Oh, and lest we think this is purely an evangelical phenomenon—or that fundamentalists are the only ones who minimize abuse, marginalize women, and harbor their abusers—John Howard Yoder.
There is no single, magic answer to the epidemic of abuse in the church, both Protestant and Catholic. But increasingly, I’m convinced of one thing: the abuse won’t end as long as men are the sole arbiters of power.
When a woman has to go before an all-male elder board for permission to end her marriage to a confessed child porn addict, that’s a recipe for perpetuating abuse.
Sure, they might apologize later for “not communicating clearly” or for being too “heavy-handed.” But if they don’t confront the root problem—men claiming sole power by divine right—then it’s just going to happen…
View original post 340 more words
Enough Light 
Absolutely right/ The two extremes of sexual abusers are Bill Gothard and JOhn Howard Yoder. That covers a very wide spectrum from right to left. I was shocked about Yoder with a lifetime of sexual abuse. It is time to stop this. I do believe women in traditional male leadership roles will help this.
Thanks Gary for stopping by, and good comments.
I understand your point. And I agree that a better respect for women is necessary in the church today. However, sexual abuse, child abuse, and abusive churches happen even in denominations that ordain women. I don’t think that ordinating women will solve these problems.
Hi Rachel, I didn’t write the article, but only re-blogged it! haha.
But I did not personally take from the article that ordaining women would solve the problem totally. Like a magic wand or something. (“There is no single, magic answer to the epidemic of abuse in the church…”) We are all sinful. And sin and coverup will always go on, and can go on anywhere in all types of churches. The article points out John Howard Yoder as an example that does not fit in the evangelical category.
I interpreted it simply that women in leadership would help the situation.
I also think of it on a very personal level. If my husband was abusing me, and I went to my church which meant telling my story to the all male leadership – that is not balanced. The men would not relate in the same way as a female. A mixed group of men and women in leadership would provide a more balanced and fair assessment of the situation. In addition, there is also the comfort level for the abused woman. If I was an abused woman, I would not feel comfortable having to appear before a man or group of men about my abuse. I’d want women there too (which could be permitted even with all male leadership) but regardless it is all men in charge.
I think part of the issue is the title of the post, and titles can be used provocatively. As the end of the post says: “When women share equally in the leadership of our churches, it will be harder for men to get away with trivializing and ignoring—and therefore perpetuating—abuse.”
It will be harder. I totally agree with that. Problem solved? No. But a help.
By the way, I just noticed that the blogger Ben Irwin addresses this in some of the comments. He actually changed the title of the post slightly (until to unless) to be clearer in his meaning…
Having women in leadership roles will get rid of the “Good old boy” coverups in the Patriarchal Churches. When men run things, sex addicts, pedophles and other sexual offenders are covered up Female leadership will not totally eradicate sexual issues, but it will help eradicate “male only ” rule.