“I’d rather the church not pass anything at all than these emasculated options sent thus far. They simply don’t do much to help.”

Suzanna: “Hey, girlfriend. S’up? I bet you’re looking forward to this year’s Family Reunion Gathering. I can’t wait to decorate some more flip-flops in one of those seminars. And, my, the overtures to give us more seats at the table are breathtaking. Bless my little ol’ submissive heart; I can hardly believe we’re come so far so fast.”

Diane: “Yes, we’ve come a long way, baby. And have a long way to go.”

Carolyn: “But have you actually read the language of any of those patriarchal overtures? They don’t exactly usher us in and pull the chair out for us to take our seats at the table. Looks more like a proverbial bone tossed to a dog, to me.”

RUF-Mother: “Right; these hardly do us much good. After all the blather—what with one coordinator writing to help us, another president in our corner (waiting for the next generation to do a better job on this), and all our paid workers (missionaries, planters, professors, and hundreds of other staffers), these overtures won’t exactly draw progressive women to our churches in droves.”

Snookie: “True; and Who, again, is in charge of drawing people to the church?”

Suz: “Oh, but we need more sister-power. Yes we can! Gimme that ‘Can-do’—or is it Can-Can?—PCA spirit. The church can hardly be expected to go anywhere without its women.”

Betty White: “Or it’s teenagers and pets. Do we need to radically restructure things so that they’ll enjoy the church more?”

Suz: “Right; a few more “Cooking with Cathy” shows and “How to make the bed missionally” will cater to our women. And Cooking by Grace (for the Northeast Network) or Cooking with Grease (for the Southern Synod) will always be welcome to our women. Can Paula Dean speak to our next national conference?”

Snookie: “Yeah, let’s just make sure there’s no serious Bible study—only seminars by the rich and Wannabe-Famous. And testimonies of abuse (true or not) are still playing well, except with the under-50 crowd who work or spank their own children.”

Diane: “But girls, after over a decade on this—patiently waiting and waiting—all this year’s proposals do is allow us to be called unordained deaconesses (which we already can do). Who wants to serve without the public recognition of ordination? Seriously, who wants to serve as a deaconess anyway?”

Carolyn: “Oh, smack; you’re right, Di. Those men are still afraid of sharing power and rule. We really wanted something that would move us closer to being elders, more like the California proposal. After all, many of us are corporate leaders, attorneys, doctors, CPAs, and professors. Is it really right to have the church deny us the status that the world gives us?”

Suz: “Yes, if the Holy Spirit gives gifts—and we think he’s given those to us, without distinction—then who in the church is to oppose that? How could one? Especially if we either bully an elder by threatenings or twist a weak man around our itty-bitty ol’ sugar-coated pinkies.”

Coordinator#78: “That’s right; we sure would not want to offend our women’s sections. After all, the only thing that actually makes money in the PCA is women’s ministry. We love the cash cow, ahem . . . I mean the cash horse, er ah . . . the cash dog. I mean, we love the cash. You know I love you, darlin’.”

Carolyn: “#78, can you dab the drool from the right corner of your chin, for a second. Thanks. Listen to this one: After aeons of ‘whereases’, this overture from one Alabama lower support group wants to add to the permission already granted to have unordained deaconesses in the Book of Short Order: ‘These individuals who assist the deacons, selected by means determined by each Session, are not subjects for ordination.’ Is that all we were really hoping for, merely leaving it up to each Session but denying ordination? I mean, woohoo.”

Diane: “And this one, the California-Atlanta plan tries to go further. It asks our church to stop ordaining deacons altogether and shift the responsibility to the elders. Then it adds a new section that kills the diaconate and has that church’s session ‘appoint an unordained body of men and women to carry out diaconal ministry.’ That skirts (pardon the pun, girls) the issue. But it, unfortunately, still falls short by adding the emasculated phrase: ‘However, these men and women do not carry the same constitutional rights as ordained deacons.’ Gimme a break.”

Betty White: “Yes, you certainly have a large problem when the women want to act like men, and the men add those wimpy lines, wanting to act like sister-nurturers.”

Suz: “But wouldn’t this one be enough, merely to do as the Volunteers wish and have this Assembly affirm ‘that unordained deaconesses may serve the church, to the glory of God.’ Hallelujah, doesn’t that git ‘er done?”

Snookie: “Or how bout this one that someone suggested: ‘A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man.’ Which lower support group proposed that idea?”

Diane: “Hush. It’s bad enough that men don’t recognize how we MUST be at the table in order for proper growth to take place, there are actually some women who believe what Snookie and Betty said. Perhaps a majority of mature women; and a strong number of younger women, too. There seems, according to Dr. WormTape’s research, to be a direct correlation of belief between those who attend churches with many Bible studies contrasted to churches that are more emotional and social-justice oriented.”

Carolyn: “These overtures really steam me. What, after all the verbiage and all our years of support, they still could not come down on opening up the offices to us?!? I thought we were getting seats at the table; these don’t even invite us to stand at the table, only to cook in the kitchen. Several other denominations offer immediate seating.”

Diane: “At least our seminary and college are helpful on this issue. Finding a proponent of male-only ordination in one of those is like finding an ardent Republican in our academies. But, girls, don’t lose heart. We’re winning the battle there; and Dr. Temple’s right: Over the next 20 years, the church should do better, and we should take over. He and others are making sure that nothing stops the broadening of seats at the table.”

Suz: “Let’s just hope the Assembly doesn’t do anything to thwart that. A study committee will always be in our favor. That’s been tried, but we’re getting closer. Maybe this could be declared a matter (RAO 7-3) for the Cooperative Ministry Committee to help us out on. They’d, for sure, recommend in our favor, if we could get them to declare this an inter-agency squabble.”

Coordinator #78: “Want me to propose that? Or how about another of those debates with all the huggin’ and lovin’ on this subject? Or might that occur in another un-Safe place?”

Carolyn: “I’d rather the church not pass anything at all than these emasculated options sent thus far. They simply don’t do much to help.”

Diane: “Yes, and we could either come back with a stronger proposal or do as we are: just ignore the rules and commission sistuhs as we like in the lower support groups. That accomplishes our goal, too.”

Snookie: “You mean de facto instead of de jure?”

Pauly D: “Do huh? Do you mean du jour?”

Snookie: “No; you silly (but hunky) guido. That means that by ignoring the written law, what we do in fact or in practice becomes the law (by precedent) instead of changing the written law. I hear that quite a few places are doing that. Give it 5 years, and you should have all the change you need.”

Diane: “But has God really said . . . ?”

Betty: “Yes, bozette, he did actually tell us how things should look through his eyes: it’s in the Bible. In fact whoever thought to add the words—when we formed the PCA it was so clear as to be unnecessary—“These assistants to the deacons shall not be referred to as deacons or deaconesses, nor are they to be elected by the congregation nor formally commissioned, ordained, or installed as though they were office bearers in the church” is doing the church, not to mention us girls a real favor! Unless, one has a liberal agenda, of course.”
__________________
WormTape is a satirist and member of the Presbyterian Church in America.