The CBE Scroll

Blog voices from Christians for Biblical Equality

Women Shaped the Early Evangelical Movement

Filed under: Biblical Interpretation, Church History, Female Preachers, Gender Equality — Mimi at 3:53 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2007

(Adapted from a paper given at the 2007 annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society)

My interest in women and missions of the 1800s is reinvigorated, of late, by a number of experiences I’ve had lecturing at Christian colleges and seminaries around the county. When invited to speak for chapel services, I make an effort to learn something about the school, particularly the achievements of the founders and their graduates. In doing so, I have discovered the vast number of women alumni, who were also leaders on the mission field in the United States and abroad. And, they had the full support of the school’s founders. As I include these findings when I lecture, I am often surprised at the responses I receive… some of these Christian colleges appear almost embarrassed to learn of the number of women who held positions of significant leadership and who were trained in this capacity by their institution.

Most of our evangelical colleges and seminaries initially began as Bible institutes – and nearly all Bible institutes had many more women enrolled than men. Why? Because Christians in the 1800s, influenced by premillenialism, believed that Christ’s return was imminent – and therefore, they were far more concerned about the Great Commission than they were with gender or ethnicity. As a result of placing less emphasis on gender, women outnumbered men on the mission field, two to one. This led to one of the largest expanses of Christian faith in history – during what has been called the ‘Golden Era of Missions’ – which began in the early 1800s, in which women were the driving force.

Bible institutes trained men and women for evangelism, in anticipation of Christ’s immediate return. Over time, these institutes became today’s Christians colleges and universities which broadened their curriculum to prepare Christian men and women for professional service in many disciplines. In doing so, some lost touch with their evangelical moorings as it relates to women’s gospel-leadership.

As I celebrate the legacy of their female graduates who preached to men and women all over the world, I am frequently asked two questions:

1. If women were the driving force behind the Golden Era of Missions, what took the church so long to use women in this capacity?

2. What has happened since then? Why has their leadership been lost, and where are women gospel leaders today?

First off, it was during the Golden Era of Missions, with the enormous success God granted the gifts he had given women and slaves that Christians began to question the presumed ontological inferiority of both women and slaves. They did so from a thorough examination of Scripture. Their biblical research was published in more than forty-six biblical treatises between 1808 and 1930, from many branches of the evangelical church, in support of the shared leadership of women. These documents signified the emergence of the first wave of feminists – a deeply biblical movement. The advancement of women’s ontological and functional equality grew out of a commitment to biblical authority, evangelism, and an activism that came to characterize or identify the evangelical movement as a whole, beginning in the 1800s. And, it was the early evangelicals – both men and women, who were among the first to provide both a biblical and social voice for gender and ethnic equality. By doing so, they represented a radical departure from previous generations of Christians whose patriarchal and racist assumptions went unchallenged by Scripture.

Biblicists (those who affirmed the supremacy of Scripture), were early evangelicals who supported the evangelism of women and in doing so they not only challenged higher critical methods that undermined the authority of the Bible, they also resisted the ‘proof text’ method or plain reading of Scripture that gave support not only to slavery, but also to women’s exclusion from public ministry. Rather, evangelical biblicists sought to harmonize those passages that appeared in conflict with the whole of Scripture regarding the equal value (ontology) and service (function) of women and slaves. Thus, the first-wave feminists developed a whole-Bible hermeneutic that addressed gender and ethnic justice and advanced an ontological equality for women and slaves.

This comes to the second question – why Christian colleges (formerly Bible institutes) appear unfamiliar with the legacy of their earliest women students (who outnumbered male students two to one)… The truncation of women students in Bible institutes and leadership was the result of the fundamentalist-modernist controversy. Simply stated, modernists challenged both the inspiration of Scripture and the very miracles of Scripture and created uncertainty surrounding the fundamentals of the Christian faith, like the Virgin birth and the resurrection of Christ. They did so using higher critical methods. In response, some Bible institutes, wishing not to appear sympathetic with Modernists, reshaped their curriculum, omitting classes in Greek and Hebrew, and leaning towards the ‘plain reading of the texts.’ This opened the way to a plain reading of 1 Timothy in isolation to the other places in the New Testament where Paul clearly affirms the authority and leadership of women like Junia, Priscilla, Phoebe, Chloe, etc. Thus, the gains made both biblical and socially by the early evangelicals were stymied and linked to a liberal reading of Scripture. Christians for Biblical Equality has had to pick up the biblical scholarship left off by early evangelicals like A.J. Gordon, Katharine Bushnell, Frances Willard and Catherine Booth. Thankfully, the work begun by the early evangelicals has grown so quickly in the last twenty years that CBE is having a difficult time keeping track of the many Christian groups around the world exploring biblical equality both from a popular and scholarly viewpoint.

71 Comments »

Comment by Trevor

December 19, 2007 @ 8:10 pm

Thanks, Mimi, for the thorough overview. It shows the parallel with today’s issues where evangelicals are so worried about being aligned with post-moderns that they/we can miss the point altogether. What saddens me too is that today’s young college students are not always made aware of the rich heritage they have from both men and women who sacrificed heaps for the propogation of the Gospel. Admiring and emulating such people has always been an impetus for Christian mission at home and overseas.

Your post reminds me of the rapid progress towards biblical equality in America and gives me hope that Australia won’t be too far behind.

Comment by Trevor

December 20, 2007 @ 7:16 am

Actually that earlier post by me (Trevor) was not me at all but Liz having missed changing the name of the respondent. Needless to say though, I totally agree with her comments and would have expressed similar appreciation to you, Mimi, not only for this post but for all of your scholarly work on behalf of CBEers. It’s such a shame that fear of being seen to be compromising Scripture prevents most modern Christian leaders and scholars examining the issues with an evangelistic zeal and open mindedness like that which captivated the pioneers of the 1800s.

Comment by fjs

December 21, 2007 @ 10:55 am

It’s so funny, because when someone discovers that I am a pastor, the first question they ask me is this: Do I believe in the authority of the Bible? Then the second question asked is this: do I believe men and women are different?

They are linked to the plain reading way of interpretation and the ’supposed’ ontological inferiority of women. (which is spoken of as differing roles due to God’s design).

I get really tired of these questions. It’s hard to talk about how I interpret the Bible, holistically, and still communicate that I believe the Bible and its teachings. The second question sort of assumes that I am either sinning by being a pastor or completely deceived… because women are more easily deceived and therefore still sinning.

Each time I engage in one of these encounters, I feel like I have just been shamed and slimed for pursuing the call of God. It’s an immediate credibility gap in which my spirituality is challenged and my belief in Scripture is questioned. (I guess it is also a challenge to leadership as those two things are essential to spiritual leadership.) I find I have to overcome this credibility gap before I can be effective with that person.

I find myself having to process through a lot of these feelings with few safe harbors. I long for this to change in our evangelical communities…

I think that the plain reading technique described by Mimi is really an inadequate or surface reading that actually takes the Scripture less seriously and less literally than the holistic reading of Scripture. Such a reading does not take into account one’s presuppositions – or that which one brings to the Scripture about the nature and role of women.

Comment by Paula

December 21, 2007 @ 12:42 pm

FJS, funny you should mention ‘plain reading;’ I just blogged about that, here, this past week. And all of us egalitarians encounter those same tired question, the same pre-judgment, the same blindness, wherever we go. I’m always amazed at how otherwise faithful believers can turn into Pharisees when they encounter us.

But, we really don’t need anyone’s approval to serve God. We can do whatever our gifting is for wherever God leads, and if proud men shut one door we will open another. ‘God cannot be mocked’ or his purposes thwarted; all he needs are willing servants who press on in spite of all the arrows, not only from Satan but from ‘friendly fire.’ The latter has been a hard lesson for me to learn, but I am now resolved to stop doubting my gifts or mission in spite of who or how many may stand in the way.

Comment by jlp

December 21, 2007 @ 4:21 pm

It seems like Christians do more to stop the spread of the gospel via women than the world does. It’s not enemy fire a Christian woman pastor or evangelist has to fear, but the friendly fire from other Christians.

This hinders the spread of the gospel, yet Christians continue to do it.

Comment by Lori

December 21, 2007 @ 5:36 pm

Mimi, is it possible to get a copy of the full text of your paper?

Regarding the ‘plain reading’ method for interpreting Scripture, I actually find it funny, because if you simply read the biblical text it often contradicts what the patriarchalists say. For instance, they claim to find all sorts of reasons for supporting a hierarchy of men over women in the creation account, but if you simply read the text, it’s not there! The only way you can find it is to bring all kind of biases and assumptions to the text. The same could be said about the controversy over whether Junia was a woman or man. Apparently, then, ‘plain reading’ is only good enough if the text says what you want it to say. The rest of the time I guess you have to use ‘fancy reading’ to find the proper meaning.

Comment by Liz

December 21, 2007 @ 5:49 pm

FJS, you have hit on a point which to me is the most hurtful (if that is the right word) about hierarchy. It is the suggestion that somehow a woman’s spirituality is not quite as effective/strong/worthy as a man’s, and I find this the hardest barrier to overcome. It is the thought that a woman’s walk with God, listening to the spirit, understanding of the Bible, etc. cannot really be trusted and her statements in conversation can readily be ignored. On another level, it is really about demeaning the work of Christ in a woman’s life and saying it is not as powerful or effective as that in a man.

Comment by jlp

December 21, 2007 @ 7:38 pm

And, the end result of this is that it keeps women from spreading the gospel. This cuts off more than half of the Christian workforce from working at its fullest capacity.

Comment by Christy

December 21, 2007 @ 9:55 pm

I love the description ’selective literalists’ to describe patriarchalists when they focus on certain verses and totally ignore the ‘plain meaning’ of others. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I think Mimi coined the phrase. I have used it many times in discussing these issues. I have also used it to remind myself not to fall into the same trap with other topics.

Comment by fjs

December 22, 2007 @ 5:02 pm

Thanks Paula, you are right – we will encounter this mindset wherever we go. I feel so jealous of the validation men get around their call. I wish for the mentorship and support.

It’s amazing to think that some of our conservative evangelical groups once supported the ministry of women.

Oh well… I’ll keep on… thanks for the encouragement.

Comment by Greg

December 22, 2007 @ 7:26 pm

Excellent historical background, Mimi. I too wonder what happened to the rich United States history of women spreading the good news of Jesus Christ. Fortunately, we have organizations like CBE who will bring these histories to light and not allow them to be shelved and ignored. I don’t think we’ll ever convince the hard-core traditionalists that God has no ‘law’ silencing women in ministry. But, what we can do is strike off the shackles of gifted women who are called to preach and teach.

Comment by Trevor

December 23, 2007 @ 3:41 am

Yes Greg, that’s a good point. Better to encourage women to use their gifts and affirm them whenever possible rather than try to convince people who believe otherwise. We also need current role models and mentors as mentioned earlier.

Maybe CBE has a list of mentors in the United States?

Comment by Liz

December 23, 2007 @ 3:42 am

Once again… I forgot to change the name. It was Liz who wrote the last comment.

Comment by fjs

December 24, 2007 @ 7:36 am

I agree Liz, the challenge to a woman’s spirituality is hurtful… it’s a very intimate wound.

Have a beautiful Christmas… peace on earth.

Comment by fjs

December 24, 2007 @ 7:38 am

I appreciate CBE… and the historical, biblical work they do to help men and women know the history. It’s very affirming.

Comment by fjs

December 28, 2007 @ 8:58 am

I’ve been thinking about differences between men and women. It is assumed that differences are fully a result of God’s design. This gets meshed with the plain reading of Scripture and fixes or cements the lenses of those who read the Bible to differentiate roles for men and women.

Recently I have been reading about the brain and how plastic the brain really is. We have the capacity to change our brains through how we engage with one another, ourselves and our world. Therefore, some of the gender differences are not fixed, but shaped.

The brain is a muscle and with use various parts are enlarged through excercise. Or if some parts are no longer functioning other parts take on the function. The brain can positively flex and grow or negatively remain fixed depending on how we use it.

God designed humans to be creative and adaptable. In the light of gender, how we use our brains in God’s service, training our minds, using different skills, trying new things is highly important… we are not simply fixed beings cemented into rigid roles based on a fixed ontology. I think we are amazing creatures who reflect God in many amazing ways.

Comment by Jester

December 29, 2007 @ 8:37 am

See comment 76547.

FJS, I’m sorry that you feel that these people who are questioning you are in some way attacking your position, or making you feel dirty for doing your job. No matter what we know to be true, it hurts when people who are supposed to be members our ‘family’ attack us for doing what God says to do. It’s entirely hurtful and painful and shameful, and it reduces us in our own eyes and makes us question ourselves.

It’s fascinating how many ways Satan has to attack us that are incredibly simple, divisive things.

What I would say to you is this – that there were many times Christ was approached by the Pharisees in the same way, and that just as you are attacked by your fellow Christians, Jesus was attacked and reproached constantly by the Jewish leadership of his day, who in much the same way had made their own conclusions about the ancient texts and saw nothing wrong with actively attacking Christ through their leaden hearts.

Surely this hurt Christ just as much as you are hurt by others. But Christ knew, just as you know, that he was doing his Father’s work, and took joy in doing that work well, and had compassion on the misleadings and misjudgements of others, and in his pity, sought to correct them.

A hard example to follow, but it’s what we have.

See comment 77005.

The fact that men and women are different is a good thing. There are a lot of things that I know I, as a man cannot do or should not do or am ill-equipped to do or cannot do well without the participation or amelioration of a woman, and I know that this is true for all men, and for all women.

Just as we know that God is not male, and that he specifically designed us to carry on traits of his in each of us that mix specifically as couples (or serve specifically as individuals), we must regard the fact that in God, ‘different but equal’ is really true. In all of the ways that equality really matters… equal leadership, equal voice, equal decision making… we are designed specifically that way. But we are designed differently in termperment, in reaction, in ability to resist pain, in dealing with emotions, having babies, any number of other things.

We must be very careful not to approach logical fallacies where we declare that because some things are true of a person or type of person, then all things must be… we serve a God of renewal and growth, not stasis and rejection.

Comment by Trevor

December 29, 2007 @ 7:06 pm

I’m with you FJS (see comment 77005). I thought the way that you expressed disagreement with culturally-driven stereotypical differences between men and women was excellently put.

Yes, there are different things that men and women do because of their biology and physiology -the prime example being women and childbirth, lactation, etc. It’s plain that this is something that men cannot do but this does not exclude men from being capable of nurturing children. This discovery has been a good thing in the last half century and has in many cases assisted greatly in family identity and shared parental responsibility.

I have always been suspicious of typecasting men and women on brain function and the thought that males and females are locked into particular behaviours because of an inherent brain design. Further, that God is held to account as having intended that it be this way. Such oversimplification gives rise to the strict male/female roles that complementarians are so insistent on in the current debate. It needs to be understood that it is almost impossible for us to unravel the effects of cultural conditioning on our learned behaviors and expectations as men and women.

I’m with you, FJS, in believing that our brains are incredibly elastic and capable of retraining, etc. Why, as an example, limit the magnificence of multitasking to females? Yes, they do appear to more readily and naturally do it and do it extremely well but we all will know of some males who can multitask and women who can’t. Better to embrace the possibility that, as with our bodies, our brains are fearfully and wonderfully made and possibly capable of far more than we imagine and need only to be freed of cultural stereotyping. Before we rush in with the scientific evidence one way or the other allow me to simply say that the jury is still out, there are experts on all sides presenting opposing views. We are all prone to choosing our own experts to satisfy our comfortable presuppositions.

Comment by Donna

December 30, 2007 @ 10:55 pm

If women were the driving force behind the Golden Era of Missions, what took the church so long to use women in this capacity?

Women were not the driving force behind the Golden Era of Missions. Men were. Many women followed their men to the ends of the earth, much as Sarah did Abraham. She is, after all, our example of submission who called her husband ‘lord.’ She followed him trusting God every step of the way and supported him in his call.

This has been the history of women in missions and in ministry. God bless.

Comment by jlp

December 31, 2007 @ 2:01 am

Trevor, I’m a woman and I hate multi-tasking! Just thought I would add that comment.

Comment by Suzanne

December 31, 2007 @ 3:22 am

Many women followed their men to the ends of the earth, much as Sarah did Abraham.

That many women followed men does not negate the fact that many women also went alone. Mary Fisher was the first missionary to take the Quaker tradition to New England in 1656. She was stripped, flogged, and imprisoned for her pains and then sent back to England. She then went to the sultan of Turkey, Mohammet IV, in 1658 – alone. She later married and had children, giving up preaching about the age of forty.

She is one of many women preachers, and it is well known in British Columbia also that many of the early churches had women preachers in them. These were women who were trained theologically and technically also to manage heavy vehicles in northern terrain in order to visit pioneer women on the farms. (The earlier women missionaries were adept at horseback riding.) The men and women in ministry shared the territory geographically, since there were not enough men.

Many areas of British Columbia were ministered to by women preachers. This was so marked that when finally after World War II more men became available and they replaced women, some parishioners felt this was not justice for the women who at first were not given a pension or proper salary. Some farmers stopped attending church altogether and could never reconcile the gospel of Christ with this treatment of women.

This is not to denigrate the enormous sacrifice of men also in the Canadian north, of which there was a great deal. But clearly the women were side by side with the men.

These women did not ‘follow their men.’ They did not have men to follow. Let’s respect the history of the women who went before us and not deny their existence just because it does not line up with some of our preconceptions.

Comment by Suzanne

December 31, 2007 @ 3:25 am

These women went in order to minister to other women. However, because of the many areas without male ministers, these women preached sermons and held regular services as well.

Comment by fjs

December 31, 2007 @ 11:10 am

Trevor, even the task of caring for infants creates new pathways in the brain and develops dendrite growth. What we do affects our brains and how our brains operate and how the brain muscle grows.

I remember some of the research on gender discusses the connections within the brains of males and females – that women’s brains utilize both hemispheres and there are connections between, and men’s brains have one hemisphere that is larger… if one considers the current brain research, then that could be easily accounted for by brain usage. Because usage develops how the brain fires, grows, strengthens muscularly. Such usage would be affected by one’s culture, family of origin, tasks, roles and gifts, etc. While doing new things is uncomfortable and unfamiliar and requires effort, it actually increases the health and function of the brain.

I think it boxes God when we think of him as having a fixed creation and roles… in which nothing changes. God is sort of the clockmaker who made the clock and let it run instead, he is without relation to humankind, uninvolved…

I like to picture God as engaging with us in a creative and transformative relationship in which we are conformed to his image and likeness. In the light of this transformation… brain plasticity makes total sense – we are wired for it.

Comment by jlp

December 31, 2007 @ 3:33 pm

I like what Suzanne did by mentioning a woman’s name who went out alone in the mission field. Do others know of other such women? I have never studied the history of missions and if anyone has anything to share on this I would appreciate it. I like it when people share the actual names and history of specific women. Thanks.

Comment by Donna

December 31, 2007 @ 4:02 pm

I like what Suzanne did by mentioning a woman’s name who went out alone in the mission field. Do others know of other such women? I have never studied the history of missions and if anyone has anything to share on this I would appreciate it. I like it when people share the actual names and history of specific women. Thanks.

I know many such women. The ones that I interact with regularly do incredible ministries in some of the most difficult situations on the face of the earth. Very few go out totally alone, though. Most are on teams of missionaries or are connected to local churches on the mission field.

Gladys Aylward – the ‘little woman’ – is probably the most famous of all women missionaries who went out to China totally alone. She was amazing. Watch the movie The Inn of the Sixth Happiness. Yes, it is a Hollywood version of the life of this incredible lady, but it’s not too bad. There are also books written about her life. See here.

Then there was Amy Carmichael who went to India. Her books are terrific. Mimosa is one of my favorite books.

Yes, at times where the church is not yet established, women often do the work of a man. They plant churches and do the preaching until God raises up leadership. The missionary’s job is not to pastor, but to preach the Gospel, establish churches, and leave indigenous leadership behind. Even Calvin in his commentary acknowledges this kind of thing – that women at times do the work of a man as the church is established in certain areas. It is not the norm, though, and never has been.

Yes, the missionary thrust of the last 250 years or more could not have happened without women – either as wives and mothers or pioneer missionaries in their own right. However, it is a gross overstatement to say that women were the driving force behind the missionary movement. It is just incorrect.

Men were the driving force, actually. I have mentioned the names of a few women, and I could go on. The list of pioneer male missionaries is much, much longer. The truth is that most women go to the mission field as wives. They work side by side with their husbands in many ways, but the men take the lead.

Trust me. I have been in missions for most of my life. I’m not making this up. God bless.

Comment by Suzanne

December 31, 2007 @ 9:30 pm

Donna, I agree that it is overstatement to say that women were the driving force behind the missionary movement. However, this also is an overstatement – and I speak to your last sentence here:

Many women followed their men to the ends of the earth, much as Sarah did Abraham. She is, after all, our example of submission who called her husband ‘lord.’ She followed him, trusting God every step of the way, and supported him in his call.

This has been the history of women in missions and in ministry. God bless.

I don’t know about other places in the world. I am a Canadian. In British Columbia, the women caravanners were a driving force. The women worked in pairs, made a lifetime commitment and after the time of traveling on horseback they learned mechanics so they could be independent in the wilderness. They were a powerful group. One of the most famous was Eva Haslam, who was quite a talented mechanic and preacher.

In early Canadian Baptist missions some young women trained to be doctors along with their brothers. One of these women, Dr. Pearl Chute, married a minister. She was the travelling doctor, going out at night, her husband supported her work. Christian women missionaries were at the forefront of women getting a university education. The first women in the universities were Christian women wanting to work in missions. Other women doctors who trained and went single to the mission field were Dr. Jessie Allyn, Dr. Gertrude Hulet, and a Miss Hatch who opened a leper asylum. (I am constrained to believe that women of our generation are held back by poor influences from fulfilling their potential.)

This is the honorable history of feminism. This is women serving God. I have heard enough diatribe against feminism to do me for now. Let’s have a reality check.

Here is Laura Fowler, the first women medical graduate in Australia.

It is because of the dismissive attitudes that I read on the Internet against women in leadership that I have paid a lot more attention to what women have done in previous centuries.

And yes, certainly the missionaries should turn over the new churches to native leadership, but what happened was that white women were replaced by white men, and then not honored for the work they had done, and this has been a blight on many mission churches and driven some people from church.

I have had one brother and two sisters with a lifetime of mission service, one sister married and one single. There is no point in pitting married women against single women. Women are side by side with each other and with men and should be treated so. The treatment of women as ’support workers’ is dishonorable.

Other women featured on my blog are Lottie Moon, Elizabeth Fry, Catherine Booth, Margaret Fell, and Grace Irwin. I have also honored such outstanding men as Wilfred Grenfell, Redfern Louttit, Samuel Crowther, and Archibald Fleming. I really don’t care what race, what color, or what sex people are – they deserve to be recognized as who they are and not as some kind sideckicks to the white men as the main dish.

Try googling Monica Storrs. When she was replaced by a male minister, my neighbor, a farmer from the town of Fort St. John, never went back to church again. He didn’t have much use for a church that would not treat a woman properly. I am not justifying his decision, but the poor and dismissive treatment of women in leadership does not endear the church to non-Christians.

Comment by Donna

January 1, 2008 @ 2:59 am

This is the honorable history of feminism. This is women serving God. I have heard enough diatribe against feminism to do me for now. Let’s have a reality check.

The reality is that the majority of women missionaries have been married women who followed their men.

Please explain your ‘diatribe against feminism’ comment. It was unnecessary and inflammatory, but not surprising.

I am not justifying his decision, but the poor and dismissive treatment of women in leadership does not endear the church to non-Christians.

Since when is the church for non-Christians?

Comment by Suzanne

January 1, 2008 @ 4:23 am

Please explain your ‘diatribe against feminism’ comment. It was unnecessary and inflammatory, but not surprising.

This was primarily in response to the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’s Gender Blog featuring a series of posts which criticize feminism. I have also been reading the books of Mary Kassian, which are unfortunately available on the Internet. I apologize for making this comment here.

The reality is that the majority of women missionaries have been married women who followed their men.

Are you saying that all married women missionaries cannot be counted at all towards women being a driving force behind missions, since in all marriages of all missionaries ‘men take the lead?’ Are you saying that because the majority of women choose to go to the mission field married rather than unmarried this disqualifies women from being leaders in mission?

In fact, women often had to set up entirely separate mission agencies to go to the mission field. The Canadian Baptist women missionaries had to set up their own organization outside of the formal church. They had to raise the money from women, by women, and run the organization by women, and then train and support the women who went as missionaries. So, women had to start from scratch to create an entire infrastructure because the main mission organizations would not sponsor women.

Given this stricture, it would be very surprising if the number of independent women missionaries were equal to the number of women who went as wives. The single women had to overcome unusual structural difficulties and disincentives.

Comment by Donna

January 1, 2008 @ 4:23 am

I really don’t care what race, what color, or what sex people are – they deserve to be recognized as who they are and not as some kind sideckicks to the white men as the main dish.

Suzanne, I find this statement appalling. You denegrate many great missionary women that I know, and you offend me personally. Maybe you need to tone the rhetoric down just a wee bit and show some respect for all of your sisters, not just the ones who meet your criteria of what good feminists should be.

You know, most missionaries live pretty obscure lives. Most do not get a lot of credit for who they are and what they have done. Why should women get all bent out of shape because they do not get a lot of applause?

Besides, I gave several names of very well-known and well-respected women missionaries. Surely you have heard of them?

Maybe I have been incredibly blessed, but in all my years as a missionary, I have received nothing but encouragement and support and even praise from many men – and I am one of those sidekicks to the main dish you so easily denegrate.

Just for the record, if by feminism you mean the kind of thing that Dorothy L. Sayers talked about, then I do not have all that many problems. She, as I, had very little use for socialism. She was a conservative and a fan of Winston Churchill. She, as I, had very little use for what feminism was turning into. Even before she died, the movement was becoming way too centered on women for her taste. She really did believe in equality and thought that the turn feminism was taking was not about equality, but rather about the superiority of women.

So, please get it straight where I am coming from and what kind of feminism I oppose and why.

Also, I am not a racist. There is nothing wrong with being white and being male if that is what God has made a person to be.

Just for your information, also. One of the first people to guide me towards faith in Christ was a Canadian woman of African descent. She was my kindergarten teacher, and came to our poor, immigrant, working-class neighborhood as a missionary to us neglected children. So, please do not form your own opinions about who and what I am. You have no right to do that. I do not give you permission to sit in judgment of me.

Another interesting detail about my life is the fact that my grandfather was a member of the IWW, otherwise knows as the Wobblies. Look that up, here, to find out what kind of background I am from.

I come from a long line of radicals, but God saved me by his grace. Please show a little more respect for your humble sister. We are equals, Suzanne. God bless, and please take care.

Comment by Suzanne

January 1, 2008 @ 4:24 am

In my opinion, the church ought to bear witness to justice to the non-Christian world.

Comment by Suzanne

January 1, 2008 @ 4:46 am

Donna, I’m sorry. There has been some kind of miscommunication and I’m not sure what it is. Dr. Pearl Chute and Dr. Laura Fowler, for example, were married women, but they contributed in leadership as much as their husbands. Chute went to the mission field single but did marry.

I do not understand why we are counting all single women as leaders and all married women as non-leaders.

In British Columbia, also many of the women I mentioned were single but among married couples. The women also preached and a married couple usually shared the territory, each preaching in a different place on Sundays. Once the bishops gave women lay-reader license, wives were able to preach alongside the men.

Comment by fjs

January 1, 2008 @ 8:18 am

Maybe God is the driving force behind missions and he calls both men and women to leadership and evangelism in the mission field. Courageous women stepped outside of their comfort and conditioning to reach new people groups with the gospel as did courageous men. Some worked together some worked alone. But those women who did work alone must be credited with pushing beyond their cultural role conditioning to go out alone.

This is the radical call of Christ… Ben Witherington writes about the unusual women in the gospel accounts who did what was unheard of… followed a teacher such as Jesus. Women following alone with a group of men who were not their husbands, brothers, or fathers… was unheard of… shameful in an honor/shame culture.

It seems that Jesus validated Mary Magdalene in her following and telling the good news.

Comment by jlp

January 1, 2008 @ 3:48 pm

Donna and Suzanne, thanks for mentioning more names of women missionaries. I appreciate it. Maybe someday I’ll even have to study their lives! (I hope to study so many other things it may take me a while to get to it.)

Comment by Suzanne

January 1, 2008 @ 4:34 pm

Donna, I think our messages have crossed. Let me respond to a few things. By feminism I mean equality – ontological and functional. Any notion that women are superior is as offensive to me as the notion that men should have superior authority.

I am quite familiar with the names you mention and respect them. I simply do not agree that women are for the most part followers of ‘their men’ – that is what I had difficulty with. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but this is not the total ‘history of women in missions and in ministry.’ This is the specific statement which I wanted to respond to.

Much of my other comments are general and were not intended to refer to you in any way at all, any more than the many things that have been said to me, reflect on me.

Thank you for sharing your background. It always helps to know more about someone. I am myself a victim of continuous violent spousal abuse experienced as a frequent occurrence for thirty years. All this time I attended and sat under complementarian teaching. It is deeply regrettable that the only time I asked for help for a hypothetical case of ’spousal abuse,’ the minister’s wife announced that the church did not have that problem.

Certain aspects of feminism which changed the laws of this country have finally made enough of a difference for me that was able to escape and survive to tell this tale. So for me, the influence of feminists have enabled me to live. Its too bad the church helped me in no way whatsoever. These are just the facts of my life, not a general statement about churches as a whole, nor does this have anything to do with anyone personally.

Comment by Suzanne

January 1, 2008 @ 5:08 pm

When I say that I have read too much of something on the internet, this reflects on my reading some popular Christian websites which favour certain aspects of Christian life. It does not refer to anyone here in this comment thread. It was a general statement about some areas of the Christian blogosphere.

Donna, I think you and I have a similar and honorable understanding of feminism, promoting the equality of women.

Comment by LMcC

January 1, 2008 @ 5:18 pm

Donna (see comment 77212), has it possibly occurred to you that many of the married women you say have ‘followed their men’ actually had the calling to missions before they ever met their husbands? I went to a Christian university with rules far stricter than your own beliefs, and I can assure you that many single women had their calls to the field long before they met their husbands. They just decided they wouldn’t marry anyone who didn’t share their call. And yes, they were hardcore, anti-feminist traditionalists. Some women I know just ended up not marrying and going anyway because of their convictions.

Several years ago, I ran a television camera for a Southern Baptist missionary commission ceremony. I think we had over fifty people being recognized at that time. Most of the people were going as married couples. No surprise there, since they were also usually older and had time to find a spouse first. Every one of the singles going to the field, however, was female. They seemed to be younger than the average married woman going. These women were going without a man, and in all likelihood they sacrificed the chance ever to marry in order to serve God and answer his call. Not one man was going as a single missionary, and single men usually do not have to sacrifice marriage to enter the ministry.

Suzanne, in 77344, you give your own definition of equality, a very sensible and reasonable one. Unfortunately, that’s not what a hierarch will read. I’ve learned the hard way as a former complementarian who struggled with the church’s refusal to acknowledge violence against women that no definition of feminism is acceptable to the hierarchal crowd except for one that involves support for abortion and homosexual rights. That way, it’s easy to demonize biblical egalitarians even though CBE has taken stands against abortion and homosexuality. If the hierarchs actually accepted that there are such people as Christian feminists with a high view of Scripture and opposition to certain social ills, they’d have to stop demonizing us and actually dialogue with us as real people. Between what I hear around town and what I read online, I’m not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.

It’s a sad thing, too. As you’ve pointed out, the influence of feminism literally saved your life while the church did nothing at all for you and even ignored your plight. When the church is willing to ignore real injustice against real people while the world is actually doing something right in that area, why would a non-Christian want to know Christ if his own followers don’t even care about the problems in their midst? Yet… instead of the church getting a wake-up call about its own apathy and double standards, the problems of radical feminism are used to dismiss all of feminism. Real problems continue, and real people suffer as a result.

Comment by Donna

January 1, 2008 @ 11:36 pm

Has it possibly occurred to you that many of the married women you say have ‘followed their men’ actually had the calling to missions before they ever met their husbands?

Has it possibly occurred to you that I know what I am talking about? If you look down on me because I am a complementarian and not a fellow human being, then every word that I say will be misinterpreted. You view me as a mindless robot, or worse. I can assure you that I am not. You do not view me as human. You view me as a complementarian. Please humanize me, and then maybe we can have some sane discussion.

I think you and I have a similar and honorable understanding of feminism, promoting the equality of women.

Thank you, Suzanne. Of course, I also accept a certain level of male-only leadership in the church and in the home, which you would not agree with. So, we are back to square one… however, I do appreciate your reasonable response.

You may be suprised, though, at how much freedom I believe women to have in ministry.

Comment by Suzanne

January 2, 2008 @ 3:46 am

You may be suprised, though, at how much freedom I believe women to have in ministry.

You are right that we need to treat each other as humans and as individuals. I have no idea what you think about most of these things.

I believe God-created women are on par with men in essence and in function. They have been given the same task as men, to glorify God, and although I believe men and women are different in many ways, I believe they glorify God in the same way, because there is only one Word and one truth.

I am interested in the history of women in missions and once again, women were a driving force, and many women went unmarried. Honoring the facts of history is my main concern.

Comment by LMcC

January 2, 2008 @ 11:26 am

Donna (see comment 77357), wha..? Suggesting that a particular point of view may not have occurred to you is nowhere near the same as attacking your personhood. Not even in the same ballpark… no, planet.

That said, thank you for proving a point I made earlier. I did not dehumanize you by pointing out a hole in your argument. I pointed out a hole in your argument, period. I view you as a person who overestimates male abilities and underestimates female abilities (a view I myself grew up around and know extremely well), but I still view you as a person. You are having to redefine something I said to make it fit your own preconceived notions of who you want me to be and what you want me to stand for instead of dealing with me as the person I am. It’s doing you no favors.

The point that everyone else understands I made is that women can and do get their own personal calls to missions regardless of whether there is a man in their lives or not. It’s unfair to the women who got the call before (or instead of) the husband to make such a claim. The women who severely narrowed their dating pool at Christian colleges and afterward in order not to block their calling and those women who sacrificed all hope of marriage to serve God deserve a lot more credit than they get from other Christians.

Even if we grant that most women who do go to the field are married, it’s unfair to them to claim that their call is simply to follow their husbands wherever they go. The call to missions is a demanding one involving personal hard work, personal conviction, and personal sacrifice. As someone who has done missions work yourself, you are one person I would expect to understand this fact intimately. It is not something that anyone should take lightly or should do just because someone else close to them is doing it. It’s personal. It’s serious. To dismiss the missionary wife’s call by saying she just ‘follows her husband’ dismisses God’s work in her own life, God’s calling, God’s ability to use anyone he wants. In the end, it insults God as much as the wife. They both deserve more credit than they get.

Comment by Mary Ann

January 2, 2008 @ 2:47 pm

The ratio of single women to single men on the mission field approaches ten to one.

From Thomas Hale in On Being a Missionary, here, in the first paragraph, on page twenty-seven.

I was a single woman called to the mission field for at least ten years before I met my husband who was also called to be a missionary. I am not following my husband to the field; I am following God. I would’ve gone to the field whether or not I had married.

In the last ten years, I have met many, many more (single) women who were called to the mission field than I did men. I can attest to the ten-to-one ratio. Even among my many friends who are called, I can list more women than men who have actually gone out to the field. It is a painful reality for most single women missionaries that if they answer the call, they may never get married. It is a sacrifice that every called woman most knowingly make when she says, ‘Yes, Lord.’ Anyone (women and men) who fellowships with other missionaries and is intimately involved with missions can and will attest to the fact that the majority of missionaries are women, not men.

This statement is completely absurd to me (from comment 77282):

The truth is that most women go to the mission field as wives. They work side by side with their husbands in many ways, but the men take the lead.

It is evident that this perception is based on a very different group of missionaries than all the missionaries I know and have ever read about. With a ratio of ten-to-one, the men are definitely not taking the lead on the mission field.

I also have to disagree with this statement:

Yes, at times, where the church is not yet established, women often do the work of a man.

A man’s work? Hardly. I’ve heard this statement before, iterated as, ‘Since the men are not there, God will use the women.’ As if women were God’s second choice! But this opinion nullifies the reality of God’s work. There is a reason why he has blessed these missionary women – it’s because he has called them. He calls both men and women.

Wycliffe, for example, has been known to send out many women (in pairs) to different people-groups across the globe. Men are so scarce, husband-wife pairs are so scarce, but there were so many women! Two examples: Joanne Shetler (a woman!) worked among the Balangao people (in the Philippines) to bring them the Word of God in their own language and set them free from the capricious, hard-to-please spirits. Marilyn Laszlo (a woman!) worked with a people-group in Papua New Guinea and brought the transforming Word of God to them. Both women went to the field with a partner (another woman; they were all single), and both Joanne’s and Marilyn’s partners had to leave in the middle of the Bible translation, so both were left alone to finish the translation work, the evangelism, the teaching/preaching, and church planting. (No men ‘came to the rescue’. The churches in these places have been well established.) In the Wycliffe world, Marilyn Laszlo’s is one of the most celebrated stories. She is highly respected. She, not a man.

Comment by Suzanne

January 2, 2008 @ 4:47 pm

Mary Ann, thanks for that comment. I wonder if some people are simply misinformed. Mary Kassian’s book The Feminist Mistake spends two pages on feminism before the 1960s. She does not mention that women asked for equal rights with men in order to work in missions, to evangelize, to care for the sick, fight against poverty, alcohol, slavery, prostitution, and the poor treatment of inmates. It’s almost as if there is a willful amnesia, as if women in the church have had a collective lobotomy.

Comment by LMcC

January 2, 2008 @ 5:33 pm

Mary Ann (see comment 77388), thank you!

When anyone mentions a single missionary, I picture a woman every single time because they’re all I’ve ever known. I would have guessed that the female-male ratio was even more skewed than ten-to-one. I’ve never known of a single male missionary who hadn’t been married before, and I only can think of one widower whose wife died in Africa.

Suzanne (see comment 77394), only two pages? The entire first half of the first edition of Pro-life Feminism Yesterday and Today covers pre-1960 feminists, and the Christian influence in feminism is quite evident. I recommended that book to my complementarian then-pastor when I was still a complementarian myself.

I’d have to say that the amnesia among complementarian women have may not be willful. Speaking as an ex-complementarian, I can safely say that these women are not told the truth about feminism or their own place in church history. I didn’t find out about the feminists within proto-Fundamentalism and early Fundamentalism until I was over thirty, and I grew up IFB (the super-strict Independent Fundamental Baptist). I had never heard of Frances Willard, and I never knew how truly progressive the Women’s Christian Temperance Union was for its day. These women have no clue what God has done with women within the church, and they certainly have no clue about what Christian women have done to improve women’s status in the rest of the world. It’s more important in those churches for women to be kept under careful control by men than it is for them to be salt and light to a lost world. I know from experience.

Comment by Liz

January 2, 2008 @ 7:05 pm

Wonderful to read all the record of just a few of God’s obedient servants (who just happen to be women). I would agree that in some church circles people are not aware of what happens in the wider Christian world because they are ‘protected’ from seeing, hearing, reading, watching, and fellowshiping with other Christian groups and missionary organizations. At the end of time as we know it, there will be untold surprises about just who was ‘first’ and who was ‘last’ in the kingdom of God.

Why oh why can’t we all get past the gender of a person and see God in that person and rejoice in his work in each individual’s life? Actually, I know the answer to that question as do many on this site – it’s because of ignorance and often a misunderstanding of God’s plan for his creation. So sad, that the churches which are most concerned about God’s honor and his words in the Bible can be the very ones who miss what he is doing in his people.

Let’s not blame each other but our mutual enemy who loves to cause discord and confusion. Let’s encourage each Christian who is truly wanting God’s best and wanting to honor and serve him.

Comment by jlp

January 2, 2008 @ 7:43 pm

In all areas of life, women’s efforts have been marginalized while men’s efforts have been recognized. This is going away faster in the secular world than in the religious world. Hopefully, the religious world will catch up with the secular world and start recognizing women’s contributions.

Comment by Donna

January 3, 2008 @ 2:23 pm

A man’s work? Hardly.

Yes, men’s work. Pastoring churches is men’s work. Planting churches is men’s work. It is work that has been done by men almost exclusively. It’s just history, and it’s just the truth.

You need to get out more and see what really happens in missions and church planting. It is hard work. Few women are willing and/or able to do it. We can support the effort and work alongside the men, but it is men’s work, my dear, and your anger will not change that.

I’ve heard this statement before, iterated as, ‘Since the men are not there, God will use the women.’ As if women were God’s second choice!

Women are God’s first choice for women’s work of bearing children and helping their husbands follow the vision God has given to them. If women quit doing that, who will do it?

But this opinion nullifies the reality of God’s work.

It does not. Seeing that men and women have distinct but equally important roles in the home, the church, and society at large – including missionary work – actually establishes the work and builds up the church.

By the way, yes, a woman must also be called to the mission field or ministry. However, the ministry is not equal. Men and women do not equally do the same things. It has never been that way, and it never will be, either.

There is a reason why he has blessed these missionary women – it’s because he has called them. He calls both men and women.

Yes, he has. I was called to be a missionary even when I was a child. He has blessed women in missions because they have devoted themselves to women’s work – that of working with orphans, widows, the needy, in hospitality, in supporting their husbands in their ministries, in teaching children and women, etc.

He blesses men and women when they follow his call. His call includes gender-specificity.

God bless, and please take care.

Comment by Paula

January 3, 2008 @ 2:38 pm

It is not the norm, though, and never has been.

This is a common fallacy: that we can find God’s will by looking at how human history has gone. God does work within limitations in our lives, not because he is not sovereign, but because he allows us free will. Sin was never his will, nor the suffering that followed, nor polygamy, or slavery – or misogyny. All of those are ‘normal,’ but none are divinely appointed. So looking for the norm is just not an acceptable argument for determining God’s will.

Again, as has been stated already, the Spirit gives gifts as he pleases, to whomever he pleases, and all believers have at least one spiritual gift. To tell God he cannot give certain gifts to certain people for any reason, let alone skin color, social standing, or gender, is at the very least presumptuous.

It is God we follow, not men. Anyone who would go into missions work to follow someone other than God is going for the wrong reasons. Men are not to be worshiped or allowed to take the place of Christ in anyone else’s life. Women as well as men have direct access to God, and it is nothing short of sinful for anyone to step between them.

Comment by Sam

January 3, 2008 @ 2:57 pm

I agree with LMCC (see comment 77347) that apart from married couples, most single missionaries who have answered God’s call to the mission field are women. Having served a two-year term with the International Mission Board (Southern Baptist Convention), I count it a blessing to have served alongside many gifted single, female missionaries – missionaries who have spent five, ten, twenty, thirty years on the field, missionaries who have surrendered all (including marriage) in order to follow God’s call to the ends of the earth, missionaries who I admire for their experience, maturity, zeal, resilience, and obedience to their calling.

My team consisted of seven people – five seasoned missionaries who were female, and two newbie missionaries who were male (myself and my roommate) – plus, the ‘head’ (a male missionary who oversaw our team remotely). Because our head didn’t reside in the same city, the rest of us were pretty much on equal-footing. My roommate and I had much to learn from these mature women. Every weekend we gathered for ‘church,’ where we rotated responsibilities of leading worship, teaching from the Word, and cooking… and that worked great. That was how we were meant to have community with each other. Rather than asserting male control over our church gatherings and teaching responsibilities, we were all free to teach and share as equals. There was not even the thought that the men were more qualified to teach; quite the opposite! Rather, it wouldn’t be a stretch to say that my female teammates were much more qualified with experience, knowledge, and maturity!

I was complementarian at the time, yet considered it an utter privilege to learn under and work alongside these seasoned female missionaries. In the overseas context, women are allowed more leadership responsibilities and freedom to exercise all their gifts; it’s just a shame that the SBC is inconsistent with its treatment of women, as female IMB missionaries are barred from holding the same responsibilities when they return to America.

Comment by Suzanne

January 3, 2008 @ 4:04 pm

Donna, this is Monica Storrs (from Wikipedia, but known to me from some of her former parisioners):

Born, February 12, 1888 at St. Peters Vicarage, Grosvenor Gardens, in the City of Westminster, London. Educated at Frances Holland School for Girlsand St. Christopher’s College, Blackheath, London.

Miss Storrs, although educated for a patrician English life, arrived in Fort St. John in October 1929, as the Great Depression began. She was the first missionary to teach Sunday school and take regular Christian services. The group of women, the Companions of the Peace, were funded by the Fellowship of the Maple Leaf (which based in Edinburgh, in 2007 still promotes links between the churches in Canada and the United Kingdom.)

Although intending to work for one year, she stayed as missionary for more than twenty-one years in Peace County, British Columbia. Nicknamed ‘God’s Galloping Girl’ for marathon rides in all weathers and over rough terrain, to visit remote farm families and promote their welfare.

Ms. Storrs and the other workers were all women, and sometimes regarded as feminist pioneers. Their pioneer chapel is preserved at Fort St. John – North Peace Museum, where it has been restored.

She left Peace Country in 1950 to return to England, then Lived at Peacewood, Farther Common, Liss in the County of Hampshire. Died on December 14, 1967.

Would you officially like to unevangelize the entire province of British Columbia? Are we not worthy of the gospel? Are our churches to be labeled as non-existent because they were founded and maintained by women? Storrs is an example of only one of the many all female organizations which worked in British Columbia. The Anglican Caravanners is another. It is true that these women were never allowed to give communion as far as I know, but they did have a lay readers license and took all other services, preaching and pastoring in the churches.

Comment by jlp

January 3, 2008 @ 5:55 pm

I’m just loving reading about all this mission work. I appreciate everything everyone has written here.

Comment by LMcC

January 3, 2008 @ 6:20 pm

Sam (see comment 77420), as in, the Sam mentioned in the next post? Glad to see you here!

You’ve earned big-time credit for your conduct and willingness to learn from the ladies on your team even before you began to accept biblical equality. I know a few men who would have immediately tried to pull rank if they had been in the same situation.

That’s not to say I believe every other complementarian man would have pulled rank. Not by a long shot. There’s enough of a disconnect between complementarian ideals and outside-church reality that quite a few of them happily sit under female Sunday school or special class teachers (as long as nobody challenges them on it). I only remember maybe two hard-core traditionalists at my old Southern Baptist church who openly raised a fuss about women teaching mixed groups, and both of them were the type who loved squabbles and controversy anyway so they were easy to ignore.

My concern is that the SBC as a whole has become stricter, and that more men will decide to turn against the sound teaching they’re now getting in Sunday school just because a woman is in front of the class.

Mary Ann (see comment 77388), tell it like you’ve seen it. You and Suzanne both have a lot of good historical information that needs to be out there.

I also don’t like that line that women who plant churches are doing ‘the work of a man.’ Planting churches isn’t ‘man’s work.’ It’s God’s work through anyone he wants to use. Any implication that it’s ‘man’s work’ diverts credit from God. Women on the mission field aren’t doing the work of a man. They’re doing the work of the God who sent them, no more or less than a man would do in her place.

Suzanne (see comment 77423), good response. I guess some parts of the mid-south need to be unevangelized as well because my grandmother and other women preached around there! How would one unevangelize someone anyway, and why? Are the mouths of women so corrupt that even the words of our Lord become lies if we quote them? Are we incapable of leading a man to Christ just because of a chromosomal mismatch between speaker and hearer? Does biology really trump the Creator? The mind boggles.

Comment by Donna

January 4, 2008 @ 12:06 am

This is a common fallacy: that we can find God’s will by looking at how human history has gone.

Well, then, look at biblical history and name all the women pastors, prophets, and priests. Then, put it alongside the list of male pastors, priests, and prophets – as well as judges, kings, etc.

That is if you can’t take an honest look at church history…

Comment by Donna

January 4, 2008 @ 12:09 am

I also don’t like that line that women who plant churches are doing ‘the work of a man.’ Planting churches isn’t ‘man’s work.’ It’s God’s work through anyone he wants to use. Any implication that it’s ‘man’s work’ diverts credit from God. Women on the mission field aren’t doing the work of a man. They’re doing the work of the God who sent them, no more or less than a man would do in her place.

That sounds very spiritual, but the title of the article that started all this is ‘Women Shaped the Early Evangelical Movement.’ So, I will add that the title is wrong on two counts, then. It is God himself who shaped the early Evangelical movement, and he used men – as in males – as his main instruments in acomplishing this. Women’s role was largely supportive of what the men were doing, and without their support, the men would have had a harder time.

There. That’s better, and more spiritual, than your statement.

Comment by Suzanne

January 4, 2008 @ 12:27 am

So, I will add that the title is wrong on two counts, then. It is God himself who shaped the early Evangelical movement, and he used men – as in males – as his main instruments in acomplishing this. Women’s role was largely supportive of what the men were doing, and without their support, the men would have had a harder time.

There. That’s better, and more spiritual, than your statement.

Is this a spirituality contest? You are right, though, that the title could be rewritten. One can always rewrite someone else’s writing.

However, if there were twice as many women who went as men, hmmm, that poses a problem. And why does God need to have main instruments and auxiliary instruments? God also used children. And the women a support is a help, the role that God fills. So maybe woman is the main instrument. I think we are wandering a little.

Concrete facts:

More women than men went as missionaries – true or false?

Women went where there were no Christian men – true or false?

Women preached to those who had not heard God’s word before – true or false?

Women held church services – true or false?

Women were administrators of hospitals, schools, mission organizations, and taught indigenous pastors – true or false?

Women went without men and stayed on the mission field without men – true or false?

Women led, organized, funded, and carried out their own mission activities without men – true or false?

So, the only way that we can say that men are the main instruments is if we say that by definition men are the main instruments. So in essence men are the main thing, and in essence women are the supporting thing. However, they function equally.

Ah, ‘equal in function and unequal in essence’ – that’s it. No, I think we must say that women are in the mission field the equal to man. I assume that you are, Donna – equal to a man.

Comment by Donna

January 4, 2008 @ 1:37 am

I agree with LMCC (see comment 77347) that apart from married couples, most single missionaries who have answered God’s call to the mission field are women. Having served a two-year term with the International Mission Board (Southern Baptist Convention), I count it a blessing to have served alongside many gifted single, female missionaries – missionaries who have spent five, ten, twenty, thirty years on the field, missionaries who have surrendered all (including marriage) in order to follow God’s call to the ends of the earth, missionaries who I admire for their experience, maturity, zeal, resilience, and obedience to their calling.

Sam, I will agree with you to some extent, only if you take a look at the married women who have served many years on the field alongside their husbands. Look at the married women who also gave up all to follow their husbands. Women who also were called by God, but not in the same, evidently elevated way as single women.

Look at the women who bore and raised children in foreign lands, far from all the support of family and friends at home. Think about the young wife, having her first child in a strange hospital, surrounded by people who look and act different from her, and she is just barely long enough in the country to know what is being said to her and about her.

Look at the women who worked alongside their men, supporting them in their ministries and also using their homes as centers for showing hospitality and for evangelizing.

Don’t married couples count for anything in your mind? I can tell you that the Christian home is one of the most powerful forces for witnessing to the unsaved that there is. When you show hospitality, inviting people into your lives, they get a chance to see the gospel lived out in concrete ways. They see you are real people, and the gospel as real.

I am interested in the history of women in missions and once again, women were a driving force, and many women went unmarried. Honoring the facts of history is my main concern.

Yes. I agree with your statement here. Women were – and are – a driving force in missions. They are not the driving force. Most of those missionary women have been married. Many have gone out single and gotten married on the field. I know others, both men and women, who have stayed single.

Yes, I am interested in the truth, and I greatly admire women in missions. I also admire men. It is not an easy job.

Let me encourage you by sharing a bit of the life and ministry of our missionaries in Gula, Uganda. They are doing amazing, incredible things, including ministry to AIDS patients – both men and women; ministry to child soldiers, both boys and girls who have escaped the horrors of the LRA; discipleship of those who are coming to the Lord; vocational training especially for the survivors of the LRA; etc. We have a couple and two singles – a young man and a young woman. I can’t believe what they do.

In fact, the favorite ‘wife’ of the leader of the LRA was led to the Lord by one of our missionaries. She is now a glowing Christian. The sad thing, though, is that she was captured and taken away again. Please pray for these dear ones who have been so mistreated. I think that you have a special ability to understand the kind of thing they may be going through.

So, in many ways, I thank you Suzanne for sharing about the many who have served the Lord in obscure, self-sacrificial ways so that others – men, women, boys, and girls – can know our precious Savior as we do.

Suzanne, thank you for sharing about your painful past. That is terrible. For the record, I never have and never will tell a person who is being abused and who comes to me for help – whether they are male, female, child, or young person – that they have to just put up with it for Jesus’ sake. Our complementarian church does not do that, either. In fact, there have been times when our very traditionalist pastor himself has taken a woman to the judge to get a restraining order, just for your information.

That said, thank you for proving a point I made earlier. I did not dehumanize you by pointing out a hole in your argument.

I disagree with you, and say that you did dehumanize me. Sorry, but I call it as I see it. I’m a tough old bird.

When you tell a person about whom you know nothing ‘did it ever occur to you…’ that is a put-down. You are, in effect, saying that something has occurred to you that you don’t think has ever crossed my puny complementarian mind. You feel that you have a superior knowledge that I do not have, so you will enlighten me.

What did not occur to you was that I am a missionary; I had a call from God for missionary service when I was about ten years old or younger; I come from a non-Christian home; I have many years of field service myself, so I can assure you that a lot has occurred to me through the years.

Just so you will know, I have three major trips planned for this year. I will accompany my husband to the PI for a couple of weeks or a little more for our mission’s annual meetings. I will fly back to Seattle, sleep one night in a hotel because I don’t have time to go home and come back the next day for my flight out to Mexico. I will be in the Yucatan for about ten days to help in camps. In the Spring, I will accompany my husband to Dallas for more meetings – but I get to play while he sits in meetings. Then, in July I will go back to the Yucatan for camps and probably to Cuba for more children’s ministry.

So, now you know. I do this kind of thing every year, sometimes making four trips in a year. Besides, my husband and I spent thirteen years in Chile, our only child was born there, and we were involed in five church-plants – some of which have split into many more. That’s how the church grows in Chile. It’s sort of a multiplication by division thing they have going down there. New math, I guess…

I view you as my equal and I as your equal. I am sure that there are things that you know that I do not, but on this one, believe me. I know.

So, yes. Women who go to the mission field need a ‘call,’ or at least clear guidance from the Lord that this is what his will is for them. That goes for married or single. It is really, really hard work. I know that some do and some do not put a lot of emphasis on a mystical ‘call.’ Even so, both my husband and I had one before we ever met and married.

So, anyway… Now I will let you good people alone for awhile…

Comment by Suzanne

January 4, 2008 @ 2:53 am

Donna, thanks for all the details. I don’t think any of us wish to split women into the single ones – the doers; and the married ones – the supporters. They are all called as missionaries and take a variety or roles. Certainly in this history of Canadian women missionaries that I am reading, some single women preached and some married women preached. The couples had two towns which they were responsible for so they both preached.

Regarding the fact that you personally do not sit in meetings – surely that is an individual circumstance related to your other responsibilities, gifts or inclinations. There is nothing about being a female that means you can’t sit in a meeting.

On my own circumstances I will relay a few sad facts.

I felt a taboo about telling anyone in my family or Christian community my story. Certainly I was not able to tell anyone who was connected to my husband. Three things made a difference for me.

1. A recent change in laws brought about by feminist lobby

2. A closeknit secular neighborhood including some trusted women friends who were ‘liberal’ Christians

3. One particular non-Christian friend who challenged me outright on what was wrong with my life

Once I told that one person I became accountable to change my situation which I did with the help of a couple of friends and neighbors.

I never once considered going to a Christian man for help or protection. Between female friends and the police I felt safe. I consider the entire attitude and teaching of complementarians to be so out of line on this that I can hardly bear it. I think that the vow of obedience in marriage ceremonies should be outright made illegal and it should be illegal to teach the subordination of women. I realize there isn’t much chance of this, but this should give you some idea of how terribly evil and soul-destroying subordination is when it is enforced.

Comment by Christy

January 4, 2008 @ 8:12 am

We are all called to be God’s witnesses – every single member among his people. Jesus told his disciples (numbering about 120 at the time) to wait first for the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This baptism was needed in order to spiritually empower the disciples’ testimony and enable them to fulfill the Great Commission (a task which sends us out into a very real spiritual warfare with the devil). At Pentecost, the tongues of fire fell on everyone, both male and female, young and old. Peter said that this event was in fulfillment of the prophecy given by Joel (Acts 2:16-18). Under this new spiritual power, some 3,000 people, after hearing Peter’s witness, were converted.

If God had meant to send only a select group from among his people, then they alone would have received the tongues of fire (God’s anointing for witnessing).

The quenching of God’s anointed witnesses in fulfilling Jesus’ Great Commission is a sin more grievous than most of us presently comprehend. It’s easy to justify such restrictions when facing mere humans, but wait until we have to justify our behavior before the very face of Jesus Christ…

Comment by Donna

January 4, 2008 @ 10:46 am

…but this should give you some idea of how terribly evil and soul destroying subordination is when it is enforced.

Suzanne, I am terribly sorry about what happened to you. However, not every woman’s story is the same, and not every man’s story is the same.

Feminism, when enforced, can also be soul-destroying and evil. The evil is not in subordination or feminism, though. Now, my ideas on equality will be terribly annoying, but I can’t help it. Equality is part of why I am not a feminist.

I do appreciate your telling the stories of women who have served the Lord in many capacities. That has inspired me, actually. For that I thank you, Suzanne, and pray God’s blessings on you.

Please take care, and thank you for hearing my story, too. I do appreciate that. May God continue to guide us into all truth. It is not always an easy road, but our Lord and Savior is faithful along the way. God bless, and please take care.

Comment by LMcC

January 4, 2008 @ 12:25 pm

Suzanne (see comment 77443), thanks for clearing something up. Of course none of us want to split up singles and married folks or make unnecessary divisions. If anything, most of the defenders of single missionaries in this thread are currently married. Two are even married to each other and know about missionary life from both sides of the marital divide.

Donna (see comments 77438 and 77441), (shakes head sadly) you’re doing some of the same things I did in my hierarch-supporting days ten years ago on the BBSes. It didn’t work then and it’s not working now.

The reason I asked if something ever occurred to you is not to dehumanize you as you are accusing, but because it honestly appears that some things do not occur to you. I’ve seen the same behavior with King James Version-onlys who reject the possibility that God uses Christians who read other translations for his purposes. It doesn’t occur to them that God can and does use the NIV, not because they are ‘dehumanized,’ but because their beliefs will not allow them to accept anything different.

There is such a desperation and urgency in your posts to preserve your beliefs, something I understand incredibly well because I’ve been there myself. I know in sexual hierarchy that male dominance must be preserved at all costs because I’ve been there. The evidence is still on my website (don’t worry, egalitarians, so is my later rebuttal). But please, stop for a moment. Is it really so important to preserve male dominance that the work of female missionaries must be minimized or covered up by constantly emphasizing the men, the men, the men? All that emphasis on the men to the point of excluding and minimizing the women actually ends up distracting from the work of God and making the men the focus. Even while trying to make something ‘more spiritual’ and trying to point back to God, the focus immediately got put back on the men. Where’s God in that? God is bigger than x and y chromosomes. Women being truly free in Christ to serve as he wills do not cause the faith to fall. If anything, the body of Christ works at full capacity when we’re all set free and not shoved into little boxes. It’s not going to hurt to give us or what is being said a fair shot. It didn’t hurt me, and I was even stricter than you (and might still be in some ways).

Biblical equality does not force us into that same problem of shoving people into boxes or minimizing some people’s abilities. Elevating the dear women God has used to spread the gospel does not require us to push the men down and hide them. If anything, things like Sam’s respectful humility and the courage of the men here who have stood up for their sisters in Christ shines even more brightly as a positive witness to the world when men and women are side by side. We believe in a synergy, that men and women working together side by side can do even more than men going it alone or even men and women working separately.

By the way, do not say that I denied you were a missionary as you did in comment 77441. I explicitly mentioned your missionary service in comment 77382 and expected you to understand that I knew what went with it. Also, you mixed up Mary Ann and me in comment 77438. Not reading our posts closely, or only looking for snippets instead of keeping things in context, is causing a lot of misunderstanding of what we’re saying, and it’s making communication extremely difficult. I’ve seen points we’ve explicitly made ignored or denied, and I’ve seen things read into our posts that just weren’t anywhere in there.

Comment by Liz

January 5, 2008 @ 2:13 am

Hi Donna. You called yourself a ‘tough old bird’ (whatever that may involve) but anyone who has Mimosa as one of her favorite books isn’t really tough but appreciates God’s working in ways that are sometimes new and always so personal.

It is one of the most beautiful books I have ever read and was most helpful to me as a young woman. I still return to it for encouragement (along with other Amy Carmichael books).

Comment by jlp

January 5, 2008 @ 5:49 pm

Donna, ‘tough old bird?’ I assumed you were in your thirties.

Comment by Mary Ann

January 6, 2008 @ 4:44 am

Thanks, LMCC, for clearing things up (in your comment 77455) (and by the way, the Sam who posted is ‘the’ Sam!). It’s so true that none of us were trying to exalt the single women missionaries above the married women missionaries. I think we were all emphasizing the reality that there is a great disparity between the number of men and women missionaries (a ten-to-one ratio of women to men) and pointing out that men couldn’t possibly be leading the way on the mission field today since there are so many women out there and quite a lack of men.

Being in and around missions conferences like Urbana, the World Christian Conference, and participating in the Perspectives on World Missions course from the Center for World Missions has meant that I’ve had the privilege of hearing from and knowing about many, many missions agencies from around the world and the missionaries from those agencies. I have always noted how strange it was that there were so many single women and yet so few single men answering the call to be missionaries. I think it’s great that women are leading the way in missions – but I do wonder where the men are.

Donna, perhaps you are a part of a denomination/agency that has mostly married couples – and I have no doubt that these husbands and wives are doing great work. But there are so many other missionaries out there (in other denominations and agencies that perhaps you don’t know about) – and the majority of them are women. They are not women who have merely followed their husbands, but women who have followed God. Please don’t discount this reality. God is using these women mightily to bring the gospel message to those who are in bondage. They are teaching, discipling, and planting churches, and their ministries are flourishing because they are following God in obedience. Let’s give thanks to the Lord together for His obedient servants who have gone to the ends of the earth to share his heart with the world!

Comment by Mary Ann

January 17, 2008 @ 1:06 pm

I just came across something I had written (in a moment of anguish) a few years ago – just wanted to give you a glimpse of what I wrote about earlier in comment77388:

I am twenty-five and feel called to go overseas for long-term missions. I don’t want to go to a big city as a tentmaker. I want to go to a minority group, a village, a remote place where no one else will go. I am passionate about the lost. I want to marry someone who shares these same visions and passions… but it seems virtually impossible to find someone of like-heart…

…of course I would rather not date or marry a man who is not driven with the same visions as I… so I have given it up to God.

But suffice it to say, it is one thing to give God the offering, but another thing to bring him your heart along with it. I think I have resented God for it since then. Why do I have to be called? My complaining rationalizations (or irrationalizations): if I wasn’t called, I could get married and live a normal life! I think I have also convinced myself that marriage and missions are mutually exclusive and that basically, somehow, God’s best for me is to not get married – which makes me feel downcast. How come for everyone else ‘God’s best’ is getting married and for me it’s not? I know it seems like I’m jumping the gun a bit, but it’s hard not to think that way when statistics show there are ten women to every one man missionary and dozens of single, beautiful older sisters in the church… and no men around me who will really answer the call with reckless abandon. I feel like I need to be reconciled to the reality that marriage and missions are mutually exclusive.

I think simply put, I’ve forgotten how to trust him. Forgetting that his best for me really is the best. I need to pray that I would just trust him.

Comment by LMcC

January 17, 2008 @ 1:46 pm

Mary Ann (see comment 78203), wow.

This may seem strange, but it’s not just missionary women who have felt like it was either live for God or get married. I remember thinking as a teenager that I could either have a loving marriage or a Christian marriage, but not both, because of all of the messages I was picking up at church. The marriages were a joke, the only thing heard from the pulpit was ‘women submit,’ there was a double standard about adultery… and I couldn’t avoid noticing that non-Christians seemed to have happier marriages than the Christians did. I dated anyway, but I’ve got stories about some real basket-case guys as a result. Even after I left that church, I kept seeing happier marriages among non-Christians and ‘liberal’ (read: not hyper-conservative) Christians. Since marrying a non-Christian was forbidden, it was either find love or obey God – having both was not an option.

I can’t help but wonder how many egalitarian women may believe they still have to make the choice between obeying God and finding a mate. I say ‘women’ because it appears that egalitarian men are a small minority and wouldn’t have the same problem finding a wife.

Comment by Watcher

January 17, 2008 @ 3:04 pm

LMCC, it is probably, absolutely none of my business. Or you may have even said this before and I missed it. But what denomination did you come out of?

I’ve seen complementarians and I’ve seen complementarians not admit that domestic abuse exists in the church, but I’ve not seen double standards about adultery. Perhaps it’s not that particular denomination, but that particular church you went to. I don’t know, but the more I hear about what you have come out of, I see that I have little to complain about.

And this is probably not the place, but I’d like to hear an example, sometime, of one of the basket-case guys you dated.

Comment by LMcC

January 17, 2008 @ 3:45 pm

Watcher (see comment 78209), I’m a former Independent Fundamental Baptist. IFBs tend to be a mixed bag, but they are generally hyper-conservative and not the best places to be for women. Unfortunately, the very hierarchal structure of these independent churches can lead to some really nasty abuses of power. Bassenco documents these things in her ‘Blog on the Lillypad’ (linked above). Bass is a complementarian but vocal about abuse in any form.

I know of a case in which the husband cheated on his wife, and the wife was told to take him back. The wife cheated on him, and suddenly everyone looked the other way when he filed for divorce. I’m not saying either one was right, but what was good for the goose should have been fine for the gander. The husband remarried and worked for the church, and the wife is one of my sister’s close friends.

Could this have been just my church? Maybe. But then, maybe not. I heard of lot of sexist and even racist jokes from pulpits from staff and evangelists alike. My mom actually caught one of the choir high-ups on a date, and not with his wife. It shouldn’t have been a surprise, since the pastor’s own marriage was in bad shape. He even implied from the pulpit that his marriage was a mistake. His wife only stayed with him because of her own desire to obey God and preserve the church. With examples like that, no wonder we church and school kids got such wrong ideas about Christian marriage. When certain IFB scandals broke out in the late 1980s, I figured out that my church wasn’t exactly unique.

Going back to topic: the pain single female missionaries must suffer over the idea that they may have to sacrifice a loving marriage to obey God is definitely real and intense, but they’re not alone in it. If a church teaches views about marriage that put women at an extreme disadvantage, the girls who grow up in it and don’t know anything else in Christianity start to believe the same thing.

Even though I’m married now to a loving Christian man, I can’t forget what I learned in those days. To this day, the pastor’s marriage is the second thing I look at in a new church – after doctrine, of course. I’m not looking for a perfect union, just a loving one. Without that, the church can’t function well for at least half of its population. (If the pastor is single, naturally I watch how s/he treats members of the opposite sex.)

As far as my basket cases: I might have to put that in my blogs. Let’s just say I’ve been dumped for a Tammy Faye clone after I was told not to wear make-up.

Comment by sal

January 17, 2008 @ 9:26 pm

This is the first time I have looked at your site and it has been very interesting reading your comments. It is with some fear and trepidation that I put my thoughts together for this ‘discussion.’

I’m from Australia, and as a Christian I have experienced and been taught both complementary and egalitarian views in my church. We have people on both sides of the divide attending our church and it has been a real example of ’submission to one another in love’ as we function together as a church and community. Women are excluded from the role of elder but perform all other ministries including pastoring, teaching, team leadership, evangelism, etc.

I am in my late fifties and have observed many marriage relationships over the years and, in my opinion, the richest marriage relationships are those that practice, whether they know it or not, egalitarianism. Many of these couples would say they hold complementary views but in reality ’submit to one another as to the Lord.’

When one partner exerts dominance over the other, whether it is the man or the women and even when this is consentual, the relationship starts to have barriers and lacks balance. I doesn’t seem as ‘rich’ and open a union. I don’t know why this is, but one thought, maybe the openness and truthfulness flows more freely in both directions. Each are at liberty to give way to the other. It is ‘good’ to see men and women who willing see each talent/gift, issue, burden and joy as a shared experience, without gender bias. Their relationship is the richer for it.

This overflows into the church community, where men and women can serve alongside each other ’submitting to one another, as to the Lord.’

I recently read The Good Hand of God, an autobiography of Ruth Hitchcock, a missionary in China from the 1930s to 1949 and then in Hong Kong. She came from Santa Barbara, United States. I had not read a missionary autobiograhy for some years. As I was reading the book I noticed the prominence of women both in the overseas missionary and local missionary ranks. There were ‘Bible women,’ mostly local women, who were evangelists, who went out in twos and planted churches in the area around Canton. Men, mainly local Chinese and their ministries, including evangelism, were also included in the book. But just in the telling of the tale by Ruth, men seemed outnumbered by about five to one (my calculation).

I know we can’t build an assumption on this but it was interesting and I have only thought of it because of the current discussion on your site. Ruth Hitchcock did not talk about equality or feminism in her book, she just followed her Lord.

The small church I attend supports our denominational missionaries overseas and there are many couples, about five single women and no single men. As a denomination we would be classed as very conservative. My local church is ‘out of step’ with the majority in our denomination in Australia. Other local churches in our denomination would not give the liberty to women to minister, as my local church does, yet womens’ taking on wider ministry roles (i.e. teaching of men and women, leadership, etc.) is acceptable ‘in the mission field.’

If only we could accept the richness in God that each of us, both men and women, are given.

An example from recent experience – I attended another church for a commendation of missionaries for evangelistic and pastoring work among seafarers on large ships (i.e. container and bulk carriers). The wife of the couple who were being commended was not allowed to stand beside her husband as he was interviewed regarding their ministry. They go on the ships as a team but she was told she must be silent, otherwise one of the elders would immediately leave. She was allowed to come and stand beside her husband as the elders of that church prayed for them and their ministry. What nonsense is this! But I chose, with gritted teeth to ’submit’ and be gracious.

I praised the Lord that he has put me in a community of people, my local church, who value each individual and where sex, race, age, and cosmetics are not issues of the day. Yes, some of our men dye their hair and don’t have to hide it.

My daughters are gifted, educated women. (Please don’t think that I think education is a prerequisite to godly service) I wonder what Paul would say to them if in their ministries and relationships they were not using their God-given gifts to edify the saints.

Comment by fjs

January 18, 2008 @ 7:28 am

It’s good to hear from you Sal – glad you posted.

What’s frustrating about the whole debate is the mixed consensus on the issue of women in ministry. One never knows what one is gonna get. Support? Judgement? Quizzical looks? The ground is so unstable. Institutional and social validation is not present for women like it is for men. In the United States where I live, views are mixed. But when one steps up to the plate to follow God, especially in leadership… the generous charity disolves into near hostility.

One cannot depend on validation from church, society, or the religious institutions… makes the journey more challenging.

Comment by Liz

January 18, 2008 @ 7:50 am

Welcome Sal! From another Australian (WA), it’s so good to hear about your church which even though not totally free has come a long way. It seems to be little by little that we have to go and make comments where we’re able. Hope you enjoy this site and get to know many like-minded and like-hearted people.

Comment by Watcher

January 18, 2008 @ 6:24 pm

LMCC, I have taken quite a tour of the Bassenco site you linked above, including listening to four out of the five podcasts about the lambs of Culpepper.

It is shocking and saddening what has gone on. Churches, like families, are supposed to be safe havens. Since I work in the foster care system I am familiar with disfunctional families as well. It also breaks my heart. And with all this disfunction in the ‘Faith of the Fathers’ is it any wonder that many sons and daughters abandon their faith because they are not allowed to ever question their fathers?

My hat’s off to all who have suffered through such things and yet somehow were able to come through to the other side while holding onto their faith in God and the Bible.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. It’s true in government, churches, and families.

You say you blog. You most likely have linked it here before. But do you mind linking it again? I’m not done with Bassenco (thanks, by the way). But as you said, she leans complementarian. I’d be interested in what you have to say about your experiences. Thanks again.

Comment by Andy

January 27, 2008 @ 7:47 am

Hi there, I was really inspired a few months ago by reading a (pretty old by now) book called Dayuma, which is basically the story of Rachel Saint (sister of Nate Saint who was martyred) and her local friend, Dayuma.

Wow! I have to admit that my stereotype of 1950s women was a housewife in a frilly apron, but Rachel was out there in the jungle, operating a radio, healing people’s sicknesses, earning the trust of local people, and translating the Bible.

What a role model! But how come we don’t hear enough of women like that?

Seeking to make disciples of Jesus across cultures is hard work, whether one is single or not. Between my husband and I, we have done this work as a single woman, a single man, a married couple with no children, and a married couple with children.

My experience has been that within the community of Christian workers, single women are valued for their gifts and intelligence, but are not considered quite ‘grown-up.’ Married women are considered ‘grown-up’ and have higher status, but are no longer considered to have as much intelligence. This is my experience and I rejoice if it is the exception rather than the rule.

But to tell you the truth, single men are regarded with suspicion, as if there is something wrong with them. So it goes both ways.

My husband and I are now able to laugh at it, but when we were first married, it was quite annoying when people would come up to me and say, ‘How do you feel about following your husband to [scary country x]?’ As if I had not already been called to that work and already had experience there.

Also, when asked to speak at churches, often it is only my husband that is asked to speak, but he insists that I join in since we are ‘in this together.’

Comment by ILikeReading2

January 27, 2008 @ 12:26 pm

My experience has been that within the community of Christian workers, single women are valued for their gifts and intelligence, but are not considered quite ‘grown-up.’ Married women are considered ‘grown-up’ and have higher status, but are no longer considered to have as much intelligence. This is my experience and I rejoice if it is the exception rather than the rule.

But to tell you the truth, single men are regarded with suspicion, as if there is something wrong with them. So it goes both ways.

That’s the impression I got also.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>