em> that crumbs are enough. By challenging the cultural assumption that she is merely a dog, undeserving of the God of Israel, this woman proclaims that the abundance of God is for <em>all</em>. In other words, in Christ Jesus, <em>there are no crumbs</em>. The over-abundance of God’s generous banquet is precisely what Jesus acknowledges by healing her daughter. She does not receive crumbs, but is instantly granted the fullness of God’s overflowing, healing grace.</p>
<p>We are not called to accept crumbs, and doing so is not a sign of humility. It may be a gracious acceptance of another’s sinfulness, but God does not give us crumbs, but life, abundant life.</p>
<p>Lest anyone misinterpret me, let me be clear: separation is not inherently wrong. As a frequent monastic visitor, I am not allowed to enter the nuns’ private area any more than I am allowed to enter the monks’. The issue here is not my sex, but simply my presence as a distraction to the contemplative and often solitary life of monastics. Likewise, it is entirely appropriate that some meals are shared among the monastics alone, allowing them time to develop relationship over food (one of the most powerful places of human connection, eating together) or eat their meals in prayerful silence.</p>
<p>There are also pragmatic reasons. As the clergyman noted in the facebook conversation, the monastery in question was <em>formerly</em> a site of vibrant liturgical contribution. Today, it is populated by a handful of monks where “the present-day liturgical life of the monastery is not likely to be especially beautiful by worldly standards.” Perhaps the monastery simply cannot accommodate large groups of whatever sex. It is worth being reminded by the clergyman that the hymns written in this place are sung by men and women throughout the Orthodox world, so one “doesn’t have to enter the monastery itself to be enriched by the spirit of the place.”</p>
<p>However, as gracious as this response is, it sidesteps the issue. Presumably, pilgrims are not seeking worship which is “beautiful by worldly standards.” They are simply seeking worship in a place of venerable age and respected memory, seeking, like this clergyman, the joy of sharing space with a saint of great repute. Yet hardly any pilgrim would deny the special joy experienced by standing in such a Spirit-filled place. We are bodily creations, and the sensual experience of a physical place is undeniably different than experience any number of degrees removed. It remains a simple fact that a group of men would have (presumably) been able to participate in the humble liturgical life practiced by a small group of aging monastics. This is enough for a pilgrim. If it isn’t, then why be a pilgrim?</p>
<p>Further, we are not talking about exclusion from private quarters. We are speaking of exclusion from liturgy. Orthodoxy does not condone private eucharists. Given this, perhaps we Orthodox should rethink exclusion based on sex during our times of worship. “A Eucharist” says Metropolitan John Zizioulas, “which excludes in one way or another those of a different race or sex or age or profession is a false Eucharist….The Eucharist must include all these, for it is there that the otherness of a natural or social kind can be transcended. A Church which does not celebrate the Eucharist in this inclusive way risks losing her catholicity.” The Eucharist sanctifies communion as well as otherness, and Eucharistic fails to do this is “destroyed and even invalidated.”<a href="#footnote2_1b9rj00" title="Zizioulas, John. “Communion and Otherness.” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 38, no. 4 (1994): p. 355">2</a></p>
<p>How then, to deal with reality of sex-separation? Is separation and exclusion a sign of “God’s will” or a mark of our failure to incorporate the over-flowing hospitality of God? I obviously think it is the latter, and if we are to have any integrity with the clash between the abundance of God, and our failure, we must make our need for separation clear. We must make clear, in our theology, our official statements, posted on the lintels of monasteries or published on websites, that exclusion is not God’s will but a necessary accommodation to the weakness of its residents. Perhaps something along these lines could be posted:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Our dear sister [brother] in Christ, we ask your forgiveness but we cannot invite you in to join us. We are learning to focus on God, and in our weakness, are too easily distracted from our task by your God-given image. We ask patience for our weakness, and humbly ask that you pray that we become able to enter into the joy of God’s reign with you at our sides.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Humility in this case springs from the residents, from their own measured self-assessment. This honesty includes a recognition of their inability to live their chosen life if they are distracted by the ‘other.’ The responsibility for this inability to worship next to a fellow person made in the image of God is not put on women or God. It is taken by the one who truly bears responsibility.</p>
<p>Further, as Orthodox, we must be careful in throwing around the term “holy.” No place in which only some of the people of God are allowed to worship in joy and freedom can be fully holy. This does not mean that God cannot work in places where exclusion exists, only that true holiness, full holiness, cannot include exclusion.</p>
<p>Of all the places in which we are called to live our baptismal calling of putting on Christ in whom there is neither slave nor free, male and female, it is in liturgy. A failure to welcome all to the table is a failure to accept one another as sisters and brothers in Christ. This is not the good news of Jesus Christ, but the bad news of a world where we cannot put down our distractions long enough to feed one another on the abundant bread of life offered to us, for us, and by us. </p>
<ul>
<li><a href="#footnoteref1_sqcn4nm">1.</a> Of course, there is no woman’s monastery that truly excludes men, since without men they would be without the sacraments. I am sure that many women’s monasteries which exclude men in general welcome visiting male hierarchs (if not presbyters) to share a meal. Male monastics have the option to exclude women, female monastics do not. The power dynamics of such ‘exclusions’ are entirely different as women remain dependent on men in a way that men with an identical call do not</li>
<li><a href="#footnoteref2_1b9rj00">2.</a> Zizioulas, John. “Communion and Otherness.” <em>St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly</em> 38, no. 4 (1994): p. 355</li>
</ul>Maria Gwyn McDowellA group of students traveling in the Holy Land were given an afternoon to shop for souvenirs. The reason for their shopping excursion was, in part, to allow one of their group leaders, a clergyman, time to visit the monastery of his namesake. This monastery still retains its reputation for its members’ historical contributions to Orthodox liturgical worship. The clergyman shared his joyful visit on Facebook, to which someone commented that the students missed out by not going. The clergyman quite honestly replied that part of the reason for his solitary trip was that half of the students were women, and that this monastery does not allow women to enter its precincts.Oh the evil West2012-06-03T14:00:00+00:002012-06-03T14:00:00+00:00http://deiprofundis.org/2012/06/03/oh-evil-west<p>We Orthodox regularly mischaracterize ‘the West’ as a way of elevating a particularly Orthodox way of thinking about something. Our goal is not to understand ‘the West’ on its own terms, nor is it to learn (is this even possible) from its experience, but to elevate ourselves. We do this by falsely characterizing and then denigrating the other.</p>
<p>Often, our characterization is shallow, failing to take into account the diversity of opinions in Western thought on a given subject, the depth of thought given, the context out of which their perspectives arose. We treat ‘the West’ as if it is a monolith (it is hardly that!) and as if we have nothing to do with it. As Fr. John McGuckin points out, Greece is not the East, it is the source of the West. We are really not that far apart.</p>
<p>This is not to say that we are not different, or that the differences in the development of Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant theologies are not significant. However, if we do not understand the reasons for these differences, we cannot adequately respond to them.</p>
<p>The truth is that those of ‘the West’ are not stupid or thoughtless. By offering a shallow portrayal, we insult them, treating them as if they haven’t actually taken centuries to discuss important theological doctrines, and then we say things about them that are simply wrong. As a result, we come across as ignorant, reactionary, and shallow ourselves.</p>
<p>Certainly this can’t be effective evangelism, to speak of oneself through denigrating the other. We set up false dichotomies which serve to immobilize ourselves in an effort to preserve the masquerade that we are “Eastern”, “mystical”, different, i.e., better. We cannot then respond to our (somewhat new) Western context without retracting our former characterization, which in our pride we are loath to do. We are simply unwilling to deconstruct our now ritualized performance of ourselves in the face of honest discourse.</p>
<p>This intentional polarization is a disservice to our “cradle” members. As theologians, we do not provide the intellectual resources for our members to participate in their new culture(s) in any way other than with hostility. A faith that is about “being against” has a hard time “being for” anything.</p>
<p>This intentional polarization is a disservice to our new members, since in the midst of mischaracterizing the West we mischaracterize ourselves. Imagine their horror when those invited into the “unchanging” Orthodox Faith suddenly realize the diversity of opinion, practice and theological inquiry and outright conflict that characterizes our Tradition? Their unchanging rock turns into shifting sand, at least in their perception. We invite them in on false promises, often based on particular ritual and social practices which, to their surprise, turn out not to be universally implemented among Orthodox either in the present, or in our history.</p>
<p>It is, in short, a colossal waste of intellectual, emotional and spiritual energy, all this rhetoric against the “West.” Instead of telling people what is wrong with the food they are eating (or, if they have already joined us, ate), why do we not invite them to the beautiful bounty of diverse offerings at our table? We could spend our energy sharing the beauty, joy, reverence, awe, and sensual delight that Orthodox offers, not excoriating someone else’s table.</p>
<p>And, if they have something wonderful to bring to our table, all the better.</p>Maria Gwyn McDowellWe Orthodox regularly mischaracterize ‘the West’ as a way of elevating a particularly Orthodox way of thinking about something. Our goal is not to understand ‘the West’ on its own terms, nor is it to learn (is this even possible) from its experience, but to elevate ourselves. We do this by falsely characterizing and then denigrating the other.