said that “we need to come from the Word” but still accommodate people’s
understanding and feelings. The language of your letter suggests to me that
you find the change-advocates guilty of this unfaithfulness to the doctrine, or
capitulation to our emotional prejudice.
I’ve heard this warning many times. I’ve been told my conclusions are
not legitimate because I am led by my feelings, influenced by the progressive
sensibilities of my modern generation, or that I just don’t believe in the
Writings. Because of these accusations, I feel like I can’t state any belief without
adding, as I did above, “I do think this perspective is supported by doctrine.”
I am sad that this constant defense is necessary. I wish I was given
the benefit of the doubt, and I wish the same on behalf of all the women’s
ordination advocates. We have amassed a huge body of writing, hundreds of
thousands of words, meticulously researched and carefully composed. We are
well-educated and very committed to the truth. Please take care not to belittle
or dismiss our efforts.
As a tangent to my mention of our extensive research, your summary of
the leading arguments against women’s ordination struck me as inappropriate
for this communication. The points you touched on were very elementary, and
they are the same ones we have heard for years. We have painstakingly – and
in my opinion, very convincingly – dismantled each argument in our papers
and online essays.
Your letter did not address any of our counter arguments that have been
presented in the last few years, and as such it felt condescending to have these
same worn, over-simplified points repeated in such an authoritative document.
It would have been better to leave the doctrinal case aside for another, much
more comprehensive paper. I do hope we will eventually see such a document
explaining why our recent papers were deemed unconvincing.
On page five of your letter, you said: “The unique traits of the feminine
mind bring a warmth and connectedness to church life that could not exist
otherwise, in addition to their perceptions from their loves and the Word.”
On the following page, you talk about the sense that women’s “more subtle”
contributions are undervalued, and you express the need to more “overtly
honor the feminine.”
These phrases rankle. Women are ready to be honored for the sharpness
of our minds, for our intellect, for our insight, for our brilliance, and for our
leadership capacity. We need to be honored for our whole selves, as human
beings. We are not here in this church to passively imbue it with “the feminine,”
like a space heater in a cold room. Your language sends the message that you
have no room for women to exert their intellectual and leadership ability in
this church, but that you will try to help us feel better in our traditional passive
role.
517