The First Swallow in Springtime: Elisabeth Behr-Sigel’s Lasting Impact on the Question of Women’s Ordination

Elisabeth Behr-Sigel (1907-2005), often called the “grandmother of western Orthodoxy,” is remembered for a number of things: her writings on Orthodox spirituality, her bridge-building work of ecumenism, her attention to the status of women in the Orthodox Church, and her role in introducing the Eastern theological tradition to Western audiences. Her books and articles on these topics demonstrate her deep love for the Tradition of the Orthodox Church, while also warning that it must not be confused with particular customs and historical practices. Her insistence on the dynamic nature of Tradition is especially clear as she often urged the church to pay serious attention to questions raised by the modern world. 

A key question that occupied her for many years, the ordination of women to the priesthood, came to light through her involvement in many ecumenical activities and gatherings. Her numerous publications chart the metamorphosis of her opinion regarding this question; from agreeing with Paul Evdokimov that the differentiation of male and female ontologically mirrors the trinitarian distinction between the Son and the Spirit, she came to see that in defending priesthood as being for men only there had been a prioritisation of the male-ness of Christ over his humanity. Her later works attest to her conviction that gender essentialism is a serious problem for Orthodox Christianity. As Bryce E. Rich points out in his discussion of her critiques of Paul Evdokimov and Thomas Hopko’s gender essentialist claims, Behr-Sigel rejects these in favour of a more personalist approach (Rich, Gender Essentialism and Orthodoxy: Beyond Male and Female, Fordham University Press, 2023: 88–90). From this perspective, each real human person is unique and cannot be reduced to the abstract ‘Man’ or ‘Woman.’

Although gender essentialism is a broader problem and touches more than just the debate around the ordination of women, it is this issue that has become one of the most polarising in the Orthodox Church as well as in Roman and Eastern Catholicism and in other denominations. Behr-Sigel offers insights into this question that cut through many of the bones of contention related to it, identifying the ‘meat’ of the issue and proposing constructive ways forward. Her ability to envision a future that is both in continuity with Tradition and creatively develops it is an important counterweight to the kinds of ‘slippery slope’ arguments put forward by those who see a rigid return to the past as the only way to survive.   

Indeed, for Behr-Sigel the “creative development” of the Church’s living tradition is necessary both in order to answer the questions posed by the modern world and to remain internally consistent (Behr-Sigel, The Ordination of Women in the Orthodox Church, World Council of Churches Publications, 2000: 35–36). Thus, considering the problems raised by gender essentialism entails re-examining things accepted as doctrine by many generations of Orthodox Christians and taking seriously the call to draw ever closer to trinitarian communion. As she came to acknowledge, discrimination on the basis of sex goes against the Holy Spirit, and it is the Church’s responsibility to remain “creatively faithful” to its own Tradition (ibid; 36–37). 

In the two decades since Behr-Sigel’s death, some developments around the ordination of women to the diaconate have been made, demonstrating that this discourse is not a theological goose chase, but holds some pastoral promise. However, to Behr-Sigel, the diaconal and presbyteral ordination of women go hand-in-hand, and the earnest entertainment of one cannot continue without the other. As she says, 

“If we envision the women’s deaconate [sic] as simply the restoration of ancient and outmoded structures, the project will certainly lead to a dead end. The feminine deaconate should in no way be seen as a substitute for their participation in the presbyteral ministry. Nor should it serve as an alibi for avoiding a serious theological reflection about the ordination of women to the priesthood.” (Behr-Sigel, The Ministry of Women in the Church, St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1991: 174) 

More than three decades have passed since Behr-Sigel made these observations. While still a relatively brief period of time, this interval has included many social, political, technological, and cultural shifts. It may be time to revisit Behr-Sigel’s observations regarding the ordination of women and query the developments that have occurred. Since these words were written, how has the question of the ordination of women to the diaconate and presbyterate advanced or changed? To be more specific in relation to Behr-Sigel’s statement above, two questions seem to present themselves for consideration: 

(1) Have there been significant developments or shifts in the past twenty or so years in the ordination of women as deaconesses in churches belonging to the Eastern theological tradition? 

If so, (2) how is this development being positioned in relation to the ordination of women to the priesthood? That is, is it presented as an alternative to the presbyteral ordination of women or is it part of broader theological deliberations on the practices of the Orthodox Church? 

Orthodox Christianity and the Eastern theological tradition are not monolithic, but it is often possible to identify convergent streams of thought within them. The stream that began with Elisabeth Behr-Sigel now includes scholarship in areas such as theological anthropology, ecclesiology, the Church Fathers, the history of the Orthodox Church, Orthodox thinkers, biblical interpretation, and pastoral care. As a particularly helpful example, the volume Women and Ordination in the Orthodox Church: Explorations in Theology and Practice (Gabrielle Thomas and Elena Narinskaya, editors; Cascade Books, 2020) brings together papers from a number of scholars that demonstrate how the question of the ordination of women has evolved. These, along with several other articles from scholarly journals, show that this question is not only still a pertinent one, but is also in some ways becoming more urgent. Bringing Behr-Sigel’s original observations into conversation with those of scholars writing in the past two decades can provide some indication of the ways that Orthodox theology is discerning how to creatively develop its Tradition in response to real human persons who bear the image of God.