The {hidden} misogyny of reactivation efforts
[image error]How many active, full-tithe-paying Melchizedek Priesthood holders does it take to form a ward? No, it’s not a lightbulb joke.
15 — to fully staff a bishopric with clerk and secretary, high Priests group leadership, Elders quorum presidency, young men presidency and a ward mission leader.
How many active, full-tithe-paying Relief Society sisters does it take to form a ward? Well, technically none. While total membership for a new ward ranges from 150-300 minimum depending on location, there are no requirements for how many women are needed to form a ward.
“Prospective Elders” have their attendance at meetings tracked in church systems and are expected to progress toward ordination. They are regularly discussed at PEC meetings and included in ward conference reports. There is no corollary for a prospective Relief Society sister.
Missionary efforts throughout the world prioritize finding, teaching and baptizing men through district goals and mission-wide reporting indicators.
As it’s organized now, the church requires men to fill its core leadership positions, so it should come as no surprise that the majority of reactivation efforts coming down from the general level are aimed at retaining, reclaiming, and ordaining existing/prospective Melchizedek Priesthood holders.
One such reactivation effort has been recently launched from Elders Ballard and Rasband. Unlike come past efforts which have focused on reactivating families recommended by each organization, this renewed emphasis for reaching out to less-active Melchizedek Priesthood holders is more of the same old strategy in updated packaging: Keep the men in the Sacrament pews and filling the callings. Despite the PEC having the unique designation to “meet regularly to discuss Priesthood matters,” this initiative for reactivating formerly active, ordained men is a task given to the entire ward council. Reactivating prospective ward priesthood leadership is of high enough priority that we even need the women’s contributions, ideas, work, and combined human resource meeting time!
The new/old initiative has already been rolled-out over wide areas of the United States and is well-organized into specific steps: select 2-3 less-active MP holders, gather intel on their life’s personal details, select appropriate fellowshippers from the ward to visit them, make appointments, cite authority “We are here to visit you at the request of Bishop _____ and two apostles of Jesus Christ, Elder Ballard and Elder Rasband.” Teach a lesson, promise blessings, exercise the priesthood, follow-up, continue in prayer. It’s a carefully detailed process with the desired result being that the man (+/- his family) returns to full activity and temple blessings.
When I asked our Exponent II facebook group why they thought the emphasis of this program was for men-first and families-second, a variety of hypotheses presented:
“There are already more active women than men. Women are more faithful and active. It makes sense that this outreach is going to the demographic that needs it.”
“If the men come back, their wives and families come along. It makes sense to target them first.”
“We need men to fill all the ward leadership callings. Without men, the ward couldn’t function. It’s a move for the ward’s longevity.”
It is pedestalizing to a toxic degree to believe that since women are “naturally more faithful” and stay active in greater percentage, that they do not require general-level reactivation efforts like the men do. To my knowledge, no women-specific reactivation effort of this scale has ever been launched from church HQ. The men get it it packaged and reheated like bad left-overs again and again.
If women are more likely to stay active, and if retaining men in church activity is of such high priority, why don’t the ward’s efforts go toward strengthening his wife and family first, in the hopes that he would follow their righteous examples, rather than the opposite?
Simple: by targeting men in less active families first, it emphasizes that men lead their families in spiritual matters, regardless of faithfulness or activity, and discredits the power of women to be a moving spiritual force for their husbands. These asymmetrical efforts to reactivate men rarely go through reactivating their wives in hopes that he will “come along” with her. It illustrates an underlying belief that men and women are not equal leaders of spiritual matters in their homes.
As far as how to fill leadership callings with active, capable and qualified individuals, our friends at Ordain Women have pretty well fleshed that one out.
After all of the meeting-minutes spent discussing and human-hours dedicated to reactivating men, is it really even the right approach to begin with? Many sincere, loving attempts to extend friendship to sisters in the Relief Society happen every day, through the hands of visiting teachers, compassionate service leaders and good people trying to do the work of Christ. Do the menfolk really require an additional, more corporate approach than what local wards and stakes are already doing for their women? Perhaps the men should pattern their next program after the visiting teaching model: reach out one-by one, be a friend, do what he needs, show love without judgment, accept him where he is and make room for him in whatever state he comes.
More importantly: the work of stewardship and salvation must be seen as pertaining to the individual regardless of sex, ordination, marital status, or leadership potential. Funneling a ward’s resources into following a program primarily targeted at men only works against a ward council’s unique inspiration about who from their ward needs the most loving care and attentive visits.
Guys, take note: the women are already doing it right.
