From all this one might conclude that for Ms. Behr-Sigel the question was an open one. It is not so. She was as sure of her conviction that women should be ordained priests as I am sure (and as St. Paul was sure) that women should not. This is apparent from the rest of her writing, such as the place in the same essay in which she denounced St. Paul\u2019s counsel in 1 Timothy 2 as \u201crabbinical exegesis\u201d, and the Church\u2019s \u201cpatriarchal\u201d conceptions as \u201cinfecting Christian thinking\u201d. The passages in St. Paul that meet with her approval (such as Galatians 3:28) she applauds (with exclamation marks) as \u201cthe Spirit clearing a new path through the thick forest of human prejudices!\u201d Clearly Behr-Sigel had already made up her mind as to \u201cthe way we must take\u201d, her disingenuous tentativeness notwithstanding. <\/p>\n
The posture of tentative questioning was not sincere or honest, nor was the proffered dialogue genuine. In this dialogue, all the retreat and reconsideration was to flow one way. Those holding to the historic Orthodox position would retreat from it, while those holding to the new reconstructed position would not retreat. The deconstructionists had no doubt of the truth of their convictions; the only question was how to advance their agenda. One is reminded of the aphorism of JFK: \u201cYou cannot negotiate with those who say \u2018What\u2019s mine is mine and what\u2019s yours is negotiable\u2019\u201d. As far as those committed to the reconstructed and revised order are concerned, their own convictions are not negotiable. It is the traditional Orthodox that are being invited to negotiate and to be willing to retreat from their positions.<\/p>\n
You must change your teaching to conform to ours.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
One detects a certain common vocabulary in those inviting the retreat. Certain buzz-words recur: they speak of \u201cpatriarchy\u201d, \u201csexism\u201d, of the necessity of a \u201ccreative reimagining\u201d. They speak (in the multi-syllabic terms mentioned above) of \u201can awareness of the multifaceted nature of truth that continues to be discovered and implemented over time through a process of prayer, creative reflection, and debate\u201d, of \u201ca pluralistic era which presents Christianity with new and unique challenges\u201d, and attempt to \u201cdiscern God\u2019s hand in contemporary life\u201d\u2014as if the authors were not already sure of where God\u2019s hand in contemporary life was to be found and were still trying to \u201cdiscern\u201d it. When one reduces the multi-syllabic rhetoric to words that a child could understand it translates as: \u201cYou must change your teaching to conform to ours. Our modern secular culture no longer accepts your views so you must change them to fit in with that secular culture\u201d.<\/p>\n
All this dialogue and open-mindedness to the secular values at odds with Orthodoxy is comparatively new. The Fathers did not open such dialogues with pagans or heretics. They did engage \u201cthe pluralistic era which presented them with new and unique challenges\u201d of course, and the people who were in the forefront of this engagement are known by the name \u201cthe Apologists\u201d. The Church did not withdraw from the secular society into a safe and holy huddle with the drawbridge pulled up behind them, but met the new and unique challenges head on, trying to convince and convert the world. They talked to pagans and even acknowledged that the pagans had got some things right. These things they were happy to claim as their own (one author called the process \u201cplundering Egypt\u201d). <\/p>\n
for the Fathers generally, \u201cdialogue\u201d involved not openness to changing or abandoning one\u2019s convictions<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
But the coincidence of agreement in some areas between Christian and pagan or between Christian and heretic did not make the Church open to learning from pagans or heretics. The Church was confident that (in the words of our contemporary Orthodox Liturgy) it had \u201cfound the true faith\u201d, so that its task was to correct the world, not learn from it. When Justin Martyr used the term \u201cdialogue\u201d (such as his \u201cDialogue with Trypho the Jew\u201d) he was not investigating to see what he could learn from Judaism, but trying to convert his Jewish friend to Christianity. For Justin and for the Fathers generally, \u201cdialogue\u201d involved not openness to changing or abandoning one\u2019s convictions, but civil and respectful debate in an attempt to help someone else change theirs.<\/p>\n
The essential dishonesty<\/strong> of the contemporary dialogues can be seen in their choice of dialogue partners. The deconstructionists are happy to dialogue with the LGBQT community, and with feminists keen to denounce patriarchy and to ordain women. I am not aware of any enthusiasm for dialogue with, say, White Supremacists. That is because our liberal friends agree with the agendas<\/strong> of the gay and feminist communities and (quite properly) abhor that of the White Supremacists. I suggest that this consistent choice of dialogue partners reveals that the true goal of the liberal Orthodox proffering dialogue is not real give and take, but simple capitulation on the part of the conservatives.<\/p>\n
![\"Dishonest](\"https:\/\/www.orthodoxytoday.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/11\/Gay_Flag_over_Church_02_700x567.jpg\")
by Fr. Lawrence Farley –