Having concluded that both are necessary, the next assumption we may make is that in our many incarnations we incarnate approximately equally often in male and female bodies. We know that the process of incarnation stems forth from an in-built desire, an urge to grow, in the words of the Confiteor: "..our hearts are ever restless, till they find their rest in thee…". Every incarnation has as its purpose a certain amount of karma to be absolved (for lack of a better way of putting it) and the dharma or task which is to be fulfilled. At every stage of our development, there is cause to incarnate into a male body or a female body, according to which vehicle in which culture at which time is most suitable for the creation of the conditions wherein the highest possibility of success is present. Taking this as a point of departure we should realise that the stage of development of the soul and the sex of the body which the soul is using in pursuing its quest have relatively little to do with each other. When dealing with sexes we are dealing with physical plane matters. When dealing with development we are dealing with matters of the soul.

Looking at the development of humanity one notices that this too is subject to cyclical activity. One may distinguish periods of matriarchalism, periods of patriarchalism and periods, normally at the height of the development of a civilisation, which could be classified as neither. When considering the Egyptian civilisation at its peak, both priests and high-priests as well as priestesses and high-priestesses were distinguishable as offices. A similar statement could be made about the Greek Mysteries at the height of the Greek civilisation. During these civilisations the emphasis was still mainly on the development of the astral consciousness, in contradistinction to our current civilisation, where the mental consciousness is the mode par excellence for development. For some reason unbeknown to us, the female offices were put into abeyance. This does not mean that they vanished, they merely have been withdrawn from public sight. Neither were the functions of the priest and priestess the same: They too were roles that were complementary.

For some reason –and we can only believe that such reasons were purposefully and knowingly applied- at the inception of the Christian religion, the channel chosen was that using a patriarchal system. Looking at the past 2000 years we cannot other than conclude that a patriarchal system has been in place. Looking around us at this moment of time, we can see that this patriarchal period is rapidly coming to an end. The inherent danger is that we do not accurately read the signs or interpret them incorrectly. The sacraments as have been handed down through the ages need to be treated with the utmost respect. In a period of change one is wont to throw
everything out, only to discover later that a little prudence might have saved a lot of trouble.

On considering the implications for our church, we need to tread even more carefully. There is no doubt in my mind that the Masters would withdraw their support immediately if the church is no longer able to perform the task for which it was incepted.

Having said all this, what then is my view on the ceremonial role of women in our church? If we are thinking of the numbers, then ordaining women is not a solution. The churches which have gone ahead and done this have not stemmed the flow of members from their congregations. Clearly any decision must be based on inner conviction. I wonder why someone of the stature of Bishop Leadbeater, who was not afraid of being controversial, did not go ahead and ordain women to the priesthood unless he was absolutely certain that it would not serve the purposes of our Church. To my knowledge, clairvoyants of the calibre of Geoffrey Hodson also gave no clear indication that the channel of the priesthood was operable through female vehicles.

The fact that an Angel and not the priest performs the actual consecration during the Holy Eucharist does not provide a reason why a feminine body could be the consecratory channel. All ceremonial work requires that the human collaborators provide the necessary physical plane attributes. Using a chalice made of crystal is not the same as using a gold plated chalice and would probably provide a large encumbrance to the angel hosts who we require in order to bring the work to fruition. The same could be said of a host made from maize flour in stead of wheat flour or an electric bulb in stead of a candle flame. When late Bishop Leadbeater explained why a male channel is required, he was referring to the attributes required in order to complete the consecration and not the means by which the consecration is done.

I am not saying that women are precluded from the priesthood. What I am saying is that in my opinion there is not enough evidence to show that the efficacy of the sacraments would be guaranteed if we deviate from the inspired vision of our founding bishops. Even sadder is the fact that even if we were able to experiment on the matter, we do not have sufficiently well trained clairvoyants of the calibre of Bishop Leadbeater to verify the results of our experimentation, though some might claim to posses such talents.

The way I see it at this moment in time is that we have as a task to rediscover the female offices. Not in lip service, but in genuine sacramental lines similar to the Apostolic Succession on which our current sacramental system is based. We should not seek to change what we have, that which we know works, in order to satisfy emotional niceties. We should actively open ourselves, prepare ourselves, so that what we have is enhanced by complementary ceremonial activity.

I have no idea where one would start such a quest. I do see the necessity for a vision. A vision that in the not too distant future we may have priests and priestesses, bishops and high-priestesses, operating at similar levels of authority (again for lack of a better way of putting it). That once this point has been reached it may all be transcended into a new system, which the Masters or the Christ will incept, perhaps a system where the roles merge into one.

For the immediate future I believe the minor orders may be seen as preparatory of the vehicles of the person wishing to serve in ceremonial manner and may consequently be conferred, probably as is, to suitable men and women. At the same time all possible avenues should be investigated in finding a suitable working channel in which to reactivate the female offices.