The CBE Scroll

Comment by PS(anafter-thought)

March 16, 2009 @ 7:57 am

I used to think about this a lot: I thought about how the church (my church, anyway) separated the family, not just the husbands and wives, men and women. But there is a place for each type of meeting and group. But there aren’t enough hours in a week to have people going to all sorts of meetings and studies. We should be aware, however, of the messages our various meeting types project to the larger community.

Comment by Mindy

March 16, 2009 @ 11:42 am

I agree, Trevor. A lot of women I know tell me they are “more comfortable” opening up and learning in women-only groups, which I understand to a certain extent; but at the same time, they often wish men were more aware of the issues they are discussing in these no-men groups. My (possibly unrealistic) hope for the future is that men and women will eventually become “comfortable” enough with each other — at least within the church–that we will no longer need gender-segregated groups. For now, it seems congregations would benefit from conscious attempts to balance the gendered studies/meetings with other non-gendered ones. A good place to begin, in my opinion, is with church book groups that discuss fiction and non-fiction — current bestsellers, classic mysteries, history/biography, etc — which appeal to both men and women. I’m initiating one such group at my church now.

Comment by Teresa

March 16, 2009 @ 3:13 pm

I wonder how much of this unfortunate tendency within the church is just a reflection of a problem in the overall culture. Marketers segment the population as present “chick flicks” and “guy movies” and churches do the same with Bible studies. There’s a place for targeting to specific audiences, sure, but I’d like to see gender-neutral targeting as the default position.

Comment by Joanne

March 16, 2009 @ 7:25 pm

This brings to mind the reason why I agreed to go to an all-girl high school. The theory was that without boys present girls would come to full bloom, filling in all the student government roles, all the other leadership roles, branch out and head debate teams, math competitions, science fairs and so on. The theory held well, all these things were true about the all-girl high schools in our area. It couldn’t have been better for me and for many girls like me who were rather unattractive egg heads.

Without boys around, we could be ourselves and not deal with the whole boy / girl dynamic. I have to believe this stays the same as girls grow up into women. When we’re just us we can be ourselves AND women can freely lead, freely contribute, freely fill those roles that have traditionally been reserved for men.

What will happen if women’s groups are shut down in favor of mixed groups? It can only be good if all the men (ALL) and all the women (ALL) agree that women shall have the liberty of being who they are, and the liberty of filling whatever role, and doing whatever task, they are gifted to fill or do. It only works if everyone agrees to relate to each other as people, and not as men and women.

Otherwise, I predict, the default will be to go back to the traditional way.

Comment by Trevor

March 16, 2009 @ 10:42 pm

Your last paragraph Joanne (comment 88940) offers an interesting hypothetical and I’m sure that you are right in suggesting that we would default back to the traditional way. Perhaps a way forward would be not to axe the separate men’s and women’s meetings outright but to provide an inter gender (and for that matter, inter generational) forum where such possibilities, as inclusiveness, could be teased out and fully appreciated. Never know, it might just take off!

Also Mindy, thanks for your thoughtful comment. Your mixed gender special interest group sounds interesting. Would be interested in developments.

Comment by Jon Trott

March 17, 2009 @ 10:47 am

I agree that we need to minimize gender-divided meetings. One exception to this, though, may come up in accountability-type groups. I can’t see guys spilling their sexual mess in front of women… and suspect that might not even be a good idea (though would be interested in others’ thoughts — maybe I’m just accepting as conventional wisdom something which needs to be challenged?). Women, too, might find it harder to talk about sexual issues, or (just to make one up) issues regarding insecurity over weight and so forth, in front of their male “judges.” All sorts of unexamined assumptions may underlie what I’ve said here. I’d love to get feedback.

Comment by Kelsey Woodruff

March 17, 2009 @ 12:39 pm

I agree that PRIMARILY having gender-separate groups in church is harmful. Most of the way that God works in our lives is consistent across gender, and certainly the gospel is for all. Men and women benefit from seeing those of the opposite sex experiencing and learning from God. I think the majority of Bible study, theological reflection, and life application should be done with both genders, and perhaps even across age ranges and life stages.
Most talks about parenting, marriage, and sexuality can and should include both genders.

My weekly home group Bible study is both genders, but once a month we separate the women and men. It is during those times that the women discuss female sexuality, pregnancy, and other issues that have to do with being women in our church and society. Having these conversations every so often is empowering, as long as we are sharing our insights with our husbands and in the larger group as well.

Comment by jlp

March 17, 2009 @ 3:38 pm

Jon,

I agree with you. I think it would be embarrassing for one gender to spill their sexual problems out in front of the other gender. I know I would be very embarrassed.

Comment by joanne t

March 17, 2009 @ 8:26 pm

i have always wanted to have a discussion about what men and women have in common… what we share as human beings and how we are alike. It seems that in Genesis 1-2 we learn that God created a woman who was like him–another human like him.

I believe that men and women are indeed different but also alike as human beings created in the image of God. i think that the focus on gender differences in many churches has to do more with what comes later… what roles are prescribed based on difference.

Difference in many churches does not mean simply difference. It means different spheres and roles and positions of authority.

Difference does not mean incapable nor does difference prescribe all roles.

Comment by John Umland

March 17, 2009 @ 8:28 pm

Some marital difficulties result from an assumption that there are more similarities than differences, or that the differences aren’t worth paying attention too. That’s why we see the same theme of books being re-written every few years…Women are from Mars…, His Needs, Her Needs, For Women Only, For Men Only. They resonate with our culture, because our culture expends so much energy minimizing differences instead of celebrating them and bridging them. I hope that the single gender groups spend time helping each other understand the other gender.
God is good
jpu

Comment by Trevor

March 17, 2009 @ 8:50 pm

You are right Jon (comment 88943) accountability groups by their very nature require that there be gender separation. But I think also that the observations and specific situation that Kelsey describes (comment 88946) is very apt.
Churches should/could work on doing more of that than less. I think that positive experiences in that direction must/would encourage people that it is a valuable way to go and would speak volumes to a culturally gender divided community.

Comment by Lisa

March 17, 2009 @ 10:26 pm

Trevor,
I have been thinking on what has been happening in our businesses now, with the economic challenges [sic] out there today and the stress on resiliency in business. It is interesting that I have been witnessing an emphasis on more inclusive management, expecting a team effort (men and women together) to work towards solutions to problems. The emphasis is on everyone together, working towards a goal. To take in everyone’s point of view in problem solving. You know, this is God’s whole plan! What did the Apostle Paul write over and over again about the importance of the whole body of Christ; the various gifting, and “…what every joint supplies…” (Eph 4:16). It seems to me, that the successful businesses now are those who use God’s model of cooperation that should be used by the church today. If we want the church to be resilient, and able to meet the challenges we all face, wouldn’t be wise to use God’s methods?
Blessings,
Lisa

Comment by Mary

March 17, 2009 @ 10:44 pm

Jon, I had to laugh a little while ago. A religious patriarchalist woman, on her blog, was horrified at this particular discussion and decided to lift out your comment to illustrate how “low” the hated biblical egalitarians will go to “deconstruct” status quo gender segregative practices. It seems to me that the good ol’ status quo can’t stand up to scrutiny; those who prefer that status quo can only hurl insults at those who are willing to give it the old Berean test. Y’know, if a practice isn’t strong enough to endure questions and study, why in the world should we trust it and keep on doing it? Oh, yeah…because nobody ever bothered to wonder why “that’s how we’ve always done it.”

Still chuckling…

Comment by Liz

March 18, 2009 @ 8:43 am

It is interesting John that you make the observation of ‘more differences’ than similarities whereas I would think it was the opposite. There is just so much which is simply human which applies to both genders.

The books you refer to are definately enjoyed by many people because they can relate to the things described. There are many of us though, who don’t resonate with the hypothesis at all and find those books trite and stereotypical. Maybe a certain percentage of people just like to have things in neat categories rather than explore each person’s individuality. People are always looking for the simple solution for relationships but it takes time and effort to live happily with one another.

Comment by Lin

March 18, 2009 @ 3:47 pm

“It is interesting John that you make the observation of ‘more differences’ than similarities whereas I would think it was the opposite. There is just so much which is simply human which applies to both genders.”

I agree. Outside of biological differences there are more similarities. And most differences outside of biological are more nurture than nature. We have all witnessed some women of few words and talkative men. We have all met some emotional men and steely women.

“That’s why we see the same theme of books being re-written every few years…Women are from Mars…, His Needs, Her Needs, For Women Only, For Men Only. They resonate with our culture, because our culture expends so much energy minimizing differences instead of celebrating them and bridging them”

We see those books because they are money makers. And they are money makers because people want a formula that will bring success to their marriages. They are looking in the wrong places. Many women will work hard to fit in the mold that the authors say most women are in. They will actually believe that is the problem

And the culture sends mixed messages that are confusing. On one hand secular culture promotes
equality and on the other,women are portrayed as sex objects all around us in the media.

Comment by Liz

March 18, 2009 @ 5:30 pm

I also have seen women trying hard to fit the image which is displayed in these books (some men too) One snippet of similarity and then the person expects that they are like the whole description. I believe that many people of both genders don’t really know themselves apart from what is expected of them, or what they have been told as a child about themselves, or what the descriptions they read in books. What a shame…….Jesus died so we could know real life and know ourselves as he sees us. This is one of the magnificent truths about God – that he knows us intimately yet loves us and accepts us for who we are. I’m not talking here about ’sin’ but all the things which make up our personality and humanity.

Comment by joanne t

March 18, 2009 @ 7:30 pm

liz, that’s what i have been wondering. The frenzy to define what men need and what women need is more to do with the inability to define one’s own needs. If one does not know themselves, one does not know one’s needs. Therefore any books that can define what “all” women need and “all” men need appears helpful until that person actually begins to know their own needs. It is generalizing widely and while many fit… not all fit.

I think a better approach to healing marriages is to help couples to learn to know themselves well enough to define their needs to one another. Then we promote maturity of persons who are able to listen to the needs of another and define one’s own needs.

Comment by Gloria

March 20, 2009 @ 10:44 am

I think I agree that we’re promoting gender division. I was told by many older Christians that, as a female, I should NOT have any close male friends. This led to a lot of confusion on my part, as I scrambled to try and foster relationships with girls and, regrettably, tried to get rid of my (arguably much closer) male friends. This led to a lot of pain both for me and them.

I don’t know if I should be so open, but I am one of those few people who never truly got molded into a gender role when I became an adult. I got married at age 19 (I’ve been married 5 years to an amazing man), and well… to be quite honest I look at myself and I don’t see “a woman”. I’m just ME. I’m female, certainly, but I don’t relate to a lot of “women’s things”. I DO relate to the struggle of women to break free of the patriarchal/male supremist ideas of the past (especially in the church), though, which is why I read this blog!

In marriage, honestly, I think that people should throw all these Men/Women books away and focus on learning to relate and know the needs of each other as individuals, rather than as generalizations of broad human experience. But perhaps I’m just speaking from my experience in my own marriage – my husband and I would both probably look pretty alien to all those Martians and Venutians!

I’ve been told by Christians that my husband shouldn’t be my best friend. Too bad. I haven’t been blessed with a close female “best friend” who I really clicked with, and frankly, I find my husband’s company far too enjoyable to care whether somebody thinks it’s wrong that we’re buddies first and spouses second. XD

As for talking sex/pregnancy/etc with members of the opposite sex… frankly, I really wish we COULD get that dialogue going. I think that if males and females could get past the embarassment (which I think is partially due to the fact that our culture makes WAY too big a deal out of the “naughtiness” of sex and the differences between men’s and women’s sexuality) it would really help our understanding of one another. It might even help some people to break out of bad habits or gain new insight. Because women’s sexuality DOES affect men, and vice versa.

I dunno. A lot of my life has been spent testing out which ideas work in practice and which ones do not. I may yet be proven wrong on some of these things. But so far my marriage seems to be proof that equality and partnership and individual understanding work out a lot better than “men” and “women” trying to shoehorn themselves into roles they really don’t want (and weren’t meant) to play.

Comment by Frank

March 20, 2009 @ 12:18 pm

As I have read the exchange between Trevor and others about ways we might form study groups to heal the gender divisions in our churches and restore, I have been doing some “brainstorming” on the basis of what I have been reading in the books by Stephen Boyd, Carolyn Curtis James, and Mary Stuart Van Leeuwen. I have the rough outline of what I call “The Blessed Alliance Project,” which has three stages or phases to it. Some of it I’ll share with you, since I plan to go to the Denver Chapter meeting later this month, and talk with interested people there about doing something about it. So I would appreciate your input.

The Blessed Alliance Project, Phase One

Elsewhere, having read Carolyn James’ book, THE GOSPEL OF RUTH:LOVING GOD ENOUGH TO BREAK THE RULES, I have made reference to the “Blessed Alliance” that God intended in Gen 1 and 2, was marred by the Fall of Gen 3, and which is restored as one of several key marks that signal the establishment of God’s Present and Future Kingdom by the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus and the outpouring of the Spirit and his gifts upon the Church (cf. Gal. 3:26-4:7; 1 Cor. 12-14; 2 Cor. 5:11-6:4).
In the first phase, the purpose would be to explain the biblical and practical nature of the Blessed Alliance; how the Fall and the patriarchy of the church continue to thwart the Blessed Alliance and the hindrance of God’s Kingdom; and to determine what must be done to to bring about the mutual healing and reconciliation of Christian men and women so that the Blessed Alliance can be fully restored to its full and powerful potential to further God’s rule in our marriages, churches and mission to world, and then begin to work on the healing and restoration of these Blessed Alliances.
Resource materials for this first phase would include Boyd’s THE MEN WE LONG TO BE, Rebecca Groothuis’ WOMEN CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE, and Carolyn James’ THE GOSPEL OF RUTH:LOVING GOD ENOUGH TO BREAK THE RULES. And the “motivational” purpose of this first phase is best expressed in these words by Stephen Boyd:

We have been socialized and conditioned to devalue and mistreat women, as well as to repress important parts of ourselves that are labelled feminine. This repression leads us [men] to feel and believe we must join to a woman in order to be whole and complete. So, we have been conditioned both to be radically dependent on women and to devalue and resent them. Women to whom we relate, particularly in primary relationships, have been socialized and conditioned to devalue parts of themselves labelled masculine and to look to us [men] for their completion. We (men) end up underfunctioning in the private, relational parts of our lives, while they (women) often overfunction. In the public sphere we [men] often overfunction, and they [women]tend to underfunction. Too often, we end up resenting our partner’s “private” overfunctioning and “public” underfunctioning, and she resents our “private” underfunctioning and “public” overfunctioning.
While this “complementarity” is supposed to lead to harmony and fulfillment, it often leads to unhappiness….Needless to say, these dynamics are not very conducive to our developing spiritual friendships with women. My point here is not that dependence on women is bad or unhealthy; no, we need our sisters in order to be most fully whom God intends us to be. Rather, we need to find our way toward healthy interdependence with them–an interdependence that empowers [both] us and them. We need deep, mutual friendships with women. We have been significantly cut off from the justice, strength, intelligence, and compassionate connection of half the human race; no wonder many of us [men] have a sense of personal powerlessness. And women need deep, mutual friendships with us. They need allies in the struggle to stop what is hurting them; and we need them as allies to stop what is hurting us. We both need reconciliation (Boyd, pp. 202-203).

He then gives some guidelines for these “reconcilation groups,” or Blessed Alliance groups as I envision them. But I have to run on errands now. So I will say more in my next comment.

Comment by Donald Guffey

March 20, 2009 @ 1:24 pm

I have to say it certainly does seem that we as the church have done a great deal to promote division among the genders. I said in the last post that I came from a church were the genders are hardly ever separated and our church thrives. As a Pentecostal I have always been blessed to see men and women work together and see the joy it brings and health it brings to the church. My movement’s ancestors were the Methodists and the Quakers. The Quake’s believed that the light of God dwelt in all his children male and female alike so God uses both men and women to accomplish His purposes. Also the very word gender is sketchy. People often confuse gender with sex. Male and female is determined only by a y or an extra x chromosome. Gender is determined by and large by society and what they view as masculine and feminine. I am all for gender reconciliation it is way over due and studies like the one suggested by Frank ( comment 88962) are totally awesome and I would be honored to be part of such studies. Also of equal importance I think the church needs to have studies for each “sex” that promotes many ways of being masculine and feminine. I am not macho by any use of the word I love to sing, knit and take care of children. I want a study for men that will validate how I am and allow me to feel accepted and not something like wild at heart that I could never measure up to. My best friend growing up was a girl with some “masculine” interests and we turned out just fine. Let us truly be reconciled not as men and women but as human beings enjoying the freedom we have in Christ to be who He has created us to be regardless of whether we meet gender standards or not that will be true reconciliation. Amen

Comment by Sonnet

March 20, 2009 @ 4:48 pm

How can it be helpful for the church to divide itself?

“Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand.” Matthew 12:25 NRSV

The image I see when listening to the teachings of complementarians is the clipping of wings of female “eagles.” Forbid women from doing this or that. Keep them stuck in the nest or on the ground. Allow the men to soar free and unencumbered. Confine the wife by various rules (roles) and regulations so that she can help her mate to soar to supposedly greater heights.

But we are all part of one body – the Church. So clipping the wings of the females results in the corporate body having one wing clipped and the other unfettered. It becomes unbalanced. How can the Church soar like that?

Comment by Mary

March 20, 2009 @ 6:52 pm

My denomination is fully committed to equality between men and women, and in my over half-a-lifetime, I’ve seen the fruits develop. It’s a glorious thing!

One of the things that signalled to me that we’re well on our way toward our ideals being our reality came when I began participating in our denomination-wide Bible study series. The model is for a class of six to fifteen students (twelve is ideal), with a teacher who has been trained but who functions more as a facilitator; a wonderful cadre of well-respected experts provide the weekly video lecture. Each study in the series is nine months long. Students and teacher covenant together to complete the prescribed weekly Scripture readings and prepare answers to the study questions, which are not easy-answer, fill-in-the-blank exercises, but challenge the participant to pray, confess, think, repent, and put that week’s readings into practice in our lives.

While nothing in the model prohibits a one-sex-only class, I’ve only worked with classes comprised of men and women together. I was struck the very first year by how close the class became! And the study doesn’t avoid the delicate issues, either. There were blunt questions about sexual purity, marital fidelity (not merely the sexual aspect of it), and that most private of all…tithing! No one was ever forced to reveal the answers he or she had written, but it was understood that we would each complete the written work. There was a remarkable bond that developed, knowing that every other participant had read the relevant Scripture and wrestled with the same questions.

It’s not that participants didn’t notice one another as men and women, but that we noticed far more the common humanity we shared. We shared life-changing, fervent prayer for each other, not only each week when we met for study, but also, as covenanted, daily intercessory prayer. I became convinced that one of the most powerful forces for growing committed Christian disciples was the committed, deep study and application of Scripture in a small- to medium-sized group, steeped in prayer. Every class I participated in, as student and as teacher, became like a true family to one another.

That made me realize that enforced gender segregation to the extent that it usually happens in non-egalitarian evangelical churches (as participants in such churches have described and as my own website research has borne out) is simply not natural. If human beings are born into, grow up in, and create new families of male and female together, why would the church family reject that model in favor of a boys’ or girls’ club? Images of Our Gang come to mind (anyone remember the “He-Man Woman Haters Club”?). That may not be entirely fair, but that is what it often resembles to me. And setting aside for a moment the obvious wisdom of certain same-sex accountability groups in which sexual or body-related battles against sin are waged, I believe that avoidance of the hard work of forging a relationship with both brothers and sisters ultimately impoverishes the church. It’s too hard or scary or dangerous because we think it’s too hard, scary, or dangerous. Why should a brother be afraid of sisters who love him, or a sister of brothers? I’ve seen first-hand how well it can work to include both men and women in a common curriculum of in-depth, rock-solid Bible study. The church benefits, the students and their families benefit, and the community in which they live and work benefits. There’s simply no down-side. And I would also add that it keeps men and women from that insidious trap of saving the “deep theological” study for the men, while the women study homemaking and husband-pleasing, and both mistaking such study for Bible study. There’s a place for such study, but in addition to, not instead of, committed study of the word of God.

Comment by Liz

March 21, 2009 @ 12:36 am

Mary..you are just so blessed to be in a church which operates like that (biblically I believe) The way you describe it sounds very healthy and certainly something for others to work towards. When we had weekly bible study groups (home groups, care groups or whatever name was popular at the time) people who attended were there because they were willing to share, be exposed by the word and hopefully to be gently encouraged. We all learnt so much by listening to each other and were mutually delighted to see each other discover God’s heart for us all. We can’t force people to be open but we can provide safe, accepting groups for people to take the risk of sharing.

Also, for 30+ years I ran a ‘daytime study group’ I refused to call it a ‘women’s bible study’ even though it was nearly always women who attended. The only man who consistently attended for a season was mentally unwell so perhaps some people would have thought that he didn’t ‘count’….so sad!

We learn best in a mixed group I feel. Different genders, income levels, education levels, racial mix etc. but I do agree that for extra sensitive issues there would be times for a small group or one on one counselling by a person of the same gender.

Comment by Frank

March 21, 2009 @ 4:44 pm

Hello again, my friends. I see from the recent comments made by Gloria, Donald, Sonnet, Mary and Liz that we all seem to be thinking along the same lines about ending this forced and artifical gender division in the churches that hinders the Body of Christ from working together to both proclaim the Gospel and to further the concerns of God’s Kingom. And so I would like to say a little more about my ideas on “The Blessed Alliance Project” I started to outline in my previous comment (88962).

“The Blessed Alliance” Defined:

But for some who don’t know what I mean by the “Blessed Alliance,” perhaps I should begin by saying a little more what it is. And here I will quote from Carolyn James’ own THE GOSPEL OF RUTH, which has so influenced and shaped my own understand of this concept. Concerning Gen. 1:26-31 and 2:20-25, James says:

When God created the man and the woman, “God BLESSED them” (emphasis added) before giving them their mission to “be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground” (Genesis 1:28). Men and women are God’s A-Team, called to join together as a Blessed Alliance in this global mission to fill the whole earth with worshippers of the living God and to rule the earth as he would–with justice, mercy, righteousness, and peace (For more of the Blessed Alliance, see James, LOST WOMEN of the BIBLE, pp. 37-38).

And to make clear that this is an alliance of equals, who will join forces and give, each of them, their all to further God’s Kingdom purposes, the author explains that both men and women are to be warriors, according to Gen. 2:18:

Ezer (pronounced azer with a long sounding a, as in razor) is a powerful Hebrew military word that is used most often in the Bible to describe God as Israel’s helper. God employs the term twice when he creates the woman. “The LORD God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper [ezer] suitable for him.’” (Genesis 2:18, also 20). The Bible’s consistent use of ezer within a military context has led [scholars] to the conclusion that God created the woman to be a warrior alongside the man in advancing God’s kingdom in the earth. This is every woman’s calling, regardless of her age, marital status, or circumstances. Every woman is an ezer from birth to death. We are warriors for God’s purposes alongside our brothers in Christ (Gospel of Ruth, p.211).

Well, I am at the library, and they are telling us the computers will shut down in a minute or two. To be continued.

Comment by Frank

March 22, 2009 @ 2:32 pm

Since I have the time today, I wish to follow up yesterday’s comment (88971). There I had explained my understanding of “The Blessed Alliance,” which Carolyn James had defined in her book, THE GOSPEL OF RUTH:LOVING GOD ENOUGH TO BREAK THE RULES. But in today’s comment I want to consider Stephen Boyd’s guidelines for “co-ed groups.”

I envision the “Blessed Alliance Project” groups not only promoting healing and reconciliation between Christian men and women deeply hurt by the violent, reductionist nature of patriarchal socialization and conditioning, but enabling them to fully restore and activate “the Blessed Alliance” in our homes and churches that will powerfully advance the truth, justice, righteousness, and peace of God’s kingdom in our communties. But this has to occur under the guidance and enablement of the Holy Spirit, and in “co-ed groups” that incorporate these guidelines, as Boyd outlines them:

It is helpful not only to develop personal, individual friendships with women, but also to participate in groups where there is sufficient safety for us to be honest with one another. In fact, this might be a good place for some men to start. We need cross-gender groups where we can explore with each other who we are, what has hurt us, and whom we hope to become. This is difficult, because we tend to shame each other when we get together to talk about things that really matter to us. You know how that goes. Men say things like women are too emotional, irrational, nagging, naive, manipulative, etc. Women say things like men are too overbearing, condescending, silent, violent, etc. On and on it goes. We tend, with such accusations being hurled about, to shut down or become defensive and attack. To see each other more clearly, we need to learn to talk with some mutual respect and empathy. We need a ‘demilitarized zone,” or sanctuary, that calls a halt to the rhetorical violence we aim at each other so we can experiece enough safety to begin to be honest and even vulnerable with one another. Again,we might construct such a ritual space with certain rules that we can all agree upon (p.220)

Here Boyd says something that we all appear to agree on, for us to experience healing and reconciliation, as well as to restore and revitalize the Blessed Alliance, we need an agreed upon meeting place or sanctuary, where we committ to mutual love, respect, and honor for each other as wounded warriors, and follow mutually agreed upon rules of engagement. Then he says regarding the organization and activities of these “reconciliation groups”:

In what might be called “gender reconciliation groups,” it is important to have male and female co-facilitators. You might begin by reading material from women’s perspectives and from men’s perspectives. When the group meets, divide it into two subgroups–the men and the women. At times you will want to meet together and at other times in the same-sex groups. In the latter, participants can speak more freely about their concerns without fearing that they will offend the other group or be shamed by it. In these same-sex groups, led by the same-sex facilitator, you might make a list of questions for the other sex on whatever the group is considering that day. When the two groups come together, sit interspersed and have the female facilitator ask the men the first question. As the men answer, the women keep quiet and listen respectfully, except to clarify something that might be unclear about the question. The men should be as honest as they feel comfortable being. Sometimes a man might say, “Some men I know think this or that or do this or that.” That way he can be honest about patterns he might share but doesn’t have to be put on the spot about it. When the men are answering, the male facilitator can encourage them to be honest and gently challenge them when he feels that they are putting up false appearances. After every man has had an opportunity to speak, the male facilitator asks the men’s first question of the women, and the procedure is repeated, with the same rules (p.221).

And then Boyd lays down two ground rules. However, I must quit for now to take care of some pressing errands. To be continued…

Comment by Lin

March 22, 2009 @ 8:36 pm

You know what would be interesting to do in these groups, Frank? To do a revised gender neutral SWOP analysis that is anonymous. Have the cross gender groups write their responses to the revised prompts, and then when they are brought out and discussed the group ‘owns’ it. Not the individual who wrote it. The group has to deal with it respectfully.

We used to do this in training and we could hardly ever tell which ones came from females or males unless it was acknowledged. I used to think about this (even though gender was NOT the reason for the training..it was in strategic planning sessions for companies) and marvel that you could not tell what issues came from a male or female. That was the beginning of my questioning gender cliches and these sharp roles and non biological attributes of gender.

That would be an interesting ice breaker!

Comment by Frank

March 23, 2009 @ 12:00 pm

Lin, your idea about a “revised gender neutral SWOP analysis” (88974)is wonderful! I wish I could have come up with it myself. But this just confirms, I think, that whether it’s writing books and pamphlets, or developing “gender reconciliation groups,” more than one person needs to be involved in coming up with ideas and then making them practical.

Now, I don’t know if the people connected with the CBE conference on gender issues, which is meeting in St. Louis this July, have been following these blog comments, but maybe Liz and Trevor could summarize the best of the best,and pass them on?

Oh, while I have time, I want to share Boyd’s two ground rules for “gender reconciliation groups” that are appropo for the “Blessed Alliance Project,” and then maybe briefly outline Phase 2 of the BA project, as I see it. Here are Boyd’s ground rules:

If the group is an ongoing group, I have found that a couple of other ground rules are important. First, what is said in the group is held in confidence, or at least, the content of any person’s contribution is not shared with his or her name attached to it or anything else that might identify that person. Second, it is best, for the duration of the group, for the members not to develop a new sexual or romantic relationship with someone else in the group. This will be tempting to do, because the participants will feel close, perhaps closer than they have ever felt, to members of the opposite sex. However, sexual/romantic relations and the dynamics they often bring with them can have a chilling effect on the group. What often happens in groups like this is that men get a glimpse into the world of women and women get a glimpse into the world of men. We begin to become less mysterious to one another as we begin to understand what causes some of the feelings, thoughts, and behaviors that too often have been hurtful to us. We see that persons of the other sex often don’t want to act in ways that are hurtful to us, themselves, and others. In such groups we can learn to love one another, not for the neurotic needs the other might meet, but for who that person really is and wants to become; we can learn to be allies for each other against the “principalities and powers” that too often pit us against one another. In other words, such groups can be sacramental places where we can begin to see each other more clearly and slowly learn to “love our enemies” (Boyd, p. 221)

These ground rules seem biblical, rational, and practical to me. But since Mary, Trevor and Liz have more years experience in “mixed group” facilitation than I do, they may have ideas on how to improve or strengthen these rules so that the groups produce real healing and reconciliation, as well as equipping men and women to effectively enter into Blessed Alliances?

In Phase Two of the “Blessed Alliance Project,” assuming that, by God’s transforming grace having been fully unleashed by the Holy Spirit, and that true healing and reconciliation between Christian men and women has occurred, the focus would be on building strong marriages and families. Here such resources as Susan Gundry’s ALL THAT WE’RE MEANT TO BE, Mary Stuart Van Leeuwen’s GRACE AND GENDER: LOVE, PARENTING, AND WORK IN A CHANGING WORLD, Graig Keener’s AND MARRIES ANOTHER: NT TEACHING ON DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE,and Steven Tracy’s MENDING THE SOUL: HEALING ABUSE AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. The concern here is primarily that for the Church’s mission to the world to be credible and effective, we truly have to put our own marriages, families, and churches in proper order. For, whether we be complementarians or egalitarians, the manifest disorders in our own marriages, families and churches make our proclamations on what makes a good and strong marriage, family, freedom from abuse and domestic violence come across to our non-Christian friends as very shallow and hypocritcal. So we wind up profaning our Lord and his Gospel in their eyes. This should not be, and it is why those, having entered into a Blessed Alliance with God and one another, must aggressively and effectively deal with these issues first.

As far as Phase Three of “The Blessed Alliance Project” is concerned, using various resources, the Blessed Alliance groups and their members would consider the challenges the Church faces in connection with the application of the Gospel to key spiritual, social, and political issues: e.g., evangelism and discipleship; pornography and human trafficking; racism and sexism; ecology and economics–to mention a few. And at this point, the BA groups might consider how to form alliances with other Evangelical Christians who, though not convinced egalitarians, yet share similar views on these other key aspects of the Church’s mission to the world. But here is where other people’s ideas and advice would come into play.

Lastly, as one who served on our church’s Adult/Youth Education Committee and helped develop a three year training and discipleship program, I believe a one to three year program for this project is feasible. The only other thing I think needs to be done would for a diverse group of scholars and writers–in terms of their different marital status, race and gender, perhaps–to take some of the resource materials I have mentioned and turn them into study guides for the BA groups which address the concerns that Christians, because of their differences in marital status, race and gender might have and desire answers for. But here I may be wrong; so your advice is appreciated. Well, there is my grand plan, such as it is, for the “Blessed Alliance Project.” Thanks for letting me share it with you.

Comment by Caroline SC

March 24, 2009 @ 2:57 pm

Are we to focus more on similarities or differences? Someone with a unique perspective on this issue once observed, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” We’re made of the same ’stuff,’ the same genetic material. Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen’s book, “Gender and Grace” looks more closely at how we are “more alike than different” (p.54). We are even more similar biologically than what was previously thought.

I think we need to work toward reclaiming what God originally intended for us – male and female in his image and with the same calling, working together. I agree wholeheartedly with Frank that it’s a beautiful thing to see women and men working, learning and growing together – the Blessed Alliance. (I love Carolyn Custis James’ books too!) I think groups that welcome all should be the “default position,” as Teresa put it. I’m confident that there won’t be any gender segregation when Christ comes again. In the meantime, we need to sometimes make accommodations in this fallen world. That’s why gendered accountability groups are sometimes necessary and helpful, for safety and protection, especially for certain individuals. But the ideal is to be one in the body of Christ.

So I’ll probably go to our church’s women’s retreat in a few weeks because God has done tremendous things through these in my life in the past. But I’ll secretly – or maybe not so secretly – be wishing that men were there too.

Comment by Robyn

March 24, 2009 @ 3:37 pm

Can we expect that our churches will undergo this kind of transformational culture shift in our generation?

I really hope so. I pray for it.

I, too, am confident that there will not be any gender bias or segregation in God’s kingdom, when Christ returns. As there is none in heaven.

Comment by joanne

March 25, 2009 @ 7:44 am

I get so frustrated about this issue. I am in a transitional context around women in ministry. But on marriage the heirarchy paradigm still reigns on the congregation. (illogical to me) Recently a pastor brought up the Love/Respect book and asked me what I thought of it. I said I didn’t like it… he asked me why but then proceeded to tell me why it was the correct view. While he asked my opinon, he did not stop to actually hear it. This is what I run into… around anything related to gender, marriage, or women in ministry. I can’t seem to get my perspective heard… i mean really heard.

I want enough respect to have my voice have some weight in a discussion and not be discounted or dismissed as immediately off base. (in the church and among ministry colleagues). I just want a chance to define my perspective without judgement.

Most marriage books are couched in assumptions that men and women are entirely different and have entirely different needs. Most marriage books are couched in assumptions that there is a God-ordained heirarchy in which men lead and women submit. Most marriage books are couched in the assumptions that men and women cannot define their own needs… some expert needs to define, “what a man needs.” and “what a woman needs.” (instead of teaching men and women to listen to their own needs and say them… we teach men and women to rely on an expert to tell them.)

Then there is the final blow. All of these things are said to be Biblical… essentially placing the command of God behind their writing. Who can argue with that? discussion ends.

I feel totally rebuffed and unheard. AFter a while, this gets old.

I like Franks idea of gender reconciliation groups. But I think the church is a long way off from even wanting the dialogue.

Comment by joanne

March 25, 2009 @ 7:57 am

One more assumption of most Christian marriage books…. The assumption is that God created men and women different. There is no discussion of social development among human beings within a cultural context. There is only one possible reason men and women are different… God did it, because God ordained the order of marriage and created beings accordingly. (they forget that God also delegated authority to humans to govern and fill the earth–essentially creating cultures which are tainted by sin after the fall)

Sorry for sounding off… but i wish there would be more critical thinking around this.

Comment by Donald Guffey

March 25, 2009 @ 9:08 am

Joanne I too share your frustration about our viewpoint not being heard. I’ll never forget the this one incident that happened to me not long ago. I was in a small group Bible study and prayer meeting. It was at a local church the pastor of which I think very highly of. Anyway the meeting was amazing and I had a wonderful time. Things went south though in the conversations that followed the meeting. I brought up a conversation I had with a friend via facebook chat in which she told me she was having issues in her relationship because she was more spiritually mature than her boyfriend and she thought this was a major problem since she thought that the man should be the most spritually mature.(you can imagine the thoughts going through my mind during this) any way I told here it didn’t matter who was the most mature and this is what I told to the group when I was informed by the pastor that it did matter! Then the conversation turned into the most textbook arguments for the patriarchal ( I’m sorry if that is not spelled correctly I’m typing on a computer without a spell checker) I have ever had the misfortune to hear. I was even more frustated at their tone as if they were instructing me on the proper view. One woman said that a man was the head of the household and when I disagreed the pastor said ” well then you disagree with the Bible” My feelings were hurt for a long time after that. Oh and just on a side note the ‘best’ comment that was made was ” Man was made in the image of God and Woman was made in the image of a man” ( Yes I am totally serious). I still went to the studies and continued to have wonderful experiences I just never brought the subject up again, so I share your frustrations and you know I’m just ornery enough to make my voice heard whether they want to shut me up or not. My goodness if the Liberal media hasn’t killed ann coulter yet, then we should be able to say what we want. What’s the worse they can do; say we are wrong – honey, been there, done that, bought the tshirt and we are still here. Keep fighting sister one day we will be heard.

Comment by joanne

March 25, 2009 @ 9:36 am

thanks, Donald. I hear ya–thanks for hearing me.

I read in one of those marriage books that the husband should be more spiritually mature than the woman too and know the bible better. I sooo revolted because, I went to seminary and studied the bible for 5 years. My husband is a wonderful godly person but not the scholarly type–spiritually mature in his way. It was a slam for both of us.

It’s the generalizations and the little laws. I think the scope of the bible is about discernment and listening to the Spirit as we read the Bible. I feel like many of my christian bros and sisters… go to the text and find little laws upon which they build their apriori views.

Glad you brought out that it comes from women too. Some of the most difficult conversations I have are with women.

Comment by Caroline SC

March 25, 2009 @ 10:05 am

I have a real problem with the “Love and Respect” concept too. My sister went to one of their conferences and asked me to have a look at their website to see what I thought. It sets up such a dichotomy between men and women. The video clips of their conference (go to the Media Link) are extremely condescending towards women. See in particular the one called “Worst Meal Ever!” where he mimics a wife – Yikes!

I think that they’ve given themselves the wrong name. A more appropriate name would be “Love OR Respect” because they emphasize that we need either love OR respect, totally depending on what sex we are. My husband and I discussed this and I guess we’re either selfish and greedy, or not manly/womanly enough, because each of us would like to be BOTH loved AND respected. But then, according to their system, we’re not able to define our own needs. (Thanks, Joanne, for that insight!)

Comment by Frank

March 25, 2009 @ 4:12 pm

Our pastor has given a good series of sermons on forgiveness and reconciliation, based on a book, THE PEACEMAKERS. Then in April, after showing the film, “Fireproof,” and using the DARE TO LOVE DIARY as a reference point, he will give a series of sermons on how singles and married couples can strengthen their relationships through self-giving love, if I understand the underlying principle correctly. Are any of you familiar with this film and the accompanying study materials? Is this another “slick” presentation of complementarianism? I would like to know if it is worthwhile seeing and participating in or not. So if anyone has any information, please let me know. Thanks.

Comment by Liz

March 25, 2009 @ 4:56 pm

Joanne – you don’t have to apologise for ’sounding off’ as this is the safe place to do it (as long as it is done respectfully of those who differ in their opinions. We need somewhere to express hurt, frustration and sadness for all that is happening in the Christian world in regard to gender issues.

We have also consistently found that even where their is progress being made with women being able to participate in church meetings, the home is the place where hierarchy reigns. Only this week I have had an email which has given me that horrible feeling in the pit of my stomach (again) A friend who is so obviously gifted and is used of God amazingly has been slowly accepting over the years that she is ‘allowed’ to do many things which her denomination had told her was a man’s domain. However…..in the area of the home she is still bothered by young women who have ‘feminism tendencies’ and has asked me how I would interpret Titus 2. I rather feel that our email conversations will be cut short now as my views have been put in the ‘feminism basket’. What a shame! We are about the same age but I don’t think I will be considered a Titus 2 woman anymore.

Comment by jlp

March 25, 2009 @ 5:58 pm

Joanne,

Recently a pastor brought up the Love/Respect book and asked me what I thought of it. I said I didn’t like it… he asked me why but then proceeded to tell me why it was the correct view.

Can you go back to this pastor and tell him you didn’t get to express your thoughts on this book? Or email him. Either way find a way to express your thoughts on this book to him. He needs your input to be a good pastor. He needs your input whether he wants it or not.

Comment by jlp

March 25, 2009 @ 6:01 pm

I still haven’t gotten around to figuring out why men wouldn’t want love as much as respect, and why women wouldn’t want respect as much as love.

It’s a crazy dichotomy! But for now it’s making some people a lot of money.

Comment by joanne

March 25, 2009 @ 10:26 pm

JLP… i would like to speak with him. I don’t know how to reach him. But i will pray for another opportunity.

Sometimes, i choose to engage, other times i choose not to engage. it’s a judgement call. But I admit, that it hurt more than i thought at the time.

Comment by Sonnet

March 26, 2009 @ 12:06 am

Love OR respect? It sounds sort of like a *Sophie’s Choice* – an unfair and impossible decision. During times when I did not feel respected by my husband, it made me feel unloved by him as well. I just can NOT separate the two.

I remember reading in this book a couple of Bible verses (1 Peter 2:17-18) chopped up and spliced together. You couldn’t see from his text that the second part was written for slaves. The author was directing that verse specifically to wives as evidence that God requires wives to show unconditional respect towards their husbands who, he believes, are in a hierarchy over them.

I find it ironic that verse 17, which he only partially quoted from, instructs us to give both love AND respect.

“Show proper respect to everyone, love your fellow believers, fear God, honor the emperor. Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.” 1 Peter 2:17-18 TNIV

Comment by Lin

March 27, 2009 @ 11:23 pm

” Man was made in the image of God and Woman was made in the image of a man”

Donald, this is a big teaching where I live coming out of a certain seminary. I have asked those who teach this if the Image of God comes from dirt. :o)

But then again, they are just ignoring Gen 1.

Comment by Jamie

March 29, 2009 @ 8:29 pm

This is really a very big shame. I don’t understand why people (including in the Church) can’t let other people be who they are (whether male or female/man or woman).

Why is that so difficult to understand? Why look at someone by GENDER before ever considering them a human being created by God first?

Why exacerbate, emphasize, and MAXIMIZE “differences” between genders instead of bringing us all together in Christ? Paul certainly didn’t want division and I can’t imagine our High Priest does either.

Not only is their thinking/peculiar theology blatantly wrong Scripturally (look into the original koine Greek; and Christians historically didn’t read the original Hebrew because of anti-Semitism or they just couldn’t read at all!), but also this is such legalism too.

The nitpicking on prescribed “roles” because supposedly God wants it that way (when the word “role” is nowhere in the Bible and is applied here as a new, 20th century false theological construct in reaction to social changes of the 60s and 70s). These folks really, ACTUALLY believe they’re the only ones speaking for God!

You think you speak for God? No, when I pray for you I’m going to REPORT you to God. For what? Theft! You’re stealing the God-given value and worth that countless women have in Christ. Amen.

It’s either this, the racial prejudice (and yes, that exists in the Church too), and the lack of focus on other social injustices/oppression and poverty that the Bible mentions in over 2100 verses that’s ignored and that makes me sick. And, of course, I’m saddened.

This is what Christianity has come to?

More than ever before, as God works with us like Potter to clay, through history, there is no excuse for these kinds of prejudices, including extreme gender bias. It’s time to grow up. Paul would understand. (1 Cor. 13:11)

Donald Guffey said:

“Oh and just on a side note the ‘best’ comment that was made was ” Man was made in the image of God and Woman was made in the image of a man” ( Yes I am totally serious).”

Yeah, that had to be the good one of the night.

They didn’t even get the text right. Woman is the “glory” man. There is nothing about her being his “image”. (1 Cor. 11:7)

Yes, I guess they just ignored Gen. 1:27 then??

Unfortunately, that’s not atypical with them.

Then just one verse later, Paul apparently considers whatever comes out of something else its “glory” (or — the best part coming out of the original). (1 Cor. 11:8). Such as a woman’s HAIR coming out of her, her glory. (1 Cor. 11:15)

So yes woman is man’s glory — like hair!

I’m amused and yet I’m crying:

So very often the people who most claim to hold so tightly to Scripture don’t even accurately capture the text they say they have such a high regard for . . . !

Caroline SC said:

“A more appropriate name would be “Love OR Respect” because they emphasize that we need either love OR respect, totally depending on what sex we are.”

I’m not familiar with this book but I am with the notion that women/wives are to only respect their husbands while the husbands are to only love their wives (or something to the effect that this matters the most to each gender — that is, that the difference is mentioned . . .)

And, of course, if you don’t like that, then the implication is that there is something wrong with you, you’re not wanting what God wants, etc.

I have no idea where people come from with these ridiculous ideas. I really don’t. Just off the wall. As if love AND respect aren’t priorities for BOTH wives and husbands?

Well, they couldn’t have gotten it from Scripture . . .because in Titus 2:4, older women are to teach younger women to LOVE their husbands . . .and in 1 Pet. 3:7 we learn that husbands are to RESPECT their wives!

Wow! I guess husbands and wives are to both LOVE and RESPECT each other. : ) I suppose it must be important to both of them (and, of course, to God).

The next time someone voices support for this particular theology on marriage they should be asked to look up the divorce rate of athiests vs. conservative (or traditional, complementarian, etc.) Christians.

Yes, I know the athiest couples are going to hell — but they’re going to hell with their first marriages intact!

Regrettably, I’d be more inclined to take marriage advice from an athiest couple than anyone who supported a setup that enlarges gender differences in the home or Church. The complementarians just don’t have the proof of reality to back themselves up with for what it takes to have a truly successful marriage.

Comment by Sarah

March 30, 2009 @ 12:50 am

Lin – “does the image of God come from dirt?” At last – a key from the Bible which further clarifies the great mysteries of gender theology! God is not only masculine, he’s silicon based! This sheds new light on such passages as the great promise to the patriarch Jacob in Gen. 28:14, that his descendants would be “like the dust of the earth.” Jesus’ honoring of Simon with the new name of Peter (the Rock) takes on new significance, as do all of the references to Christ as our cornerstone, rock, and foundation! Men are generally heavier than women physically as befits their more mineral nature, and are more drawn to jobs like mining, stone cutting, geology, and tech careers involving silicon chips, proving yet again that they are to be the high priests of church and home. Women, secondarily in God’s image and easily deceived (evidenced by creation order, Eve’s sin, softer skin, and the almost universal female habit of removing dirt from many surfaces) must not usurp men’s leadership and adamant authority.

Comment by Sarah

March 30, 2009 @ 12:52 am

I don’t know why no one has seen this before :-P

Comment by Sarah

March 30, 2009 @ 12:59 am

in the previous post, the last phrase should be “and Adam’s adamant authority.” Scary how far out the rabbit trail can run . . .

Comment by leigh

April 16, 2009 @ 9:12 am

Thank you, Jaime! (89009) I just sent an e-mail to the last pastor I heard use wedding vows in which the woman pledged to “respect” the man and the man pledged to “love” the woman. (It’s not completely random, as he is also my former pastor.)

I’m glad to read that folks here are interested in reducing the amount of separation of the sexes. I think some separation along the lines of sex is fine, but it can be taken too far. The reasoning nearly always given at my last church was that the men wouldn’t be comfortable talking about their pornography problem(s) if they were in a mixed-sex group. As I type that, I note that it sounds ridiculous enough to almost not need further comment.

That makes it sound as though: !) Every man in the church has a pornography problem, 2) He’d want to talk about it at every group with which he met, and 3) the presence of women would prevent the men from doing this. Hmmmmm……

And while I know that it is no guarantee, I still wonder whether interacting with women as fellow human beings made in the image of God (e.g., in Christian groups rather than “just” in society in general) might be a part of recovering from a pornography problem/addiction.

Comment by Robyn

May 5, 2009 @ 12:08 pm

I am NOT going to the “Women’s Conference” at my church this weekend on the topic of the “four soils”. Why have a “Women’s Conference” in the first place? Is there some gender-based teaching that can only be imparted to women? Nope. I think it’s because this is the only chance women have to teach. Other women. Since the church won’t allow them to teach in any other context. It really bothers me.

Comment by leigh

May 5, 2009 @ 2:26 pm

That’s a really good point, Robyn (89188). Huh. I hadn’t really thought of it that way, before. But yes…certainly not allowing men to benefit from the teaching of women could *lead* to greater sex segregation than there would be, otherwise.

Perhaps this helps explain why the women’s ministry at my former church was so much more active than the men’s ministry.

Comment by Dorcas

May 7, 2009 @ 5:34 pm

Chiming in late here. What an interesting discussion. Trevor, I posted a link to this since I am pondering some similar stuff over at my blog.

Regarding “Fireproof”–we saw it, and I was surprised. Pleasantly so. While not specifically egalitarian, it is not another slick presentation of complimentarianism either. It is not Oscar worthy movie making, but it is a good discussion starter. The main focus was the responsibility to LOVE.

How the material is presented is, of course, going to depend somewhat on the point of reference of the presenter. I resigned the pastorate of my church before I could do so, but I had planned something similar.

I hope you are pleased with what your pastor does, or were, if it has happened already.

And Trevor–excellent points. Yes, we have created an artificial environment. Can it change in this generation? I doubt it. I hope so, but I am not optimistic.

Comment by Sonnet

May 29, 2009 @ 8:35 pm

Yesterday I heard an announcement on a Christian radio station that Promise Keepers is inviting women to attend their conference event this year.

I found the following quote at http://townhall.com/news/religion/2009/04/20/promise_keepers_welcome_women_to_summer_conference

“It’s time for Promise Keepers men to step up and honor women,” Raleigh Washington, the group’s president, said Monday. “We’re going to heal the gender divide that exists in America.”

Does anyone know what their plans include to heal the divide? I checked their (PK) website and saw that they will be having one female conference speaker and eight male speakers. Perhaps this is a baby step forward, but it feels to me like a token gesture.

Also, the article wrote, “Washington said it hasn’t been decided whether women will be welcome at future events.”

I’m wondering how the divide will be healed if they reapply segregation after this conference.