Recent Developments In "ordain Women" Movement

[jwhitlock]

I can't provide formal numbers because the church doesn't provide them.  But anectdotally, it is definintly the case in my area.  I've spoken to many local leaders (the majority of whom I assume would not support OW) and they all believe the age limit was changed in order to help retain the youth.  Missionary work is becoming sort of an extension of our youth program now.  But we're still loosing lots when they get back.  There is a vaccuum for the age group after they leave missions and before they start families.  We just don't have a lot to offer that group.  I'm not saying this will be the cause, but it is not unreasonable to conclude that priesthood service could help retain some young adult women.

 

Since we can look at the Community of Christ and learn from their experience in being "progressive", ordaining women for "retention purposes" would be exactly the wrong thing to do.

[jwhitlock]

Lack of priesthood leadership is a very real problem in much of the world. This is enhanced by the fact that in many of these areas the activity rate of men is significantly lower than that of women.

By ordaining women we would instantly double the numbers of priesthood holders and improve the quality of the leadership.

 

So you're telling us that the quality of current church leadership is somewhat lacking and it would take women to improve it.

 

Right.

[Stone holm]

No they're not, at least not from what one can gather from Conference. They are read from the pulpit by multiple brethren and used in their talks (thus ensuring that many more people who think it would be really cool to have their letter read in GC send letters to GAs, despite directions to the contrary and insistence that they will be sent back to local leaders). 

 

Sorry --- pet peeve of mine. Carry one! 

 

[/slight threadjack]

Letters are cherry picked, most of the time you will get letters from some assistant to an assistant if the letter doesn't go back to your Stake Pres. and if the local leaders don't know the answer and kick it up the food chain you will normally get a blow off letter. I believe that all the first Presidency letters get opened by secretary's and screened. I suspect that ones that are particularly touching or cogent probably get through the screening process for possible later use in talks.

[jwhitlock]

Like this?

 

 

Buckeye, on 26 Sept 2013 - 07:41 AM, said:

Have fun steadying the ark!   I think the Lord is able to do His own work.

 

Your post didn't make any sense at all.

[jwhitlock]

None of the women are wearing pants?

 

And look how they portrayed all of the men - faceless, featureless drones. Done on purpose, I suppose.

 

Yep, they are really out to create more unity in the church, aren't they.

 

Not.

[jwhitlock]

Bingo.  While we interpret these scriputes differently today, they were certainly cited back then as support for the racial ban.  And at least those verses talk about a priesthood ban being applied to some group.  I dislike the verses being applied to blacks.  But at least I can understand the logic of that ban as being premised on a misunderstanding of the seed of cain rather than being made up wholecloth.  In other words, they just misread the scriptures. 

 

When it comes to female restriction, there are zero verses that address the issue.  You can only cite to an inference that Christ disapproved of female ordination because he never did it.  But by the logic you can also argue that he disapproved of female missionaries, females attending synagogue, or females riding on a boat.

 

You're not very familiar with the scriptures, are you.  Like Official Declaration 2, which is designated as a revelation and accepted by the church as such, which specifies that the priesthood is to be extended to all worthy -->male<-- members of the church.

[Bikeemikey]

You're not very familiar with the scriptures, are you. Like Official Declaration 2, which is designated as a revelation and accepted by the church as such, which specifies that the priesthood is to be extended to all worthy -->male<-- members of the church.

This is not an issue for women and the phood at all. We would simply need another official declaration. I really fail to see what the issue is.

[jwhitlock]

This is not an issue for women and the phood at all. We would simply need another official declaration. I really fail to see what the issue is.

The issue was - since you lost sight of it - that the claim was made that there was -->zero<-- scriptural support for a male only priesthood.

 

To get back on track, here's a question for you. Do you agree with the tactics used by OW in agitating against the church?

[Stone holm]

The issue was - since you lost sight of it - that the claim was made that there was -->zero<-- scriptural support for a male only priesthood.

 

To get back on track, here's a question for you. Do you agree with the tactics used by OW in agitating against the church?

Correct there is virtually zero scriptural support, so what is wrong with the idea that the Brethren could if they felt so inspired extend the Priesthood to women by Official Declaration. As to the OW tactics, well I don't particularly like them, but I get a little squeamish about that kind of demonstration, but its awkward for me as a white male Priesthood holder to chastise people for being insistent on receiving something I already have. People who behave like that normally wind up on the wrong side of history in the long run.

[jwhitlock]

Correct there is virtually zero scriptural support, 

 

Wrong again. I provided that scriptural support in referencing OD-2.

[Bikeemikey]

The issue was - since you lost sight of it - that the claim was made that there was -->zero<-- scriptural support for a male only priesthood.

To get back on track, here's a question for you. Do you agree with the tactics used by OW in agitating against the church?

I think you are stretching a little here... The discussion is about the presence or absence of a prohibition against women having the priesthood.

While OD2 formally asserts the right of all worthy males to the priesthood it does not provide a restriction to women.

As such it is not a support for any restrictive practice. It is however a great support in clarifying the inclusiveness of the priesthood to all worthy males.

If an official declaration was released to all worthy persons regardless of gender it would not be in conflict with OD2 as OD2 never proclaimed any revealed limits on the priesthood .

An additional OD expanding he priesthood to women would be building on the clarification OD 2 has already provided regarding priesthood inclusiveness.

As for the tactics: I have not personally seen anything aggressively hostile. I appreciate that we live in an era where this very interesting and important issue can be front and center for active church members with no present threat of discipline.

The gospel is mid-restoration. I do not want to limit what god wants to happen based on my personal bias.

If women should have the priesthood god will tell the prophet. If he doesn't nothing will change and we can continue the discussion...

Still failing to see how this is an issue:

Edited September 27, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Stone holm]

I think you are stretching a little here... The discussion is about the presence or absence of a prohibition against women having the priesthood.

While OD2 formally asserts the right of all worthy males to the priesthood it does not provide a restriction to women.

As such it is not a support for any restrictive practice. It is however a great support in clarifying the inclusiveness of the priesthood to all worthy males.

If an official declaration was released to all worthy persons regardless of gender it would not be in conflict with OD2 as OD2 never proclaimed any revealed limits on the priesthood .

An additional OD expanding he priesthood to women would be building on the clarification OD 2 has already provided regarding priesthood inclusiveness.

I agree.

[smac97]

Correct there is virtually zero scriptural support,

I disagree with this claim, but let's move on.

 

so what is wrong with the idea that the Brethren could if they felt so inspired extend the Priesthood to women by Official Declaration.

For me, absolutely nothing. I would pray about it, think about, and in all likelihood support and sustain such a change.

 

As to the OW tactics, well I don't particularly like them, but I get a little squeamish about that kind of demonstration, but its awkward for me as a white male Priesthood holder to chastise people for being insistent on receiving something I already have.

Wow. Our culture really has you whupped, huh? You are afraid to express your views because of your skin color and gender. This is not a healthy state of affairs.

There have been intimations in this very thread that men have a secondary, subordinate voice in this matter, solely because of their gender. I'd like to see an explanation of why that is acceptable.

I will note, again, that I am an equal opportunity defender of the Church. I criticized Denver Snuffer for his adversarial behavior a few weeks ago, and nobody suggested that this was inappropriate because he is male. I am likewise critical of the adversarial behavior being exhibited by the OW folks (many, though not all, of whom are LDS women).

 

People who behave like that normally wind up on the wrong side of history in the long run.

As you like. For myself, I will not be silenced, either by others or by myself, in expressing my views because of my gender or my skin color.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 27, 2013 by smac97

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Wow. Our culture really has you whupped, huh? You are afraid to express your views because of your skin color and gender. This is not a healthy state of affairs.

There have been intimations in this very thread that men have a secondary, subordinate voice in this matter, solely because of their gender. I'd like to see an explanation of why that is acceptable.

-Smac

I guess that is what happens when one fully embraces the progressive movements of the left.

[Stone holm]

I disagree with this claim, but let's move on.

 

For me, absolutely nothing. I would pray about it, think about, and in all likelihood support and sustain such a change.

 

Wow. Our culture really has you whupped, huh? You are afraid to express your views because of your skin color and gender. This is not a healthy state of affairs.

There have been intimations in this very thread that men have a secondary, subordinate voice in this matter, solely because of their gender. I'd like to see an explanation of why that is acceptable.

I will note, again, that I am an equal opportunity defender of the Church. I criticized Denver Snuffer for his adversarial behavior a few weeks ago, and nobody suggested that this was inappropriate because he is male. I am likewise critical of the adversarial behavior being exhibited by the OW folks (many, though not all, of whom are LDS women).

 

As you like. For myself, I will not be silenced, either by others or by myself, in expressing my views because of my gender or my skin color.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

No its a matter of having some empathy for others understanding that perhaps it isn't quite right when you have something to criticize the tactics of others in trying to obtain the same for themselves.  When I was growing up there was quite a large portion of the community which I grew up in, which was exclusively white, criticizing the Blacks for causing such a stir down South over little things like where they sat on the bus and which lunch counter they sat down at.  Patience is sometimes an over-rated virtue since by exercising it, Rosa Parks might well still be sitting at the back of the bus.  So when I hear of women organizing to get in line for tickets to a Priesthood broadcast -- I think, gee that is just going to cause an unnecessary scene and probably some very awkward public moments why would anyone do that, then I stop and think, well why did Rosa Parks make such a big deal about refusing to sit in the back of the bus -- and I think, hm, criticizing them for this non-violent act is likely to put a lot of people on the wrong side of history down the line.  So call it being "whupped" or call it "self-censoring", but I tend to think it is merely thinking about a situation from another perspective than my own.

[smac97]

> No its a matter of having some empathy for others understanding that perhaps it isn't quite right when you have something to criticize the tactics of others in trying to obtain the same for themselves.

==You are reluctant to express your views because of your skin color and your gender. I am not sure that "empathy" for women or different skin colors requires such self-censorship.

==Moreover, I am reluctant to characterize the priesthood as something men have and women don't, as a possession that belongs to men and not to women, as something to be envied, as something to fight over.

> When I was growing up there was quite a large portion of the community which I grew up in, which was exclusively white, criticizing the Blacks for causing such a stir down South over little things like where they sat on the bus and which lunch counter they sat down at.

==First, I have not criticized the OW because of their gender. Your implication to the contrary is false and contemptible.

==Second, there is no apt comparison between Jim Crow laws made by men and revealed doctrines regarding the priesthood.

> Patience is sometimes an over-rated virtue since by exercising it, Rosa Parks might well still be sitting at the back of the bus.

==Again, there is no apt comparison between Jim Crow laws made by men and revealed doctrines regarding the priesthood.

==Moreover, Hebrews 5:4 needs to be addressed here. You are ignoring it.

==Finally, we appear to have moved into some variation of Godwin's Law. You are now proposing that the Church's position on the priesthood is akin to Jim Crow. This is a vile slur, and you should be ashamed.

> So when I hear of women organizing to get in line for tickets to a Priesthood broadcast -- I think, gee that is just going to cause an unnecessary scene and probably some very awkward public moments why would anyone do that, then I stop and think, well why did Rosa Parks make such a big deal about refusing to sit in the back of the bus -- and I think, hm, criticizing them for this non-violent act is likely to put a lot of people on the wrong side of history down the line. So call it being "whupped" or call it "self-censoring", but I tend to think it is merely thinking about a situation from another perspective than my own.

==You're whupped. You are afraid of expressing your views because of your skin color and gender. This is not a healthy state of affairs.

==There are topics I am reluctant to comment about, but that is generally because I am not sufficiently informed about the topic. I have a hard time thinking of a situation where I censor myself simply because of my skin color or my gender. Perhaps this is what you mean? That you are refraining from comment because you lack sufficient experience or information as to issues affecting women?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 27, 2013 by smac97

[Stone holm]

> No its a matter of having some empathy for others understanding that perhaps it isn't quite right when you have something to criticize the tactics of others in trying to obtain the same for themselves.

==You are reluctant to express your views because of your skin color and your gender. I am not sure that "empathy" for women or different skin colors requires such self-censorship.

==Moreover, I am reluctant to characterize the priesthood as something men have and women don't, as a possession that belongs to men and not to women, as something to be envied, as something to fight over.

> When I was growing up there was quite a large portion of the community which I grew up in, which was exclusively white, criticizing the Blacks for causing such a stir down South over little things like where they sat on the bus and which lunch counter they sat down at.

==First, I have not criticized the OW because of their gender. Your implication to the contrary is false and contemptible.

==Second, there is no apt comparison between Jim Crow laws made by men and revealed doctrines regarding the priesthood.

> Patience is sometimes an over-rated virtue since by exercising it, Rosa Parks might well still be sitting at the back of the bus.

==Again, there is no apt comparison between Jim Crow laws made by men and revealed doctrines regarding the priesthood.

==Moreover, Hebrews 5:4 needs to be addressed here. You are ignoring it.

==Finally, we appear to have moved into some variation of Godwin's Law. You are now proposing that the Church's position on the priesthood is akin to Jim Crow. This is a vile slur, and you should be ashamed.

> So when I hear of women organizing to get in line for tickets to a Priesthood broadcast -- I think, gee that is just going to cause an unnecessary scene and probably some very awkward public moments why would anyone do that, then I stop and think, well why did Rosa Parks make such a big deal about refusing to sit in the back of the bus -- and I think, hm, criticizing them for this non-violent act is likely to put a lot of people on the wrong side of history down the line. So call it being "whupped" or call it "self-censoring", but I tend to think it is merely thinking about a situation from another perspective than my own.

==You're whupped. You are afraid of expressing your views because of your skin color and gender. This is not a healthy state of affairs.

==There are topics I am reluctant to comment about, but that is generally because I am not sufficiently informed about the topic. I have a hard time thinking of a situation where I censor myself simply because of my skin color or my gender. Perhaps this is what you mean? That you are refraining from comment because you lack sufficient experience or information as to issues affecting women?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I pointed out gender and skin color because those are and were tickets to having the thing which others are seeking or sought in the past. They are directly relevant since the Priesthood was denied to men of African descent (black skin color) and is now, at least in part, witheld from women (gender).   Its like complaining about food stamp recipients while living in a mansion with well stock larders you inherited from your parents, or complaining about affordable healthcare for others when your company provides you with platinum healhcare benefits.  Its trying to walk a distance in someone else's mocassins.

[jwhitlock]

I think you are stretching a little here... The discussion is about the presence or absence of a prohibition against women having the priesthood. While OD2 formally asserts the right of all worthy males to the priesthood it does not provide a restriction to women. As such it is not a support for any restrictive practice. It is however a great support in clarifying the inclusiveness of the priesthood to all worthy males. If an official declaration was released to all worthy persons regardless of gender it would not be in conflict with OD2 as OD2 never proclaimed any revealed limits on the priesthood . An additional OD expanding he priesthood to women would be building on the clarification OD 2 has already provided regarding priesthood inclusiveness. As for the tactics: I have not personally seen anything aggressively hostile. I appreciate that we live in an era where this very interesting and important issue can be front and center for active church members with no present threat of discipline. The gospel is mid-restoration. I do not want to limit what god wants to happen based on my personal bias. If women should have the priesthood god will tell the prophet. If he doesn't nothing will change and we can continue the discussion... Still failing to see how this is an issue:

 

What part of "all worthy males" do you not understand as a restriction of the priesthood to males only? When it says "males", it means "males" and does not open it up to "females".

 

There's no stretch there at all. The current doctrinal, revelatory policy is the priesthood restricted to males.

 

Moving on with your other comments, I don't accept the premise that any tactic is acceptable. It doesn't work that way in the real world, and it doesn't work that way in the church.These women are not trying to petition the church, they're trying to manipulate public or media sentiment in hopes of forcing the church to meet their demands. If this is the Lord's church - and it is - then they are in effect trying to manipulate the Lord through his prophets for what they want.

 

That's pretty dangerous spiritual ground to stand on.

[jwhitlock]

I pointed out gender and skin color because those are and were tickets to having the thing which others are seeking or sought in the past. They are directly relevant since the Priesthood was denied to men of African descent (black skin color) and is now, at least in part, witheld from women (gender).   Its like complaining about food stamp recipients while living in a mansion with well stock larders you inherited from your parents, or complaining about affordable healthcare for others when your company provides you with platinum healhcare benefits.  Its trying to walk a distance in someone else's mocassins.

 

So you compare men, with the priesthood, to people living in mansions, while women without the priesthood are food stamp recipients.

 

Absolutely unbelievable.

[smac97]

I pointed out gender and skin color because those are and were tickets to having the thing which others are seeking or sought in the past

I understand that. But I do not think they should have been the ticket, nor should they be the ticked now.

Moreover, you are treating the Church as a political construct (such as the city of Montgomery, Alabama vis-à-vis Rosa Parks), rather than what it is. I think that is a fundamentally wrongheaded approach to the Church.

 

They are directly relevant since the Priesthood was denied to men of African descent (black skin color) and is now, at least in part, witheld from women (gender).

You are choosing to make race and gender "relevant." If these were inappropriate considerations back in the day, why are they appropriate now?

 

Its like complaining about food stamp recipients while living in a mansion with well stock larders you inherited from your parents, or complaining about affordable healthcare for others when your company provides you with platinum healhcare benefits.  Its trying to walk a distance in someone else's mocassins.

Well, okay. I do not understand how self-censorship based on skin color and race was wrong back in the day, but it is somehow appropriate now.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 27, 2013 by smac97

[smac97]

So you compare men, with the priesthood, to people living in mansions, while women without the priesthood are food stamp recipients.

 

Absolutely unbelievable.

And the Church is equivalent to the Deep South in the Jim Crow era. Don't forget that calumny, either (from a member of the Church, no less).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 27, 2013 by smac97

[Paloma]

While I'm not a Mormon, I am a woman and I've had some interest in following this discussion.

I've been particularly interested in seeing both Calmoriah and Julianne (both extremely faithful LDS women, I believe), refer to "something missing". And I've seen some men (I recall Smac in particular) being mystified by this. As I saw this uncomprehending response, I thought to myself that they genuinely didn't understand because they were men. At the same time, I also believe that there are some men who "get" what Calmoriah and Julianne were saying. And I also think that some women wouldn't "get it". But I still think that the elusive sense of "something missing" is quintessentially related to the female psyche (for those women so affected) in response to their experience within their lives as faithful Mormon women.

As a woman in Christian leadership, I've been part of these discussions and movements at different times and in different contexts over the many years that I've been in ministry at different times and in different places.

I understand that part of the necessary and foundational parameters in this discussion involve acceptance of and respect for the LDS "way" of understanding God's direction, and the way of doing things in the LDS church.

In no way am I wanting to undermine the LDS faith.

However, I do understand (and wish everyone could!) that there are some women within all faith groups that feel that "something missing". It may be they have leadership gifts, and no avenue to use these gifts to their potential. It may be that they need to know they have a voice, and they need to have a means of expressing their voice. And no amount of hearing that they can trust their (male) leadership to faithfully, charitably and respectfully guide them, can quell that need and longing. Ít's not about not trusting or not submitting to male leadership. And it's not about male vs. female where one has to be diminished in order to raise up the other. And it's not necessarily about equality, either. In my opinion and experience, it's about having a compelling internal sense of needing to use God-given gifts in ministry, both to serve others and to feel that one is "whole". It's about having integrity in the sense that one is internally "integrated", living out who God made them to be.

I can imagine that some will ssy, "But women DO have a voice, and DO have opportunities for leadership within our present structure". And it's not that that is untrue. But it's that there are some women for whom the present opportunities for leadership do not mesh with their own need and sense of self. (And here, I expect that the objection would be that such women are then "grasping" and "overreaching", etc. But I believe that that's both untrue and unfair.) For this to be a fair and productive discussion, there has to be a willingness to listen to the women. Listening, without preconceptions and without ascribing motives, is tremendously valuable.

At one time a Mormon missionary accused me of wrongly grabbing authority for myself when he heard that I was in leadership at my church. After we got to know each other, he felt differently about it, I think, because he could see that my heart was all about loving service, and not in the least about having power or authority. In fact, my church had implored me to take on the role I did because they recognized some gifts in me that they wanted me to exercise.

While I in many ways am a reluctant woman in leadership (and I identify with those women who are fully satisfied with "the way things are" just as much as I do with those who long for "something more" - in fact, I probably identify with the first group more!), I have rubbed shoulders and shared hearts with women who have gone through painful struggles to have a place in ministry where they feel God can fully use them. They are genuine, and their longing is genuine!

One quite minor but somewhat relevant personal example I'm thinking of is when my husband and I were travelling to different churches representing a compassionate ministry that we were both involved in. A pastor of one church suggested in a letter sent beforehand that my husband would speak in the main service, and that I could give a talk to the children or perhaps play the piano. Stereotyping much? Myhusband really dislikes public speaking, especially in large groups, and I barely play the piano. Working with young children was not my forte, though I'm much better now that I have a bunch of young grandkids. And so we ended up both speaking in the main service, and both talking with the children. I remember thinking then about the value of having people minister according to their giftedness!

In writing what I have above, I'm not trying to agitate or stir the pot. I suppose I am in some small way advocating for the OW women because I think it's really important that they should be heard and understood. Trying to understand their position and their hearts can only be helpful, and dismissing them or judging their motives can only be counter productive, in my view.

I understand the viewpoint that they are trying to embarrass the church, but to make that assumption (understandably, based on observable words and actions) is to miss the mark, I believe. Unless and until there's been clear communication, it is still an assumption. (And I think that the assumption probably arises from defensiveness and loyalty to the church ... an honourable stance, but it's also God-honouring to really listen to people who need to be heard and understood.)

[Calm]

Thank you, Paloma.. It is helping my frame my own ideas. I know that the "something missing" has been missed for a long time, my mother experienced it even before I was born. I have a feeling from the choices my grandmothers made in their lives as well as how they discussed them and pushed their granddaughters that they experienced it too, but it seems like a puzzle piece that is missing that is easier to describe by what it touches upon and where it fits than what it is itself. I have a belief that it is not the Priesthood itself, but that some have latched on to that because it was an obvious 'not have' for women.

Edited September 27, 2013 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

While I'm not a Mormon, I am a woman and I've had some interest in following this discussion.

I've been particularly interested in seeing both Calmoriah and Julianne (both extremely faithful LDS women, I believe), refer to "something missing". And I've seen some men (I recall Smac in particular) being mystified by this. As I saw this uncomprehending response, I thought to myself that they genuinely didn't understand because they were men. At the same time, I also believe that there are some men who "get" what Calmoriah and Julianne were saying. And I also think that some women wouldn't "get it". But I still think that the elusive sense of "something missing" is quintessentially related to the female psyche (for those women so affected) in response to their experience within their lives as faithful Mormon women.

As a woman in Christian leadership, I've been part of these discussions and movements at different times and in different contexts over the many years that I've been in ministry at different times and in different places.

I understand that part of the necessary and foundational parameters in this discussion involve acceptance of and respect for the LDS "way" of understanding God's direction, and the way of doing things in the LDS church.

In no way am I wanting to undermine the LDS faith.

However, I do understand (and wish everyone could!) that there are some women within all faith groups that feel that "something missing". It may be they have leadership gifts, and no avenue to use these gifts to their potential. It may be that they need to know they have a voice, and they need to have a means of expressing their voice. And no amount of hearing that they can trust their (male) leadership to faithfully, charitably and respectfully guide them, can quell that need and longing. Ít's not about not trusting or not submitting to male leadership. And it's not about male vs. female where one has to be diminished in order to raise up the other. And it's not necessarily about equality, either. In my opinion and experience, it's about having a compelling internal sense of needing to use God-given gifts in ministry, both to serve others and to feel that one is "whole". It's about having integrity in the sense that one is internally "integrated", living out who God made them to be.

I can imagine that some will ssy, "But women DO have a voice, and DO have opportunities for leadership within our present structure". And it's not that that is untrue. But it's that there are some women for whom the present opportunities for leadership do not mesh with their own need and sense of self. (And here, I expect that the objection would be that such women are then "grasping" and "overreaching", etc. But I believe that that's both untrue and unfair.) For this to be a fair and productive discussion, there has to be a willingness to listen to the women. Listening, without preconceptions and without ascribing motives, is tremendously valuable.

At one time a Mormon missionary accused me of wrongly grabbing authority for myself when he heard that I was in leadership at my church. After we got to know each other, he felt differently about it, I think, because he could see that my heart was all about loving service, and not in the least about having power or authority. In fact, my church had implored me to take on the role I did because they recognized some gifts in me that they wanted me to exercise.

While I in many ways am a reluctant woman in leadership (and I identify with those women who are fully satisfied with "the way things are" just as much as I do with those who long for "something more" - in fact, I probably identify with the first group more!), I have rubbed shoulders and shared hearts with women who have gone through painful struggles to have a place in ministry where they feel God can fully use them. They are genuine, and their longing is genuine!

One quite minor but somewhat relevant personal example I'm thinking of is when my husband and I were travelling to different churches representing a compassionate ministry that we were both involved in. A pastor of one church suggested in a letter sent beforehand that my husband would speak in the main service, and that I could give a talk to the children or perhaps play the piano. Stereotyping much? Myhusband really dislikes public speaking, especially in large groups, and I barely play the piano. Working with young children was not my forte, though I'm much better now that I have a bunch of young grandkids. And so we ended up both speaking in the main service, and both talking with the children. I remember thinking then about the value of having people minister according to their giftedness!

In writing what I have above, I'm not trying to agitate or stir the pot. I suppose I am in some small way advocating for the OW women because I think it's really important that they should be heard and understood. Trying to understand their position and their hearts can only be helpful, and dismissing them or judging their motives can only be counter productive, in my view.

I understand the viewpoint that they are trying to embarrass the church, but to make that assumption (understandably, based on observable words and actions) is to miss the mark, I believe. Unless and until there's been clear communication, it is still an assumption. (And I think that the assumption probably arises from defensiveness and loyalty to the church ... an honourable stance, but it's also God-honouring to really listen to people who need to be heard and understood.)

We really need an outside perspective, so thanks for your comments. It's interesting how much I've changed in the last while, to seeing that something significant can and should happen. I now see how some women that have a lot to offer are stiffled, jeez our 12 yr. old male members have it and these particular sisters don't, or never will? What about prophetesses in the bible? It has been a revelation to me that the church has gone backwards where it's female members are concerned. Edited September 27, 2013 by Tacenda

[juliann]

Paloma, I cannot adequately express how helpful your perspective is.