wow...resurrecting this topic after seven months?
Yes, my bad.
Tell that to Margaret Thacher, or to the several ruling queens, or to the ruling empresses, or to the women admirals and generals serving in our military today. The fact of the matter is that those are archaic stereotypes created by a cultures of oppression ruled by insecure men.
Read - tendencies
. There will always be exceptions, and I think history shows that the existance of matriarchs
in public life has always began with the creation of exceptional circumstances and exceptional women. While it's true systems re-enforce themselves, it seems you're not bothering to wonder why they tend to be a certain way (and generally are a certain way) to begin with.
However, regardless of such exceptions, there are still impediments with regard to the Priesthood which will perpetually disqualify women as candidates. In that sense, being a Priest-Bishop has more in common with being a biological father, than being a reigning autocrat.
Not really, at each major issue the Church ended up going a certain way, it could have just have easily embraced the opposite ideology; however, had it embraced the opposite ideology we would today believe that ideology to be orthodox and looking at history would have said how obvious it all was, surely divine providence guided us in this direction. It's politics, plain and simple.
On it's face, this would be believable if one were an atheist. Additionally, there are many chapters in the story of of the Imperial Councils, or the triumph of this or that view within Orthodoxy, which humanly speaking is quite remarkable. Of course, one could
say "what happens, happens" much as atheists do with regard to the argument that the emergence of life as being statistically improbable. But, again, that would be atheism.
That's all I've ultimately been arguing, it's the bishops' decision. Now I think there is a right and wrong decision that they can make, but in the end the decision is theirs, if they make a decision either way, one can't viably object to it within the context of the Church. Of course, I am confident that, in time, cultural pressure will force the bishops to endorse the correct position (by which I, of course, mean my position Wink)
Providence will guarantee that the truth will triumph, "whatever that may be". That will be the work of the Holy Spirit, beside the good will of men (or perhaps in spite of the will of man.) The exact interplay of such things is a discussion in and of itself (the whole question of Robber Synods, etc.) To believe otherwise, is to say the Church is neither founded or sustained as a continuing work of God, and holy unto Him.
If the biblical passages are properly interpreted, that is to say interpreted in the cultural context in which they were written, I see no reason why it the ordination of women would be a problem, we simply have to dispense with that silly protestant notion of biblical inerrancy.
Or, I give the Apostles the benefit of the doubt, and leave the cherry picking for what Hellas/"The World" has to say, since the latter has quite consistently shown itself to be fundamentally in the throws of idolatry of one sort or another.
Likewise, in the context of several primitive cultures, women were degraded so much by society that to place them in positions of responsibility within the church would have been irresponsible, for the same reason it was forbidden (explicitly, rather than just in practice as was the case with women) to ordain slaves...I would even take this a step further and say, for the same reasons, that there were times and places when it would have been irresponsible to ordain people of certain races. Of course, we are fortunate that our culture and society has evolved to such an extent that these issues are moot; thus I would today argue that failure to embrace at least as much virtue as our secular culture has manifested is irresponsible and immoral.
Of course, the above only adds up if one believes the only grounds for not admitting women to the Priesthood/Episcopate are the kind of considerations you're mentioning (a prudential ban based upon the taboos of this or that particular culture.)
While being a woman is most certainly not immoral...I would argue that failing to fight for your rights and liberties is immoral and those who willingly submit to oppression are less human because of it (as are those who oppress other).
It's incorrect to confound "rights" and "liberty" in this way. We are very often perfectly free to do what we have no right to, and are completely in the right to abstain from what we are free to try and grasp.
Besides, obiedience proper to one's state in life is
virtuous, including the habit of erring on the side of self negation. If anything, obessing upon one's perceived rights has a tendency of leading to absolute ruin.
Well, you make it too easy. If it's related to the fall then it's a done deal...incase you haven't heard, Christ has triumphed over death and by the power of the Cross the curse is lifted, a blessing carried throughout all the world by the Holy Spirit.
In case you haven't heard, people still die. They still have carnal passions, they still procreate, they still toil in misery, they still give birth in sufferings, etc. None of those things existed in Paradise. Christ crucified has not negated our own cross - it's only made it possible to bear, and fruitfully. If anything, what has occured is that the articles of those curses have become sweetness, and become means of salvation.
Perhaps without realizing it, what you're describing is a practical
Christianity without the Cross.
Further, you fail to address the fact that of those authorities who do speak of "what was" before the fall, a certain order between the genders still existed. So this goes even beyond the yoke of our mortality (which we now bear patiently unto salvation), but our very nature itself.
No, the work of Christ did not negate gender roles, nor did it establish them.
No, the original act of creation did that. The last I read, Christ had something to do with that too.
They are established by primitive and oppressive cultures and ignorant and insecure men.
And those primitive and oppressive cultures are as they are, fundamentally (peeling away their excesses) because of human nature, and it's terrestrial condition (even when being worked upon by the grace of the Church.) The Lord has neither changed human nature, nor withdrawn it's curse - rather He has transfigured humanity, and removed death's sting by removing it's finality.
Christ did not come as a revolutionary, but neither did he come as a reactionary. Let us embrace the blessings of enlightenment, and uphold the Christian social order: 'There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.'
True, in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female - but conversly, Christ is within Jews and Greeks, males and females. While all of those things are passing, even the same could be said of the realities experienced in Paradise by Adam before his fall. That their significance is temporary, does not make them unreal.