A couple weeks ago I began a series of posts on the post-evangelical landscape regarding two controversial issues – women in
ministry and the normativity of gay/lesbian relations. To reiterate, I contended that how a church/movement comes down on these two issues together reveals much about the assumptions that drive their theology. The manner in which the Neo-Reformed missionals reject women in ministry and/or GLBT relations together reveals much about the way they do theology re: Scripture, authority, sanctification etc. Likewise, the way the post Emergent/emerging coalesence here in the U.S. (heretofore referred to as pEC) affirms both reveals the underlying assumptions that drive the way they do theology. As I see it, getting at these assumptions improves the conversation in the post-evangelical landscape moving us further together into the Kingdom of God.
The Missional Way I have been proposing is a third way of doing theology. It is an incarnational logic that drives much of Missional practice. It has some similarities to the pEC’s in that it is non-foundationalist, post Christendom, driven by cultural engagement and community life, wholistic in salvation. Yet there are differences as well which I tried to make clearer previously over at this post. This incarnatiuonal, post Christendom driven understanding of life and truth in the gospel leads, so I argue, to certain directions on the two issues of “Women in Ministry” and “GLBT sexual relations” – what I’d like to call Position No. 3 “Yes to Women in Minstry/ and Transforming of All Relationships” (this phrase was tipped off and influenced by Brad/futurist guy in the comments on this post). FYI for the theologically driven reader- the transforming logic here comes from Yoder’s Authentic Transformation idea as opposed to Niebuhr’s transforming logic here which is where I see both Neo-Reformed and pEC coming from. This view a.) affirms women alongside men as equal participants in the ministry of Christ’s church in the world, and b.) calls for a redemptive community by which we explore together and witness to the sexual redemption God is working in the world in relation gay/lesbian sexuality and sexuality in toto.
In terms of the way this works out on the women in ministry issue first, according to the Missional Way, women are full participants in the ministerial authority of the church, including ordination, because:
1.) Authority by its very definition is flattened and thereby includes All! The Missional church understands authority in the church as manifested in a flattened leadership within the community – the priesthood of all believers. The Kingdom has begun. The Holy Spirit has been poured out on all – men and women alike, your sons AND DAUGHTERS shall prophesy (Acts 2:17). Men and women therefore partake together in the gifts and the authority of the Lord in the community. In so doing however, the very nature of this authority has been transformed. It is not exercised as the power of the world (Mark 10:42-45) – top down hierarchically. (This was part of what Christendom did to the church’s power). This power is exercised via the humility and vulnerability of the Incarnate Christ. In distinction from Reformed ways of thinking about authority, there is no senior pastor! Women and men participate equally. In that certain forms of church power has taken on hierarchical structure, we should not fight for women to enter authority on those terms. It is an outmoded Christendom way of authority in the church. Neither should we see authority as derived from democratic legitimation. Communal authority emerges out of the gifts within communal discernment. There is difference and roles. Equality is based on the mutual participation in one Body (1 Cor 12). It is not an equality that obliterates our differences. This way of authority and power spreads out into the world instead of centralizing authority in a professionalized top down hierarchy. Under these terms, how can women be excluded from full participation in ministry? (The Anabaptist, as well as holiness and pentecostal influences here are obvious.
2.) Ordination recognizes those gifted and entrusted with the gift of teaching preaching. From this vantage point, ordination is still important for the gifts recognized for maintaining the theological integrity of the community (preachers, teachers, apostles and others as well). There’s a succession going on here. And yet it is not an ordination of hierarchy but of service. On these terms, there is no reason to exclude women from ordination? Of course there is the issue of Scripture’s pronouncements which leads to my next point.
3.) The Kingdom Has Begun and This Helps Us Understand the Tension in Scripture Between Roles in the Church and Roles in Marriage: The Missional Way is driven by Jesus’ proclamation of the Kingdom – that it has begun in Himself – His life death and resurrection and Rule as Lord. It has begun, yet it is not yet consummated. For this reason gender and bodies have not disappeared yet (as the Gnostic Corinthians suggested). Marriage continues until Jesus returns and the new age consummated (Mark 12:25). Gender difference and the roles within marriage continues to exist ALTHOUGH THE KINGDOM TRANSFORMS THESE ROLES OUT OF THE PATRIARCHAL ABUSES OF THE PAST! The main point I want to make here therefore is, given this dynamic at work in the NT, we can now understand many of the texts which chasten women from teaching over men in the NT to be the chastening of women who did not honor their marriages in the exercise of their new found authority in the church- e.g. women who did not cover their hair while teaching (1 Cor 11) or who took out their newfound authority against their husbands (1 Cor 14:34) etc. So whereas the Neo-Reformed tend to take Scripture as plainly outlawing women in ministry over men, and pEC’s tend to dismiss these Scriptures as culturally obsolete, the Missional appreciation of the dynamic of the inbreaking Kingdom allows for a fuller appreciation for the eschatological tension of the Kingdom that must be upheld in these dynamics. This inevitably extols the full participation of women alongside men in the ministries of the church while guarding the maintaining of the community’s marriages in “the in between” time. Women are welcomed alongside men in the full authority of the Kingdom as long as they each maintain their God ordained marriage callings (1 Tim 3:4-5 if they are married that is, if not then this does not matter for women or men which is why Paul is always urging people to remain single and unentangled). This is all I can say on this here (I have a long unpublished paper on this). This all illustrates how the three ways often approach Scripture.
4.) The principle of revolutionary subordination. In Christ a new authority has begun and all are invited into it. Yoder called this the principle “Revolutionary Subordination.” The idea here is that just as Jesus our Lord incarnated himself, humbling himself, giving up the right to power, God exalted Him, the Truth was vindicated and empowered (Phil 2). We operate in all ways under this principle subordinating ourselves to powers, false authorities, ways of exercising power with the peaceful witness of character, truth and Scripture. God will manifest the truth. This extends into the practice of mutual submission one to another in the community (Eph 5:20, Matt 18:15-20) Jesus himself inhabits this submitting of ourselves and works in each conflict, each leader to further His Kingdom via the way of peace. We therefore reject past ways of abusive power, and do not ask women to become part of the them. For many of us, the ways we have exercised power in the church is not incarnational and must be rejected period, not just for the ways it has excluded women.
So women are of course invited as full particpants in this new way of power. Yet there is an incredible transformation here that not only affirms women’s full participation in ministry but transforms the very power structures that have hardened the church and sucked the life out of its witness. Instead, all who come into the Kingdom as a community are empowered to participate in a way of revolution that spreads the power and leadership of the church into the world for Mission.
In the past I have complained how the bland politics of Western democracy obliterates difference. I have also complained that the NeoReformed evangelicals have excluded women from authority in the church thereby foreclosing the incoming Kingdom of God. To me the Incarnational logic of the incoming Kingdom -that drives the Missional church – is a way forward out of both of these malaises.
My next post on this subject will address how the Missional Approach of Welcoming/Transforming plays out in the GLBT Sexual Relationships Issues in the church today.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
I love the thoughts; but your insertion of ordination confuses me. Doesn’t the practice of ordination elevate teachers, preachers, etc… to a higher level than the normal everyday not ordained church member. Wouldn’t it then cancel out point #1 and #4.
Once you begin ordaining some and not all can the authority structure still be flat?
Didn’t Jesus say that no one should take the title teacher? And that leadership was all about service not position?
I understand the need for established leadership…but to ordain teachers and preachers seems conterproductive. Of all the gifts, shouldn’t they (being the ones in the front) be the last to be ordained?
Why is there need for ordination at all in the Missional Way?
Jeff,
I know it might seem counter intuitive, especially in light of everything else I just said, but I believe ordination serves to ground the community in history … call it succession … it guards the continuity of the Body with the gospel/doctrine as preached through the apostles. I don’t see ordination as positional (although I admit plenty of such abuses have occured in Christendom). I talk about his some in this post http://www.reclaimingthemission.com/ordination-and-the-lord%E2%80%99s-table-providing-some-shape-for-the-things-to-come%E2%80%9D/ …
Thanks for chiming in
David – I appreciate the link. You nailed me in it. I and the community I’m a part of are often overly anti-institutional…sometimes to our own detriment. You make some great points and have given me a lot to ponder. Thanks.
i really appreciate the work put into this, as this resonates and i think i can point to this and basically affirm it all…i especially resonate with points 3 and 4, too often we don’t embrace the tension as a necessary and on-going place that living in the tension is inherent to following Christ…too often to seek to break the tension, and i often witness this is where we go wrong. and of course, all of the points are undergirded by revolutionary subordination and mutuality and the incarnational logic that drives this, because it cannot merely remian theory but must be concrete, and it is in the incarnational context that as my mother used to say, where the rubber hits the road…
David, I’ve been thinking about this concept of “flattened leadership.” I’m wondering if that phrase is self-deconstructing. Authority and power are not the same thing and I wonder if that phrase confuses them. It’s impossible to abuse authority, however, power can be abused. From a biblical perspective authority is a representative mandate of God’s life and will (or reality) whereas power is the ability to control. Flattened leadership implies a lack of representative mandate (there’s no ‘leading’ standard). If we think, however, leadership means power, then I can see why you would want to “flatten” it. Leadership, in the scriptures, is always for a purpose: to serve. Bringing order is service. Using power to dominate people is not, and the when someone does that they lose authority.
This seems to me why the ordination issue has come up. Ordination recognizes the importance of recognizing who has authority. Acts 15 is the consummate expression of how authority is exercised in the church. James, after a thorough discussion, summarizes what it appeared that the Holy Spirit was saying and brought together (led) the group to their final determination. People had special regard for James because he was in a responsible position (authority).
I’m probably out of my depth, but I think some of the apparent paradoxes related to authority are a result of misunderstanding its nature.
Not wanting to being too verbose, but I had this thought: the phrase “servant leadership” is redundant. Leadership is service.
David, this is an excellent post, one that describes what we have been hoping to become in our little faith community. Much to ponder. I will say, though, that you have left me very curious about the role of men & women in marriage. Very curious indeed!
There are a lot of things here that sound good:
“Equality is based on the mutual participation in one Body (1 Cor 12). It is not an equality that obliterates our differences.”
“So women are of course invited as full participants in this new way of power.”
But I don’t see that they work out so neatly. Particularly for the disadvantaged (women, minorities, etc.).
Somewhat along the lines of what Adam said, the concept of a “flattened authority” is problematic. If all participate in authority, there is effectively no authority (or, possibly, there is even the tyranny of the collective). It’s hardly NT biblical to insist that all hold equal authority in equal ways within the body, nor do I think the priesthood of all believers suggests that.
“Under these terms, how can women be excluded from full participation in ministry?” It seems to me, quite easily. Under the banner (though perhaps not the spirit) of “revolutionary subordination” they may be called to “subordinate [them]selves to powers, false authorities, ways of exercising power” that continue to exclude their voices, even as they continue “the peaceful witness of character, truth and Scripture” (a witness every believer should always maintain) until all in the community agree otherwise. If authority is so flattened as to be communal, who then has the authority to call for justice? This requires far more than trusting Christ to be bringing in his kingdom among us; it requires those who have been disadvantaged to trust human beings (many of who have participated in the disadvantaging) to hear Christ rightly and act to bring in his kingdom. That expectation would not always seem at all reasonable (to put it mildly). In actuality, as a woman who has been in many church contexts where women are to varying degrees excluded from full participation in ministry, there are plenty of red flags here.
There is also the very practical problem of communal recognition by those whose discernment and values have been steeped in their own cultural assumptions, whatever they may be. (One broad example being “masculine” traits being more valued in preaching and teaching than “feminine” traits – though such traits would not usually be consciously recognized as such.)
Adam and Jennifer, if by flattened you all mean the loss of roles, or the loss of difference, then the word “flattened” is a poor description of what I think is going on here. I want to maintain the roles in the church and differences (between gifts, roles, gender etc.). Yet authority arises out of these gifts being used and recognized, but always out of a posture of submission one to another. So I feel compelled to reject your statement Jennifer that “If all participate in authority, there is effectively no authority” for this is indeed how I see the structures playing out in 1 Cor 12, Rom 6, Eph 4, 1 Pet 4, and indeed as exemplified and led by the examples of Paul and Jesus himself. They led, by subordination (even to death), allowing God (the Father) to exalt among them.
I agree Jennifer, that revolutionary subordination sounds dangerous, ineffective, but in each case when one speaks truth in love and submits to the other for a response … who holds the power? Where is justice?… it is worked out among us as we witness to it, speak truth in love, lead by example, when we are in a community that is organized around the gifts out of mutual submission under His Lordship, placing those with God given authority into a recognized position … Then, not only is authority granted, but justice moves forward as we submit one to another …
Jennifer I agree with your last paragraph … and I think the other ways of authority ans strcuture in community basically make possible the con tinuing on of such cultural injustices …
peace
David, I totally agree that authority arises from life (gifts, callings, and character). I understand how you’ve presented the material and completely agree (and it’s obvious how you live it out; you’re a wonderful example to me). I’ve noticed, however, when authority is talked about in some missional discussions it gets a little hazy. The operative concept is, of course, mutual submission. When some talk about “flattened leadership” or “flattened authority” I think they mean “no authority” and “no submission”, which is radically unbiblical.
Dave,
This is helpful. I like that it a conception of authority and leadership in the church that isn’t predicated on a defensive or fearful posture. So often (unfortunately) we primarily experience the “tyranny of sin” in the church – either in an individual or in an unhealthy community. I know I’ve experienced unhealthy leadership dynamics in both communities that were not submitting to the Spirit and sinned against individuals, and individuals who claimed to speak for/be the sole interpreter of the Spirit and used that to wield their will over/against the community. All theology is autobiographical (as a friend of mine likes to say). But – we have to move beyond being reactionary and fearful based upon our experiences in our ecclesial formulations and not order our communities to minimize risk or out of fear. I think you make good steps in your thoughts here.
So how do we avoid communities “silencing voices”? (that was a good question…) I would offer one observation and one suggestion: 1. The threat of voices being silenced never deterred the apostles from trusting the Spirit in community (see Acts 15; the book of Philemon, 1 Cor 1-4). Just because sin can and often is present doesn’t mean we change what God is calling us to. 2. The voice I am most concerned about being silenced in the community I worship in is the Holy Spirit’s. That could come from an individual – but – usually if that person is making demands to be heard or asserting that their voice speaks for God they, ironically, will not be heard. If God’s voice is speaking in and through the individual it will be confirmed in community – at least that’s what I see in the NT.
The way voices are heard in our community (Life on the Vine – where Dave pastors) is through TRUSTING – that God’s Spirit wants to truth to get out more than any of us do – and TESTING – to see if “my voice” or the communities voice is indeed the voice of the Spirit of God. Trusting and Testing…rather than fear and making demands and/or making assertions. It is in these postures I’ve experienced radical subordination and mutual submission go from being a place where sin masquerades as holiness to a place where we are sanctified and give up control of how we’d like to direct and guide a church.
Matt, excellent summary of these concepts. Thanks for that.
Matt,
.
it sounds like you should start you own blog.
geoff
I got an e-mail this morning from a brother that was pretty compelling. It basically argued that by taking the leadership approach of “mutual submission” as suggested by this post, our pastors (at LOV) were not pro-women in leadership. All our pastors, in effect, were willing to not have women pastors in leadership if we the leaders submitted to the community and it then decided against women.(as it turns out we affirmed women as pastors).
I responded by saying that it is ironic yet nevertheless binding that we can only arrive at a position in the church (that seems to be the inevitable outgrowth of incarnational posture/mutual submission), except by going through this same mutual submission to Christ.
Matt Tebbe, the guy who posted above, has taught me even more on this idea …that indeed we are not a pro-women community ( even though we affirm women in leadership), nor pro-men … but pro-Spirit… he would suggest that there is an antagonism in the e-mailer’s way of asking the question … using the words “pro-woman” … that pits this into a pro women camp versus -against women. We are pro- the Spirit, seeking His Lordship over all things which is always pro- redemptive community – for women and men (Gal 3:26). Matt says that in the seeking the outworking of this same Spirit indeed we might be surprised that in this context, in this place and time, in the history of this community, women and men in leadership could mean various outworkings of this same principle of redemptive community. (caveat -these aren’t exactly his words).
Once again, the incarnational principle overthrows human antagonistic habitual ways of dealing with relationships, power, authority and the way forward. Does this make people less happy (or perhaps more confused)with the position?
peace everybody!!
Matt,
Great post. I would like to add a third option that doesn’t involve an outward power stuggle (neither the tyranny of a ‘holy mystic’ nor the silencing effect of group conformity). I have witnessed a kind of charisma where a single personality dominates the group, yet is so winsome that no one actually knows it. Inside the group there appears to be no power structures, every decision is unanimous, but visitors to the group have recognized that one person was clearly in control. This kind of church could not sustain itself without its charismatic leader, so it fizzled out once the leader could no longer maintain such a charismatic personae.
This is why David’s point on ordination is so crucial to support a flattened power structure in the local congregation. Ironic, yes, because ordination was once (and still is) used to lord power over others. On the other hand, it seems almost inevitable that some naturally charismatic individuals will gain a certain amount of influence within the group simply by default. Ordination (in the robust theological sense, not mere ‘pastoral credentials’) brings a particular and concrete catholicity to a local group so that the Spirit’s voice can be spoken via the Church into the life of the church. Therefore, ordination can provide a corrective to those local congregations who might mistake being under the spell of a charismatic leader for the voice of the Spirit.
David, both Matt’s and your explanation make it clearer to me. I still have a question on the phrase “flattened leadership” because, as I mentioned, I think some mean by that “no leadership” and “no submission”. In the end, we’re going to be wrong somewhere (I’m not talking about clear moral violations), whether as a group or as an individual. This is where deference, submission, and authority are helpful. We can easily want to condition our submission on whether we evaluate everything as being perfect and right. I just don’t think that’s real or biblical. There’s not enough space here to tease out all the principles of when to disobey, etc., but focusing on mutual submission seems to be the main point.
Dave,
Thanks for responding. You know, I’ve heard you use Jesus and Paul as examples of this before and I’ve mulled over that. I do think they (Paul in particular) practiced mutual submission, but it doesn’t seem to quite look like what you describe. I don’t see Jesus or Paul basing their authority on the affirmation of the community-rather on the direct call of God (a call all in the community did not recognize). They had the authority of obedience to God, and the community certainly did not determine what they taught or what they led people into.
Perhaps it would be helpful if you defined “authority” as you are using it (it seems self evident to me that if everyone holds the same “authority” then there is no functioning authority, essentially “the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes”).
Dave, you said, “in each case when one speaks truth in love and submits to the other for a response … who holds the power? Where is justice?…”
It depends on how the other responds – with justice or not; with submission to truth or not.
“…it is worked out among us as we witness to it, speak truth in love, lead by example,”
Or it may not be. What guarantees this?
“… when we are in a community that is organized around the gifts out of mutual submission under His Lordship, placing those with God given authority into a recognized position … Then, not only is authority granted, but justice moves forward as we submit one to another …”
Possibly. Certainly ideally. But it is not uncommon to see communities who are with all sincerity trying to do these things still perpetuate injustice. What about the blindspots? Or where those with God-given authority have got it wrong? (And that doesn’t even take into account those with authority that is not formally recognized by the community, or influence greater than what they themselves recognize.)
Matt highlighted the question of the community silencing voices. At the Jerusalem Council, the Spirit spoke primarily through Peter’s testimony and the judgment in the matter was ultimately made by James. Paul diplomatically and humbly refrains from commanding Onesimus, but only so that the good he clearly fully expects to be done may be credited to him as generosity rather than merely obedience. Peter and Paul (and Jesus) do not seem to have submitted their voices to the community – rather, they submitted them to Christ and spoke into the community (which may or may not have responded by submitting to that authority).
I wish I always saw the Spirit’s voice speaking through an individual always confirmed in community. Those are failures usually easier seen in retrospect. This is a model with a lot of potential, it seems to me. But like all models we humans work with, it also has it’s potential for failure and abuse. (In my experience, it is most often when personal relationship is allowed to correct – or even upset – whatever model is being followed that justice shines.)
Dave, you started this by proposing the Missional Way as one that says “yes” to women. I think you make a compelling case that it may indeed have room for that “yes,” but it seems far less clear that the “yes” is inherent to the model as it is walked out. Whatever term is used, it doesn’t seem to work to promote the model as one that says “yes” to women, when in practice a community following that model may well restrict the exercise of women’s gifts simply because they are women.
Jennifer … I don’t know what to say to when we look at a proposed leadership structure and point out its potential for abuse when those who act in it act outside of its very premises? And I can’t really comment on your whole comment … and I’d probably end up reiterating what I’ve already said anyway.
Suffice to say … there’s a totally different paradym at work here from what I read in your comment … so that when you say “I think you make a compelling case that it may indeed have room for that “yes,” but it seems far less clear that the “yes” is inherent to the model as it is walked out” … I scratch my head and ask… are we not in effect already affirming women, and men, in effect everyone into leadership by engaging in the mutual submission flattened leadership of the Body? By our actions alone we are in effect already saying yes to all women in this new order of authority along with men.
peace!! and let’s keep pursuing this together
Dave,
I’m not sure why it’s not clear to you. I’m saying that the “Missional Way” model, with it’s emphasis on submission to the community in all things, does not necessarily “say yes” to women in ministry, as you imply it does in your post. It may, but as you have made clear in discussion of the process at LOV, it equally may not. At least not in any way recognizable to women who have not been freed to use their gifts in service to the Body.
You may fully believe and intend that “we [are] in effect already affirming women, and men, in effect everyone into leadership by engaging in the mutual submission flattened leadership of the Body? By our actions alone we are in effect already saying yes to all women in this new order of authority along with men.” (and clearly you do.) But that doesn’t mean that others in the Body are experiencing it that way. And if they are not experiencing it, is it “in effect” happening?
Hey Jennifer, it’s the end of the day, and I just read some of your comments …
I don’t know if I can answer your question in the way you’re asking it … but just a few more commenst might help (then again they might not).
First, I see both Paul and Jesus following the way of mutual subordination. Paul, opted out of exerting his apostolic authority out of positional authority several times, and instead chose to serve the community from place of humility/submission … Jesus of course ultimately submitted to the powers, in His death. And He was exalted. It’s not so much that He was submitting to the community. So I don’t see revolutionary subordination as only worked out in the singular instance of the community … it is the principle that is at work that is also at work in the way we operate in relation to power and authority.
I don’t know if I can improve on my argument that submitting to mutual submission is in itself a flattening of the structure by which women .. and all are invited into authority. It in essence practices the authority thereby legitimating women in authority before we even decide on the particular rway women in ministry will be worked out. Granted it appears contradictory(according to a certain linear logic), but I don’t see why it cannot even more make sense held together.
In relation to this statement “But that doesn’t mean that others in the Body are experiencing it that way. And if they are not experiencing it, is it “in effect” happening?” is this a serious epistemological question? If it is, I seriously can’t see how we can gauge whether something is true by a survey of all of our experience. It is true that we must listen to each other, that’s for sure. But often robust experience of a faithful truth is the product of a long shaping out of corrupt and abusive narrative to a new experience birthed in the new order. I think one of my frustrations in life is that often the church is mistrusted, and constantly disdained by those who have been abused by previous corrupt abusive church authority (I have no particular people in mind – I speak generally). The only way out is by mutually submitting to one another under the Lordship of Christ and thereby being healed over the long term. To me repeating the ways that build in antagonism is a dead end.
And for all still reading … when I say “antagonism” I’m using it as a technical term within critical theory to talk about the way politics works to create antagonisms …the way some forms of politics are structured to work by pitting one side against another (I don’t mean to accuse anyone of being deliberately antagonistic)
Peace !!
[...] this week. This series of posts concludes a series of posts that began here (and continued here and here and probably should include this post here as necessary background). The three posts to follow all [...]
great conversation(s) for sure.
a couple of questions though, if you guys are not too far past this…
1. how do you approach the inherent question surrounding yeshua practicing “mutual subordination” when he “ultimately submitted to the powers, in His death. And He was exalted,” to what place do you believe he was exalted? was he not exalted to a place of…authority?
B. how do we avoid going from a hierarchical model of abuse of power to a lateral traffic-jam sort of model that, at least would appear to be potentially inevitable, within the “flattened leadership” model?
that is, if you are holding a string by it’s end, there is a top and bottom; if you lay it down, have the top and bottom merely been replaced by outliers and extremes? after all, it’s still a string…
III. finally, how do you reckon, in light of this current thread, paul’s use of the word “overseer/episkopos” or even, “steward”, for that matter? do these lose their meaning in a flattened leadership model? or do you see it being fulfilled, if so, how?
may grace and peace be upon you and yours.
justin
Wow, this is exactly the position I was hoping to find in the church! I just saw you speak at Ambrose tonight and it made me curious as to your thoughts on women in ministry. This encourages me as I feel called to some types of ministry that I know my friends who are neo-reformers might not like woman to do. It's discouraging. Tough topic! Thanks for your well-reasoned thoughts!
Heather