WWJD? What would Jesus do? Would he encourage or prohibit women from having authority over men? In the work place? In universities? In Bible schools? In Christian colleges? In synogogues? In the church? In parachurch organizations, such as missionary groups?
Why or why not?
Remember, be nice to each other; it’s the biblical thing to do.
I believe that Jesus would — and does — turn our default notions of “authority over” into an understanding of “service to,” according to the gifts God has given each of us.
I believe Jesus challenges us to surrender our own desires for power and control over other people and allow the Holy Spirit to reveal to us how God will use our gifts for the good of the community (whatever community that is).
The difficulty comes when the community is still holding onto those traditional beliefs about who gets to have authority over others and who does not. In such communities, there eventually is spoken the prophetic word, “It is not to be so among you.” How various communities respond to that prophetic word can be interesting. Some dig in and shore up their doctrinal and regulative prohibitions against women having “authority over men.” Others cautiously reopen the question and may start transforming themselves, or retreat to their earlier traditional restrictions. And some, praise God, welcome the word and wholeheartedly start looking at call and gift and character, regardless if the candidate for service is male or female.
I’ve seen examples of all of these responses to the challenge.
I don’t think Jesus would encourage or prohibit women from having authority within the institutions we have set up. I see spiritual authority as entirely different and distinct from worldly authority. Spiritual authority is bestowed by God, not claimed by women (or men). I believe that God bestows spiritual authority upon women (and men) in proportion to the preparedness of the vessel 2 Tim 2:21-22
Clay, You bring up a great point. It is really a ‘power’ of the Holy Spirit more than it is an earthly idea of authority.
In the Body, we cannot get past ‘who is in charge’ long enough to realize the answer should be the Holy Spirit.
Actually, we really don’t know much about women in the early church or during the life of Christ, because women’s writings have been missing, or women were simply prohibited from getting the same education male priests and scribes got.
Women were probably very powerful allies to Christ during his lifetime, and probably much more prominent in the early church than we’ll ever know.
I believe women played leading roles in Jesus’ ministry, and women even financed Jesus– Lydia, for example.
I assume women’s power and agency in these groundbreaking social movements. They just get erased when male power becomes more institutionalized. We’ve seen this in the last 40 years, as women have uncovered a treasure trove of women’s history worldwide. Now there are so many books on women in history that you can’t even keep up with all the information.
Obviously, if we only insist on reading the Bible in churches, we won’t really get women’s points of view at all. Kind of like trying to get Thomas Jefferson to understand that African-Americans are real people, or that abortion and privacy might have a place in his 18th century writings.
Jesus simple grows with time, as Christian feminists have been telling us for ages.
Jesus objected to the abuse of power of religious authorities of his day. He obviously was not afraid to stand up to mobs of men attempting to stone women, unlike religious leaders in Afghanistan today, for example. His actions actually indicate that he was very different from the men of his day.
The problem was, that after he died, the sins he railed against rose up again in men’s eternal struggle to pretend to be little gods over women.
This is exactly the right question for us, Wayne. We usually turn it around, putting “God in the dock” as C.S. Lewis put it (or in other words putting Jesus on the witness stand as if we shouldn’t be the ones on trial for our views).
Doesn’t Jesus (as Psalmist here notes) “turn our default notions” around? On “the biblical thing” itself, doesn’t he offer a few revolutionary thoughts? In the Sermon on the Mount for example: “you have heard that it was said, but I say to you . . .” and John says that Jesus says things like “You search the Scriptures, because you think that . . . ; and it is these that bear witness of me.”
It’s not just legalism but it’s also a kind of “divide and conquer” mentality (that Aristotle and the Pharisees used) that Jesus frees us from. If we don’t get that, then “biblical” will always judge Jesus and how women are to be under men. Playing with this some, I’ve offered a blog post here.
I think the most essential quality I notice in the life of Christ is the insistence that mankind realize we are all on the same “side.” We, as foolish humans, find the most ridiculous “reasons” to divide up into teams and fight against one another. “One nation, under God,” beautifully sums up the highest goals mankind can ever hope to achieve. What a blessing to have had such noble words penned as our nation’s birthright. There is no arguement among among any christians I have ever met as to whether kindness, compassion, mercy, and goodness are required behaviors of those who follow God (also reflected in all major religions on the planet). Yet, for some reason, we pick up “arms” against one another and never stop to think how the act of opposition to our brothers is, in the nature of the act itself, unkind, merciless, and uncompassionate. This is that “ends justifies the means” notion that Christ railed against.
I draw from this reflection and my experiences that the true “enemy” is really myself. That all the evil in the world comes from people just like me, fighting their own worst but all too common human flaws and then practicing that same warfare on others. The magnitude of the damage is relative to the “authority” or “power” that the individual possesses.
That there are christians who abuse their authority is true. And no, it is not “fair” or “right” or “good.” But, it is human. Christ would have me forgive as God forgives. . .unlimited, fully, freely (as a choice). What debt could I hold against anyone, when my debts have been so compassionately removed?
So, if we look at this from a position of unity. We are team mates. How would a team mate coach his fellows toward better performance on the field? How SHOULD we behave, not from opposing camps, but the same team? Are there more or less qualified players? Sure. Are some natural leaders? Definitely. Do some have preferences as to what position they will play? Darn right. Do we need some team rules? Probably.
The question that we argue is over a matter of a “mutually binding societal contract.” When we feel one side has violated the “contract,” we yelp. Our “rights” as christians have been violated. But, the real contract is with God and the terms are absolute. Submission to God on these absolute terms trumps the social contract.
If there are women who CHOOSE submission to their husbands. This is their choice in following God. It is their right under the individual and supreme contract with God.
If there are churches which enforce submission. . .then the women must measure her own conscience on the matter. And in accordance with the individual contract with God, must forgive those who would suppress her, though not concede the position revealed by her faith.
As to the issue of “false teachings?” When Christians search themselves for the direction of their individual contract with God, and then commit their way to it, heresies and false teachings die at their own hands. . .history proves this. We ought not spend so much time fighting doctrines, but rather, pursuing purest devotion to the simple acts of kindness, mercy, compassion, and goodness. If we will do this, the rest of these things will fall away. If a teaching is truly errant, it does not stand a chance when compared to the presence of truth in action.
If there are women who CHOOSE submission to their husbands. This is their choice in following God. It is their right under the individual and supreme contract with God.
Do you know why head coverings are forbidden for Moslem girls in France? If they are given the freedom of choice, they are either ostracized or punished for not wearing the head covering. In the same way, submission to the husband is made part of spirituality in some groups. It is not a free choice.
We do not allow people to sell themselves and we should not allow women to make vows of unlimited obedience in the marriage ceremony.
In any case, I disagree, just from life. People get hurt. They need to be taught boundaries. I can’t get any more intellectual than that. We need to keep people from getting hurt.
were you under the impression that submission to God is easy? It seems the whole of Christ’s life can be summed up in one word: suffered. Consider reading “The Cost of Discipleship” by Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
And following Sue’s good logic on preventing the choice of slavery or spousal submission is this:
the choice of aborting a human fetus.
But does Jesus really want the French to legislate choice (to get back to Wayne’s question)? Not any more than he wants the Americans to outlaw slavery. Submission of a wife, then, is like the choice of abortion of a mother. It’s a heart thing to do evil or not to do it, right? Jesus wants (us) to change our hearts, to know him, to be free and to make free, right?
were you under the impression that submission to God is easy?
There’s submission to God, and then there’s submission to men just because they are men.
So then, is the Heart of this comp/egal debate really the centuries old question: “Am I my brothers keeper?” Where are the boundaries of responsibility? And how should they be acted upon. Greater minds than mine have argued this. Perhaps you all have some suggested reading?
In my opinion, Merryquaker, the heart of the debate concerns the godliness of interpreting the Bible to say that men are supposed to lead women simply because they’re men. We egalitarians find no scriptural support for such an interpretation, but those who call themselves complementarian do. Thus, for egalitarians, we tend to believe it’s very important to demonstrate the flaws we find in the various complementarian abridgments of rights and responsibilities for women and the various ways that they claim that Christian men should lead or rule over Christian women. As you indicate, we have responsibilities to one another, and one of them is to speak the truth in love when we find fellow Christians teaching error.
Merryquaker.
We are definitely talking about two different things.
On the one hand, there are those of us who agree that we need to submit to each other, submit to God, and that we submit to suffering. No argument with that.
On the other hand, there are some who teach that the woman must vow to “obey, serve, follow submissively and seek to please” her husband, while the husband provides for and leads. No kidding these are the vows.
Do we really think that God created man to be the leader, and woman to be the obedient and submissive servant.
You lost me on the “brother’s keeper” reference. It is really about some people teaching that man is oriented to God for leadership, and woman is oriented to man for leadership.
In fact, as the vows that I quoted show, the man says that God is the head of the home, and the woman says that the husband is head of the home. So for the man, he looks to Christ as leader, he seeks to do whatever the gospels teach. For the woman, she is bound by a vow to obey whatever the man says, and to go through her day seeking to serve him.
Women don’t have a ministry of their own unless they are given permission from the husband, but the husband can have a ministry of his own, or he can tell the wife that she has to help him whether she wants to or not.
It boils down to this. The husband can invite folks over for dinner without consulting his wife, and she has to cook for them. However, the wife can never invite anyone over for dinner without prior approval from her hsuband even though she will cook for them. After 30 years of that kind of thing, it is hard to keep smiling.
I am not saying that we shouldn’t put up with as much as we can physically. HOwever, I draw the line at people calling this kind of thing “joyful submission” and “fulfillment of the feminine nature,” “design in the garden” and so on. Just call a spade a spade. That kind of life is not nice (prevous working edited out.) Sometimes we put up with this. But why preach that this is good and beautiful.
Basically I would have no problem with all this if it was simply called suffering.
Anyway, these are feelings, not something that I ask anyone to agree on. We’re all different.
Sue,
I guess I see the brother’s keeper indicated in the emphatic need expressed by some egal participants to “control” their comp brothers and sisters–even those sisters who CHOOSE to submit and those for whom this causes no abuse.
It seems to me, if my sister is so lead by God, it is not my right to interfere with her path toward holiness.
I certainly do not feel led along those lines in my faith However, EVEN IF you could prove such a thing were outright sin (I do not hold that position) GOD judges sin. GOD gave us the choice between right and wrong and that includes the right to make a “wrong” choice. (not that I take the position of comp being “wrong”) How DARE christians set themselves up as demi-gods to choose the faith of ANYONE other than themselves. Now that IS blasphemy. But it is subtle. If you are “in charge” of your brothers faith, then you have usurped the place of God himself.
That we are restore each other in meekness and love, in no way justifies the “slamming” of one “side” over the other over a belief that ultimately comes down (in our society) to choice. You (egal) who preach “freedom” for women from comp principles are simply enslaving them to egal principles. NEITHER side recognizes CHOICE. BOTH sides claim there is only ONE choice “their side.”
As my brothers keeper I have many responsiblities and one of them is not to be his slavemaster.
“Basically I would have no problem with all this if it was simply called suffering.”
Maybe that is why they called them Suffragettes? And maybe that is why there was a movement?
Sue said:
I am not saying that we shouldn’t put up with as much as we can physically. HOwever, I draw the line at people calling this kind of thing “joyful submission” and “fulfillment of the feminine nature,” “design in the garden” and so on. Just call a spade a spade. That kind of life is not nice … Sometimes we put up with this. But why preach that this is good and beautiful.
Was Jesus submissive? As a child, did Jesus ever disobey, defy, sin by a lack of proper submission to His parents? I think not! Soooo… we can learn a great deal from His role model.
I read this today from God’s Word to Women
QUOTE Even as a child of twelve, He lingers behind in the Temple, at His own discretion. His mother searches in vain for Him for several days. When found and reproached by her, He utters not a word of regret; rather a gentle reproof that she did not all once know that He was “about His Father’s business” (Luke 2:49). To be GOD’S ALONE meant literally to Him to be not man’s in the least. ….While letting God do what He pleased with Him, He made no concessions to man, “whatever men around might say of Him.” How differently women have been taught! At every step expected to ask themselves, “How will this look, for a woman?” As though woman should do everything with reference to her sex, rather than with reference to her God! ENDQUOTE
Can you imagine how his parents felt when they discovered their son of 12 had been missing for several days?
Likewise, as a wife whose one and only master is the Lord, I am obligated to “be about my Father’s business”. On occasion, this can be quite distressing to my beloved husband but is- nevertheless- in his own best interest (as it is submissive to GOD’s will).
merryquaker said:
It seems to me, if my sister is so lead by God, it is not my right to interfere with her path toward holiness.
Sue said:
Women don’t have a ministry of their own unless they are given permission from the husband, but the husband can have a ministry of his own, or he can tell the wife that she has to help him whether she wants to or not.
I hear you both saying that Christians should have freedom, (and in keeping with the post topic) personal authority, to walk with God according to HIS leading (which may in fact be quite a departure from the way her husband or her denomination paints her “womanly role”).
I think the answer isn’t either/or but both/and. If a woman cannot exercise leadership in faith, then she should not exercise leadership because for her it will be sin. If a woman has a fire in the belly and cannot- in faith- keep quiet , then for her it would be will be sin to quench the spirit.
Yet where is the same safeguarding over men? That’s the big question. What egals object to is that only women are to have a man over them to keep them in line.
So I agree, but I’d word it more like this:
“If anyone cannot exercise leadership in faith, then they should not exercise leadership because for them it will be sin. If anyone has a fire in the belly and cannot- in faith- keep quiet , then for them it would be will be sin to quench the spirit.”
Merryquaker,
Thank you for explaining. I have said in the past that I do not feel there is any sin in a woman believing in unilateral submission for herself. The sin is when this is taught to others, or even modeled in front of others. So, if the vow to obey is modeled and taught as the more spiritual way, then a young woman may make that vow, not realizing that for her it will result in a life of outrageous suffering.
No one can tell. A young woman who has made a vow to obey, may easily be engaged by the husband from seeking third party counseling – forbidden from doing so – and without counsel, without voice, she may live as a victim of outrageous and unthinkable sin and see her children also caught in this.
What needs to be made explicit is that those who speak out on this blog, are not concerned with what kind of submission the women here give their husbands. They are terrified that younger women will be trapped in a life of physical violence and utter deprivation of basic human needs as either they were themselves or women they love were. The scars from this kind of deprivation go deep.
Just as it was not a sin for a slave to submit, it is not a sin for a woman to obey. But the slavery was wrong and allowing a woman the vow of obedience is wrong.
Thank God some Quakers were aware of this. Slaves weren’t just left to their own devices to rescue themselves, and likewise women should not be left on their own to suffer.
Ellen has graciously taken her difference with a comment I made here over to her blog. She rightly recognizes that Wayne has another purpose in his post here on “Jesus and women in authority.” And Ellen is wondering whether, unprompted, others might have been alarmed by my comment. Sue kindly distances herself from the “weird”ness of what I said. It would be good, I think, if others talked on this.
I’ve already commented to Ellen and Sue on the other topic. But here I just want to say that I really do not want to offend or to be unkind. Instead, there is our logic to listen to, and to clarify. Rather than calling anyone a heretic or being called a heretic, I hope we can listen to one another.
Are we at an impasse in our conversations? I imagine Jesus doesn’t think so. Thanks again, Wayne, for keeping us asking what he’s asking of us. Thanks to Ellen and Sue for the willingness to talk about and to talk through some of this together.
Kurk,
I didn’t say it was weird, did I? I just thought there were two possible interpretations to what you said, and I didn’t want to react to the wrong one. I was playing it safe.
I hear what you are saying about allowing choice. I am not for it, but that’s okay. I just like to get people all worked up. I think obedience is dangerous, but that’s just me. I think the law should reinforce non-obedience! Just kidding.
Hey, how about if we just admit that the Bible allows both interpretations on par – we can either believe in male authority or not, and we are all of us still within the acceptable bounds of Bible believing Christians, and those who believe in male authority are not closer to God than those who do not. Surely there is sanctity without male authority.
Maybe I could be happy if young women were told that there was no spiritual imperative to making an oath of obedience to the male, that it was an option.
Maybe then we could get along on both sides. Would that be possible?
If I said that I can see how complementarians get their interpretation (even though I think it is wrong, I can see how they derive it) – and then complementarians can say to me that they recognize where I get my interpretation and even though they think it is wrong, they understand how I derive it.
Each one of us could still feel that we had made a moral choice, but were still willing to believe that the other side had made a moral choice also.
But then young people should be told that they could believe either one without judgment. Then young women would technically be free to choose. That is what I want and what Kurk and Merryquaker are tying to get me to understand, no?
The question is – could I agree to this?
And could complementarians agree to this?
I might be able to if it was agreed that all the evidence was on the table. I think I could handle it if it evidence was treated fairly.
Thanks Kurk for pressing me on this.
Sue(zanne), I think there is wisdom in your suggestion for a kind of truce in the gender war based on recognizing the others’ position and how it was arrived at. Such recognition does not mean personal acceptance of that position nor unbiblical compromise, since each side is attempting to be biblical. Somehow I think that Jesus and probably even Paul would be pleased if we could recognize that the other side has come to a conclusion which they believe honors the teachings of the Bible. I would love to see an end to questioning the spirituality or commitment to being “biblical” in the gender debate. Each side claims to be the “biblical” side. Surely there is something in all of this that one or both sides are missing.
I hope that we can continue investigating these differences on this blog, and do it in a way that does not denigrate the other side.
“I would love to see an end to questioning the spirituality or commitment to being “biblical” in the gender debate. Each side claims to be the “biblical” side.”
Wayne, This is key. How can we move forward when we are considered in sin and rebellion for a different interpretation of a secondary issue?
I mean, the comps have to read alot into Genesis to come up with their stance and I abhor reading into scripture what is not there. Yet, I do not call accuse them of being in sin and rebellion for twisting God’s Word to make it fit their gender filter.
If it were not for this stance, we would not even need to discuss it. We could be in fellowship. But even my denomination, SBC, which believes infant baptism is heresy will overlook that belief in some instances for togetherness with other denominational leaders but never on the issue of women. The women issue is also considered heresy. It was NOT like this 30 years ago in the SBC.
That is how bad it has gotten.
Sue, I love reading your comments! I think we are not so far apart in opinion (overall). Great point about the leaving slaves to their own devices.
As you may know, Quakers (as a general rule) do not leave these sort of things unattended. Of course, historically we have approached addressing such issues differently than the mainstream. I mean who else would have supported something (seditious?) like the underground railroad? It’s just that as I see it, if you have a leading from God (and it seems that you do) to “free” women who are trapped in unwitting and unrelenting submission of an ungodly sort. . .well, then HOW would God have you (us) address it.
Quaker abolitionists tended to focus on freeing the slave and protecting them. Not so much the attack on the “system” that that enslaved them. Of course, over time, this opposition created an “issue” as the slavemasters sought to attack and defeat these rescue attempts. Thereby, forcing the issue into society at large and requiring the nation to take stock of itself. Similar tactics in suffragette movement, and ongoing in many political situations around the world.
Quakers provided mercy, and “evil” naturally responded with violence. And thereby, the “lie” of Kindly slavery was exposed. It is a good example to follow. How can I help you in this?
Merryquaker,
Quakers were profoundly counter cultural from the very early days and did some pretty gutsy things. I cannot agree with you that they did not attack the system.
In fact, until the mid 1800’s only Anglicans were allowed into the universities and into parliament in England. Therefore, the Quakers organized and worked with Wilberforce to combat slavery. Wilberforce was an Anglican and that is why we know his name today. He was part of the establishment.
Here are a few facts,
The campaign to abolish the slave trade lasted twenty years from 1787 to 1807. This was the first, and one of the most successful, public campaigns in history. The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) set up a committee to seek the abolition of the slave trade in 1783, but the national campaign was not launched until after the Nonsectarian committee met, for the first time, on 22 May 1787. The twelve founder members were Granville Sharp, ‘father of the cause in England’; nine Quakers: William Dillwyn, Samuel Hoare, Jr, George Harrison, John Lloyd, Joseph Woods, John Barton, Joseph Hooper, James Phillips and Richard Phillips, and two other Anglicans in addition to Sharp: Philip Sansom and Thomas Clarkson.
The reason there are no women on this committee is that the Anglicans would not recognize women as leaders. Women had there own campaign mostly to raise the emotive responses to slavery among the establishment. They had a medallion struck with an image and the words “Am I not a man and a brother” Women then wore this around their neck.
I do not want to overwork the comparison between women in a vow of obedience and slaves. However, there are some comparisons.
Here is what a man wrote on another blog today,
I can find a verse in the Bible where it very specifically says that God created a help proper for Adam. Can you find a verse where it specifically says that God created a help proper for Eve? When discussing the ‘best’ that God wants for our lives, this issue cannot be ignored.
If I am going to be a useful ‘help’ for someone, I must follow their vision, I must do what they ask me to do. (It is also true that I can be useful by helping them refine their vision.) If I follow my own vision, if I ignore what they ask me to do so that I might instead do what I want to do, or if I try to talk them out of their vision so that they might follow mine, how am I a useful ‘help’ for that person?
You see from this that this man believes that woman should not have a vision. She was created to do what is asked of her by her husband. Her own personality is not acknowledged. She must suppress her own visions and regard them as sinful, in fact, and commit only to her husbands visions. The difficulty is that this is being taught as what is right, as an ideal. The ideal woman is created to obey.
Now, imagine a lifetime of being treated as someone who stands at the ready willing to obey. The difference from slavery is that you share the lifestyle of your master. However, these relationships are not necessarily free of abuse, both physical and emotional.
In response, naturally, there are some women who just take the upper hand, because their whole being s outraged by this treatment. They confront and control, or manipulate. There is no appropriate avenue for compromise. These women who gain some kind of control in such a regime become the poster women for the domineering wife, and prove that the wife was created to be dominated by the man in order to be an appropriate Christian woman.
And, of course, there are men who have no drive to dominate in any case, or who have employment which fully occupies their drive to dominate. So naturally, I do not think that all women are held to 24 hour obedience. But some are.
I am a woman, but this goes for men too
I have authority over…
…the way I think
…the way I feel
…the way I behave
I have authority/power…
…to overcome sin
…to walk Christlike
…to walk in the Spirit
I have authority to bless
God has not instructed me to do anything He will not empower me to do
whatever God instructs He will empower
I have to be “plugged in”,
to have channels OPEN
in order
to receive
Power
I have authority to love
I am authorized to love
I am authored to love
I think we need to be faithful with “the little” before we can be entrusted with much.
Clay, Wow, I’m writing down that poem immediately. Beautiful.
Sue, I think we’re describing the same “apple” as it were. Yes, Quakers stood up against “the establishment.” But, they did not “attack.” That is to say, verbally assualt, bomb clinics, shoot doctors. . .etc. They DID however, vocally announce the truth. The truth of human dignity and value. The truth, that in comparison to the “lie” of slavery could not long be ignored.
Much of my distaste in this matter is not a question of the validity of voluntary submission or that involuntary and abusive submission need stop. Rather, curbing the accusatory nature that often presents itself. (Wayne? I think the idea of this blogspot was truly inspired). Haven’t we all kinda found some common ground here?
I’m generally considered an “inconvenient woman” among folks who aspire to power and importance in the world. I kinda take this as a compliment. Speaking truth boldly will reap many accusations of “immorality,” “insanity,” “heresy,” and well, all those other things people say when they can’t argue the point any longer. Elected officials in my area particularly and genuinely dislike me.
I bet that has been the reaction to you as well. Rejoice! Isn’t that exactly what scripture says will happen? You seem genuinely grieved for the wrongs that occur and to have a strong desire for change. I simply believe that since scripture describes satan as the one who goes before the throne accusing the saints (he’s called the accuser many times), then to use his tactics leads perilously close to his camp.
I apologize to the rest of you guys for hogging up so much space for this, uhmmm, more individual discussion.
Any suggestions?
You understand I hope that I mourn sometimes for my younger self and I wonder why no one ever rescued me. I sat and listened to the gospel of male authority all those years.
And the pattern will repeat itself.
Perhaps God has called you to a ministry of suffering. I’m afraid that is something you must diligently search to uncover. However, since you have first hand experience in this matter and know the consequences on a woman’s soul. . .perhaps locating a church that teaches precisely that forced submission, perhaps befriending the women there, perhaps sharing in private what you believe. . .asking God as you go. Big things start very small. “Remember the insistent snowflake. In its blindness, only repeating itself over and over. . .captures entire countries.”
Sue,
God does not waste our pain.
I toyed a bit with the idea of having a joint blog with women in recovery from patriarchy… where each tells her story and other stories/articles/resources can be collected. A place where women trapped there can read about women who have come out. I have seen bits of your story and Molly’s and I have a story too. In the case of addictions, the ones who have achieved a measure of freedom are best equipped to compassionately minister to the ones still trapped… and I’ve heard that in the course of speaking into the lives of others, one’s own healing deepens.
I’m a bit fearful of the idea too… such strong women we are. How could we do such a thing and avoid conflict?