Fr. George attempts to bifurcate the Church leadership roles between episcopal vs. non-episcopal, but perhaps he could further enlighten us where in Holy Tradition this is established and by which canon this is confirmed? Moreover, nothing that he writes regarding the Apostolic lineage limits the priesthood to women. Perhaps Fr. George was unfamiliar with the slide of western churches into women’s leadership, episcopal and otherwise. This innovation originates from a rejection of Edenic man-woman relationship, as explicated by St Paul, although it precedes him even to Christ (the New Adam) and His Apostles. “The prudent sees the evil and hides himself from it; but the naive go on, and are punished for it.” (Proverbs 22:3)

A Very Big Thank You Both to Mr. Panos and Andrew for speaking up and “telling it like it is.” If the parishoners aren’t hearing it on a regular basis from the hierarchy and clergy, then this epidemic silence is nothing more than aiding and abetting the opposition. And this is the problem of being “the best kept secret.” If our Founding Forefathers had adhered to this, we wouldn’t be rich Americans. So, my clarion call to all Orthodox Leaders is to “strap on a pair” and “tell it like it is” from the pulpits. Since when did Christ and the Holy Scriptures ever talk about the majority? It has always been about the radical remnant making it into Heaven and the narrow road. Or has the Church been about money, power, and donations – no different really than the American Government?! “Palm” Sunday every Sunday it seems with no good and efficient results.

Many things are done today that ought not be done. We must at times patiently endure them, but we ought not succumb to thinking that what is wrong is right. The frogs are not scandalized by the rising temperature; it will kill them nevertheless.

Yes Father, definitely. I think we’re all confused because of the significance, for instance, of the minor orders in the Russo-Slavic tradition– where Reader is like a “rank” even over and above the function– and the minor orders within the Hellenic-Arabic tradition, where quite often the people performing the functions of a Reader are tonsured whenever the Bishop comes around. The Church’s conscience is not scandalized by women singing in choirs and reading from the Apostol (in most places, at any rate, and I’m in a VERY traditional ROCOR parish where this has been done, although it is rare). Furthermore, women are “tonsured” already in our Tradition– at baptism and in taking up the monastic yoke. Women also “teach”– even in my Russian parish women are usually teaching Sunday school.

I really like what Met. Hierotheos of Nafpaktos says about all this. The spiritual priesthood are all those Christians who have been purified of their passions, or who at least are in that process of purification. This spiritual priesthood is open to everyone, and perhaps this is why St. Zosimas sought St. Mary of Egypt’s blessing (although she deferred to him in her supreme humility)– he discerned the spiritual priesthood in her.

This issue is not just women’s ordination; it is the natural, divinely ordained relationship between the man and the woman, according to which the man has been charged with headship not just in the Church but in all things where the two are together. Our blindness to our own teaching on this matter, and our approval of the way things are today in our increasingly unChristian culture, are evidence of the very froggishness Metropolitan Methodios is warning against.

I don’t know how this thread changed to discussion of women’s ordination, but this should be a non-issue for the Orthodox, and I suspect IS a non-issue in any place that has had Orthodoxy for more than 500 years. Women, as Rob said, can be many things– Presidents, Empresses, Baseball Coaches, Corporate Executives. There is one thing a woman can never be, however, and that is a Father. The sacramental priesthood is about spiritual fatherhood. Women have held ordained religious/sacramental leadership throughout history, but never in Christianity. Christianity has always had priests, but left the priestesses to the pagan religions.

Rob, just because women can be just as corrupt, ruthless and self-serving as men does not mean that ontologically they are suited to the sacramental office.

Now that women can run for President and become essentially the most powerful chief executive and military leader in the entire world (even with the support from “conservatives” as seen by the success of women like Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin), I’m thinking it makes little sense to many why they should become mute in all things related to the Church. Modernity has allowed the fairer sex to become leaders of men and nations, and at this point, I don’t think these advances can be rolled back, although I suppose you never know.

I’m not saying religious organizations can’t make their own rules. I’m simply suggesting that these rules no longer seem as reasonable as they may have when women could neither vote nor sign a legal contract. If you can explain why a woman should have the power to launch a military conflict but can’t read Scripture from the pulpit, you’d perhaps ease some of the dissonance many feel and that has caused splits within the denominations over these gender-role issues.

In a saner, healthier world, more respect would be paid to divinely ordained sexual distinction and to the apostolic guidelines that help maintain that distinction against the modern tendency to deny and eradicate it.

In a saner, healthier world, more men would see that taking leadership roles in the Church affirms their masculinity and thus be drawn to the Church instead of being driven away by the progressive feminization of the Church.

And so, in a saner, healthier world, parishes would be bigger and stronger and a better witness to the world of Christian truth.

Sunday is no longer the day that we worship Almighty God and then sit at our dinner table to enjoy fellowship. Rarely do we read the Bible. Prayers are no longer offered in our schools. The Ten Commandments have been removed from our civil courts. Lifestyles previously kept in the closet are now championed as reputable and worthy of emulation. The other day while driving to a liturgical service, a fellow priest pointed to a decal placed prominently on the bumper of the car in front of us. It was the symbol of a new atheist group in America.

The admonition of Saint Paul addressed to the Ephesians should echo in our hearts, “no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds.” (Eph.4:17) We need to re evaluate our lives and ask ourselves how the way we live differs from the way others live who have no faith. Do we differ as Orthodox Christians from our secular and oftentimes atheist neighbors? How do we live our Orthodox Faith?

And, despite the problems discussed here, I applaud Met. Methodios for making it. The deeper assumption informing his statement is true and Isaac Crabtree above articulated it well. It’s a warning against trying to meld the Church into the dominant culture, which, as the liberal Episcopalians and other mainstream organizations have shown, turns the Church into a coffin. The salt has lost its savor and becomes worthless, and is thrown out and trampled underfoot by men.

The following is not an argument “for” or “against” female Readers. That is a debate which is, in the vernacular, “above my pay grade.”

While “reader is the first level of Priesthood” is a fairly common phrase, it is only accurate on a superficial level. There is a fairly large difference in the so-called “minor orders” (reader, chanter, subdeacon, et al.) + deaconate versus the other so-called “major orders” (priesthood and episcopacy), especially when one considers their origins. The Episcopacy comes from the Apostolic line, successors of their grace and authority. The priesthood comes from the Episcopacy, as agents of the hierarch within the local communities, manifesting the communion within the Church that flows through the bishop (St. Ignatios – “Wherever the bishop is, there is the Catholic Church”); as such, they have responsibilities delegated to them from the hierarch that flow from the hierarch’s unique role, service, and authority (i.e. celebrating most of the sacraments).

The deaconate, on the other hand, comes from the Laity (per Acts), and shares in none of the unique Episcopal roles (sacraments, blessing, etc.). It has roles that are directly tied to lay participation (leading petitions, distributing communion, etc.), but none that are tied to Epsicopal prerogative. So, too, with the so-called “minor orders.” Thus, it seems to me to be a disingenuous “scare tactic” to imply that women as readers are somehow beginning down a slippery slope toward female priesthood. The two areas are simply so distant in role, source, authority, etc. that such a connection, in my opinion, can not and should not be made.

Amen to that, George!

Fr. Peter, I’m just going by what the picture, and Dr. Tibbs herself, has advertised publicly in many venues. She even touted her ‘tonsured reader’ status at a Metropolis of San Francisco clergy gathering!

I have no reason to believe otherwise, and neither does anyone else.