A FUNDAMENTALIST DETOUR

PART ONE

Churchianity
 It was the early 90's.  We belonged to and were active in a lovely little fellowship.  Potlucks, ice cream socials, Vacation bible School and quaint women's singing clubs were the order of the day.  We camped together, celebrated Holidays together, played softball in the park on lazy Sunday afternoons. Our children put on charming Christmas pageants. We had a safe little niche. Being a part of this group made it anesthetically easy to forget that we lived in a world that desperately needed grace. Without a doubt, we certainly had an affinity for one another. When someone inside the fellowship had a need, the members rallied around and did what they could to meet that need, whether it was, doing handy jobs or providing groceries.  As insiders, we were well taken care of.  We loved each other, as the Bible said we should.

The Religiously "Right"
 But our perspective on strangers, people different from us, was not quite as hospitable.  Judgment and American Nationalism were forces which flavored our mission.  One fellow member said that the church was run by "rabid Republicans".  Seemingly, social justice, if done at all, was done for the reward of self-satisfaction or recognition, rather than truly being motivated by grace and mercy.  Our church had a fortress mindset.  "We", (very much including "I,") tried earnestly to fight immorality by judging it and "contending for the faith" against it. Those of us who led adult studies, vigorously and obsessively studied apologetics and how to answer the cults.  We wanted to defend the truth against all forms of relativism and heresy.  We had to be prepared for the attacks of secular humanism and psychology as well as the false doctrines of the Latter Day Saints and JWs.  We led crusades of morality to prevent questionable movies from being attended at our theaters or to prevent worldly, fleshly businesses (bars, strip clubs, etc) from becoming established in our town.  No one ever suggested that we consider moving out, into our community to actually engage people relationally in dialogue about the ideas and services they were consuming. Our social lives existed in the church and we were too busy with those functions to be able to cultivate friendships with neighbors or co-workers or classmates, let alone strangers. We were busy defending our bubble from intrusion by the world.  These conditions created the perfect storm for people within to begin to experience a sense of being constricted, judged and inferior.   What we were projecting outwardly was taking its toll inwardly.  Despite all of our opportunities to "fellowship," isolation rather than community seemingly was becoming the prevailing experience.

Familiarity
 I began to feel perplexed by our church's lack of reach and influence or real care for the broken. Things didn't match what I had come to believe church should be.  However, my staunch devotion to denomination, in this case Quakers, didn't afford me enough perspective to adequately sort out my misgivings.  My husband and I were both raised within Quaker circles, I in the Midwest and he in the Pacific Northwest. Quakers, though they exhibit dissimilarities with one another according to region, are a small and tight enough bunch that the networks therein don't really have too many degrees of separation. Upon our transplantation to Southern California, it was easy enough to settle into a semi-familiar community of faith.  As the case may be, the pastor had been acquainted at different points in time with each of our families. Given both their proximity to our residence and their designation as a Friends, AKA Quaker meeting, we took it as "given" that it was the "church home" for us.

Jesus Freaks
 To some degree, I literally grew up in the Jesus movement of the 70s. When I was a little kid, I witnessed my parents' ministries as Friends pastors doing genuine outreach and hospitality to all kinds of people, but mostly to the marginalized.  Their home, my earliest childhood home, was a frequent haven and stopping place for tentative young hippies leaving behind their drug culture but searching out their place within the faith in Jesus they were arriving at.  They, the hippies, came to our house for Dr Pepper, Doritos and Jesus Rock, as well as counsel and Bible Study.  Bearded young men and women in wooden  butterfly chignon holders, embroidered blue jeans, fringed leather jackets, and bare feet  converged on our house to read the Bible, talk about Jesus and sing their style of music.  Occasionally, we'd go "on the road" with some of the musicians, as my dad perfomed concerts and introduced people to the Jesus they sang about.  In those days I witnessed a lot of conversions.  That was my earliest culture of faith. I have only come to learn in my mid-life that those people, who so represented people of faith to me when I was a child, had had a difficult time with assimilation into predominant church culture. I had always assumed that their sold-out ways were the ways of Jesus' people universally. They were outsiders to traditional church, but I grew up on the inside of their culture as a child sitting around campfires, listening to testimonies of teens and young adults, watching my dad and other young men reach "kids" with Jesus-Haleluia-Praise music.

Is "emergent" a bad word?
As I emerged into my teen years my summer camp experiences in the 80's were not only influenced but directed personally by the likes of Rich Mullins and Tony Campolo.  Rich was a singer songwriter who's compositions have been made famous by Michael W. Smith - "Awesome God" and Amy Grant - "Doubly Good".  As I read through much of the emerging literature on Christian Spirituality, I am frequently tickled to find mention of Rich and his compassionate/passionate devotion to Jesus.  He is recognized as a great and humble man of faith, with passionate devotion to Christian social justice.  Frankly, as a teen under his leadership, I found him to be blunt and condescending at times.  During a talk he gave at one of our camps a friend and I were exchanging words, and he called us out, "Hey you, in the pink shirt and matching lipstick!"  He wanted us to pay attention, and he wasn't nice about it.  I must have simultaneously resented that and paid closer attention to what he said because on at least one other occasion I can remember publicly debating his ideas about self-image and worth.  He was anti-consumerist when consumerism was a hallmark of virtue.   Again this was the eighties.  During a period of "me-ism" in our culture, he suggested that youth should be humble. That we should promote the worth of people otherwise deemed worthless and therefore disposable by the world.  I didn't get it at the time.  He wasn't saying we were worthless but rather that our worth was infinitely deeper than how well we conformed to commodification.  He wanted us to be concerned with deeper meaning than whether our lipstick matched our shirts.  He wanted us to question the nonsense L'oreal was trying to sell us about "I'm worth it."  Rich purposefully lived a life of voluntary poverty in our faces to cause us to reflect on the poor and broken who weren't volunteering to be so.

Profanity - more than words
Likewise, Tony Campolo addressed my Friends peers and I in a conference in Oaxtepec Mexico in 1986 about things like poverty, slavery, human rights violations that break the heart of God.  He challenged us about petty churchianity, being too vigilant about carnal things like the use of profane words while our behavior and attitudes profaned and blasphemed God in a deeper way. He's famous for saying the following, and I will verify the persuasive impact it had on me , "I have three things I'd like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don't give a shit. What's worse is that you're more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night." Such in your face challenges were what I appreciated and came to expect of the faith community as I grew into young adulthood.

A Mighty Fortress is our way of life
By comparison, our present fellowship in the 90s seemed self-absorbed and paranoid.  It was like we thought our way of life was both precious and endangered.  We had a brand of faith, which rather than being multiplied, required a staunch preservationist dedication.  There was some of the typical emphasis on outward appearances and quite a bit less on having our hearts broken by the things that break the heart of God.

Girls club
Though we were newlyweds  Roger's and my relationship was in trouble.  Part of me just knew that it was out of place that I, rather than my husband, was the one serving on the board of elders.  It wasn't that I believed women ought not to serve.  I had always been a proponent of women's rights and place of leadership. Rather, his opinion was seemingly less sought by the fellowship as well as by me. His voice was unheard.  I was trying to "run the show" both publicly and at home.  Nonetheless, we belonged to a body where this type of arrangement was pretty normal.  That is women, due to being outspoken or more conforming to church standards, sat in leadership while the men were in many regards ignored, dismissed unsought.

Peace at any cost
During this same period of  time I was earning my Master's degree in clinical psychology.  (It's important to note that within Christian fundamentalism psychology is a discipline not to be trusted.) I received an assignment in an interdisciplinary theology course entitled "Integrative therapy, clinical process and moral maturity."  The assignment was to write a research paper on the moral virtue of an emotion.  I chose to write about righteous anger.  In that paper  I challenged the pervasive attitude-turned-mandate that anger must always be avoided at all costs and that we must always be "nice".  It was a lengthy discourse that explored anger, wrath, vindication, righteousness and forgiveness. Quakers, as a peace church, have in some cases forgotten precisely how to engage in spiritual warfare.  As pacifists, they just don't cultivate a language of militarism.  It is to their detriment that they don't have a reference point for rules of engagement.   From what I could see some Quaker leaders began to abandon justice when to stand for it would not appear to be "nice".  Of course, they still verbally and intellectually affirmed justice but in practice, - at least amongst our group – there was little outward lifestyle support of it. Our efforts in that fellowship at transforming the world in Jesus' name were about what we opposed, aka retributive justice.  They should have been about who Jesus loved, restorative justice.

"Sweetie, in Jesus name, you need to shut the hell up!!!"
During my period of growing dissatisfaction and disturbance with things about this little church, we had a little women's retreat at a nearby mountain town (April 1999).  I was the only member of Ministry and Counsel in attendance.  Just prior to the event, I had provided a copy of my treatise to the pastor's wife who had arranged the weekend.  Other than acknowledging receipt of it, she never commented about it to me.
I don't remember the official theme of the weekend. In some manner, the attendees were encouraged to share with the group what their experience within our church was. Ostensibly, this exercise  could have been intended to open up avenues for reconciliation.  I doubt that such had been given any real mindfulness. The pastor's wife shared with the gathered group that she and her husband had identified a spirit of constraint in our congregation.  Perhaps the need to overcome our collective spirit of constraint was the basis for the women's sharing?  I really don't recall exactly how this was supposed to happen or what the stated intent of the leader was.  The universal theme, revealed by all attendees who spoke up that weekend, was that each one believed she was inferior to or unacceptable to all the others.

There was an air of psuedo-intimacy in that the women were sharing this gut wrenching stuff and managing a lot of sentimentality i.e. crying and hugging and apparently looking for intimacy or consolation. Yet at the same time they were fearing rejection or being shamed by the group.  The meeting stalled.  So the women were sent to the 4 quarters of the lodge  so that we could journal and pray (?!).
One of our leader's distinguishing habits was praying in tongues very loudly and angrily, particularly at these retreats.  There was never an interpretation.  Ever.  As we were attending to our assignments to journal and pray, the pastor's wife went to her room and was making loud birthing like sounds and praying loudly angrily - in an unfamiliar language- and generally making a show for all to hear.  Her antics were very intrusive and it was next to impossible to pray or hear the still small voice.  In the moment, I vainly imagined I had a connection to her and that as I prayed she was being mystically responsive to what I was praying about.  I was very impressed upon that something, I don't know what, needed to be released or perhaps unleashed. As I prayed, I assumed that she was travailing hard to release whatever this thing was.
Consequently, what began to rise in me was an urgent sense that I needed to throw off all constraint and run out of that place.  It was nearly overwhelming.  Rather than doing so,  I restrained the urge and submitted that it must've been something that needed to be confessed or deliberated.  So I found, of all people, the pastors' young adult daughter to confide in.  When I shared with the daughter my sensation/pressing urge to run from that place, her first response was to elicit my trust, “Do you trust me?”.  Pursuant to that, she proceeded to announce to the the group that I had a spirit of anger that needed “to come out right now!” (What?!)  I screamed  "Noooooo!" and collapsed in despair to the floor while I felt hands closing in from all over the room to touch me.  My vocalization was not due to demonic possession but due to a deep sense of betrayal.  I felt an immediate and acute violation which wasn't about to come to an appropriate closure.  What happened next served to compound the aforementioned confusion and sense of intrusive judgment. The pastor's wife bounded up the stairs from her room, shooed all the women who were "laying hands" on me and walked me into an adjoining room.  All the while she was asking me if I needed to burp or vomit and other questions which clearly indicated her assumption that my reaction was demonic rather than holy.  I felt trapped.  To actually say something angry would "confirm" that I had a demonic spirit of anger. I just stared at her fearing that she was in that moment desiring to perform a deliverance ministry on me with no regard for my role in  Ministry and Counsel and to do so without any other core leadership present.  Were I or anyone to righteously confront the situation at hand would not have been "nice."

 As I've previously described, the ladies in attendance were sufficiently isolated and constrained within their own shame which dis-empowered them to discern or even suggest a holy pause.   That weekend was very distressing for me and for at least one other woman who also told me that she had wanted to leave that night. Subsequent  to the retreat out of respect for the pastor, I arranged a meeting with just him, his wife, Roger and I.  My concerns about the pastor's wife's misuse of her authority and unbiblical show of the "gift of tongues" was curtly dismissed and attacked by her and her husband.  They were staunchly defensive of their position.  I was effectively prevented from taking it to the board due to the pastor adeptly "politicking" and doing "damage control" through back channels.  I was devastated and nearly paralyzed to begin to unwind the mess that was done to myself or others at that event.  I had enjoyed significant status within the fellowship as a teacher and as an elder up to this time.    I had been on the Christian Education committee, taught adult classes, and been appointed to the board.  However all of that was perfunctorily yanked out from under me as a consequence of the aforementioned events.   I lost my voice, my status, my passion and confidence to lead all in one fell swoop.  It would have been pointless to remain and try to function within the capacity of elder, or teacher or even catalyst via my writing.  I was as swiftly discredited as I had been credited.  People within the church began to treat me with suspicion and even avoidance (Shunning?).  I later learned that they were advised not to speak with me.  Possibly, this is what happens when women are unaccountable and when men are disempowered within a body/organization. Maybe it has something to do with extremes of feminism.  I'm not really sure. 
(Coinciding with all the above, the pastor's wife was going through a period of preparation and evaluation.  She had been nominated to be "recorded."  That is how Quakers recognize God's ordination of pastors or persons who have a gift of spoken ministry.  The pair was fairly well liked by the Yearly meeting Superintendent who dismissed the concerns of the pastor's wife's mentor.  The mentor had also been at the retreat and reported to the Yearly Meeting superintendent that her observation that there was a great deal of spiritual confusion amongst the women under the pastors wife's leadership.)

Over a decade of silence
Roger and I both felt like we had lost our voice. We didn't feel “worthy” to pursue leadership roles in any church for a long time.  I ceased writing, though up to that point I was a prolific writer and consistently received positive feedback on my writing. Documents I had written up to that point, despite raising some controversy,  had been well received.   It is not all bad that I became convicted to stop writing.  Sometimes, it is too easy to be anonymous and say things thuggishly or forcefully without having to face the recipient of one's words.  I believe not writing criticisms - or at least taking greater pains to be considerate of and compassionate toward my audience's humanity is one positive outcome of my not writing for a time.  What I lost in my dozen or so years of quietism though, was the ability to articulate a thought well or to instruct others.  I have missed countless opportunities for discourse with others in leadership due to my strict reservations.  Truth be told, I took a decade long detour into Christian fundamentalism that had the appearance of Godliness  but denied the power thereof.  Until stepping out to lead/facilitate discussion in women's bible studies around 2010, I didn't teach or consistently challenge anyone in their spiritual growth.  Praise God!  I have been able to lead a couple training sessions to equip lay counselors for missional and incarnational work in recent years.  Roger has been able to bless our fellowships with his gifts of music and film production.

I wanted someone to see what was in me, but I have been fearful to  step out and articulate it or ask for it.  I hoped that God would cause someone to notice me and encourage me out of my broken place of former ministry and to restore me. I had sort of hoped that members of the organization (whatever organization) would recognize my gifts, ask about why I wasn't using them, and help me find my place of leadership within the organization.  But I hoped that while continuing to distrust the organization.  I hoped that while not writing and while not speaking publicly.
God seems to be inspiring me to write again and develop thoughts, but to consider doing it somewhat independently.  I now want to lead but increasingly relationally.  I still want to compose challenging thoughts and to have people wrestle with ideas.  I have finally begun to really grapple with my role as a leader again.    


PART TWO
(The blog and small accountability group of women represent my intentionality in following God's call back to activism.  Part two is actually a revamped version of my first several posts - since deleted, consolidated, and re-posted here.)

None of us are meant to walk this alone

Isolation is a sickness in our culture. We all suffer from it, don't we? Let's endeavor to find community here, in our group. Truly it is God who is putting together this group. He has laid a few specific women on my heart with whom to begin and has provided confirmation of his direction in a multitude of ways.

We are a discussion group

Please don't ever call this a "women's group." It would be contrary to the vision God has given me if this venture were to become subsumed under "women's ministries" of any institution. Although I can only glimpse an obscured peek at the work he is doing God has given me a growing burden to encourage men and to do so in partnership and mutual accountability with their wives, daughters, sisters, mothers.  

To that end I believe that a resurgence in masculine faith in Jesus may involve a new paradigm other than institutional/organizational religion. The new paradigm is  organic, decentralized, holistic in its approach to masculine/feminine expressions of faith and derived from naturally-occurring communities and relational networks.

While there is a legitimate place for exclusive ministries to  gender and other subgroups, typical church-institutional emphasis on "women's ministry,"  "men's ministry" and "couples' ministry" strikes me as too compartmentalized or niche-focused to adequately meet plethora needs of either men or women.  Holistic ministry to women accounts for and accommodates multiple roles women fulfill.   A ministry that focuses on a single role, for example "motherhood" while eschewing the masculine relationship that literally helped inseminate that role may very well help and encourage moms in certain pragmatic areas of child-rearing. However, in its inadvertent dismissal of the masculine, such a ministry may leave that mom challenged to affirm the complementarity of the masculine role which was intended for her and for her children's enrichment.  Holistic ministry necessarily equips women to have healthy Christ-centered relationships with men and boys as well as with other women and girls in their life.  Effective ministry to men champions their God-honoring involvement  with the women and girls as well as males in their sphere.

Why now?

Over the last year I have read Francis Chan's "Crazy Love", David Platt's "Radical Together", David Murrow's "Why Men Hate Going to Church" and a few Christian classics. God has used those, along with a sometimes contentious debate with a couple of brothers to till the soil in my heart. Lately, my counseling practice has been populated with men for various reasons. Surely, that's no coincidence. My husband, Roger has told me, "You have a way with men." I'm not sure exactly what he means but Roger is a man of few words. I take it that was his affirmation/confirmation of God's purpose assignment for this time.  While doing this type of work, I am challenged to remain highly accountable both to my Christ-following girlfriends as well as to Roger.  Actually, I see plenty of women and lots of couples in my practice too.  Every one of them is looking to revive something that has become deadened.  Frequently, the very thing they need is to re-prioritize "good" and "just" over "safe" and "nice."

Why not just form an approved home group?

I am finding myself increasingly  questioning  the philosophy and dependence on organizational structure and sensing God calling me to a different way of being the church. Consider whether we "go to church", "do church",  "play church" or "are the church."  I mentally resist a lot of the implied hierarchical authority in institutional church. I still actively promote programs outwardly, inviting others to join, while internally wrestling with the thought that there might be a better way.  I surmise there is something larger to be grasped. Scriptural authority is recognized by the mature and discerning disciple as wisdom to be obeyed.  False authority is derived from notions of status within human constructs such as corporations, organizations or human programming. It is not always safe to assume that status within the organization automatically equates with having scriptural authority, though ideally that is the case.

Church-as-usual doesn't  "do it" for  scads of families/marriages that otherwise have a true desire to be Christ-centered. One doesn't have to look far to see articles about record numbers of people leaving the institutional church - for good.  Lest you see that as problematic, let me remind you that church is not coming to an end.  Matthew 16:18 offers assurance of that. Rather, the form of church is undergoing a change.
Traditional church organization is about programming and safe predictability. Based on church-business model ideology of the last several decades, some "visionary" church leaders have measured success in numbers. But does large attendance necessarily translate into large impact, transformation? What about the assumption that a big turnout indicates success? That emphasis on numbers might be the god of the age and not the Holy Spirit. Such a possibility disturbs me.

Deep theology
Consider the Once-ler character in Dr Suess's book "The Lorax." The Once-ler is so narrowly focused on the success of his programs, his product the thneed, his mass appeal that he can't see, let alone respond appropriately to the suffering, starving, crippled creatures around him nor the encroaching darkness within his environment.  Furthermore, he justifies his own polluting actions by rationalizing that he's creating the one thing that everyone, everyone, EVERYONE needs.  Therefore, he goes on, as he says, biggering and biggering and biggering and biggering.  Given that marketing is what makes our world go round, we  may be so inured by our culture that we don't even stop to wonder if marketing ought or ought-not be a part of what we do in the name of Jesus.  We go on biggering programs because we believe it's what everyone needs.  In actuality, evidence suggests that people jaded by institutionalism and tired of religio-judgmental attitudes don't seem any longer to be attracted to our buildings or programs. Maybe for far too long they've breathed in a cultural smog - one that we had part in creating.  Nevetheless, and this is good, nevertheless, there is a growing openness within our culture to spirituality.  Christians concerned about personally responding to the great commission may want to consider how to be salt and light for people long since jaded by the org.  Maybe we could re-think our perspectives on what everyone needs, focus less on biggering and concentrate more on deepening.

Incarnation

Churchgoing people don't really always "get" what  I do as a professional counselor.  If people knew what I hear and often how I handle it, many would question my faith or at least my witness.  I use curse words. I was chided recently that to do so is "unChristian" and very possibly a stumbling block to weak believers or non believers.  (I like to think of them as pre-believers.)  The scolding was a valid reminder to be sensitive to what may beckon people to Jesus; that the life I lead and choices I make must as much as possible be an open invitation into a friendship with God. My behavior had better serve His purposes. Nonetheless, the blanket proscription against profanity and the accompanying contextual prohibition against drinking of alcohol left me feeling  not convicted, but judged as inferior.

Like those who seek faith, those who seek counseling are looking for freedom.  Or healing. Or hope.  More often than not their stories are rife with  stomach-turning atrocities most aptly labeled "damned."  What speaks to Jesus' leading in my practice  is my willingness to descend with them into the narrative as one who will face the horrors alongside them. What is healing to most is that I  mirror their emotions and language rather than judge them for being in the pit.  They realize that they can ascend out of the pit for having an ally to share at least  part of the burden.  They appreciate my ability to "get into it" with them rather than merely advising on moralistic codes of behavior.  Healing and transformation come about because of the incarnational nature of counseling.  It is the same way with Christian fellowship.  People are not drawn to Jesus through our prohibitions but rather through our vulnerabilities.

Peacemaking?

I have been called an agitator.  As such, I'm not much of a stand-out candidate for positions in typical women's ministries.  I understand that when my name has been  mentioned,  in a handful of circles, that there has been some adverse reaction.  I don't know.  Maybe Jesus' design is for my rejection so that he can put me in those  situations more well-matched to his purpose for me.  I have done my best with God's help to resolve feelings of rejection and loneliness that come with being me.  Still, I grieve the missed opportunity of relationship and intimacy that both I and the others could have experienced had we all been courageous enough to confront the discomfort and disagreement between us. Could God have used even debate to bring transformation and freedom?  It is especially sad that the tendency to avoid what is slightly uncomfortable is the same  that leads to the total dissolution of many marriages.

Regarding intimacy, Ladies pay attention: If you really want to experience closeness, don't expect your relationship to be kept tidy and manageable. Seeking safety/comfort/warmth over really knowing and "getting into the dirt" with your man will  stand in the way of real intimacy. The last thing your marriage needs for its health is for you to domesticate/tame your husband.  He might be looking for you to 'have his back' and get into the fight alongside him as his ally, not his critic.

Romans 12:18 demands that Jesus' followers will live at peace with one another.  But real peace and pretense of peace are derived by very different means.  Pretense of peace is always only a pretense.  It confronts nothing.  It avoids wrestling. It dismisses a challenge.   Real peace involves fighting the forces and powers of evil. It confronts injustice, wrestles with difficult questions and takes on a challenge with spiritual armor and authority.

Confronting culture and other norms - the invitation

Obviously, I'm not in all ways a "girlie-girl." It's not that I go around looking for trouble, but I don't necessarily mind a good fight.  That's part of my masculine side that a number of other "strong women" can identify with.  But it is something that is  too outside the norms of typical women's (or even men's?) ministry to be assimilated with any amount of ease.  What I have experienced in varying degrees as a participant in more than one women's ministry can be likened in a metaphorical sense, to castration. Too often, participation within the organizational structure requires dedication to the virtue of "nice"  as evidenced by complete truncation of  anything that could make the ladies uncomfortable.

No challenges.

No wrestling.

No confrontation or other such "masculine" behavior.

Actually, the cult of nice is not restricted to the church.  Part of what I'm trying to draw awareness to is that, to a great extent, 1.)American organizational church structure and  2.) expressions of culture within church are a mirror of the dominant culture, which also tends to be dismissive of uncomfortable "not nice".

Recently, in a year-end gathering of MOPs I heard several women, a number of whom are in leadership, publicly say: "I really don't like women. . ." "Women's groups always scared me . ." "The first time I attended this group, I tried to leave, because I'm more of a tomboy . .."
Ironically, that same group of women has jointly shared  members' dismay that some of their husbands won't try coming to church with them.  Perhaps we are missing the point: that some men have an aversion to church that in various respects reflects some women's reticence to join an all girls' club.  Just a thought.

Within this blog and accountability group, I'd like to examine cultural forces, including consumerism and secular feminism (as opposed to Biblical feminism), that are effectively castrating within society generally and within the church specifically.  I find it intriguing that there is a correlation with decline in masculine church involvement and growing feminine leadership in the church.  As feminism has gained ground in our culture it has established itself as a shaping force in church culture, frequently in toxic and non-biblical ways. 40 years ago or so, it was counter cultural to be a feminist, but today, it appears more revolutionary to affirm the masculine.
Actually, we need to affirm expression of both genders. We need to cease attempts, including inadvertent, of annihilation or domination of one gender by the other.  We, the church, need to be about upholding the value of masculine and feminine in ways that are not contrived organizational constructs.  Maybe we should  reconsider ways to encourage positive faith expressions of both genders without institutional proscriptions?

Consider this an invitation to the discussion - and maybe to the debate, if you dare.