William J Marengo, Jr. wrote:
> DISCLAIMER: I RAN THIS BY MY WIFE BEFORE SENDING IT. She's in agreement
> with these thoughts. She's been involved with Missionettes for several
> years. It was initially sent as an attachment but some had difficulty
> receiving and opening it.
*I've been a big proponent of NOT confronting anyone (*Female) in a Ranger
uniform to
tell them they are un-wanted, out of line and to get out of camp right now..
The facts are this:
No where in the RR Leader handbook does it say that Women are excluded by
policy from
camping with Royal Rangers or acting in any leadership capacity. You also
cannot find it
in the LTC or anywhere else.. If you were to ask the National Office for
the "policy"
you would receive a letter titled "Recommended guideline of women serving as
leaders in
Royal Rangers" and it would suggest that Buckaroo's and SA's don't camp so
their leaders
do not need to attend training involving camping.
There is no active discrimination of Women in Rangers!
*Therefore there is no need to defend or protect and issue regarding gender
in leadership.
>
>
> Women and girls should not be allowed in Royal Rangers, at least beyond
> the Buckaroo level.
I don't intend to rebut every statement, however Women are adult citizens and
girls
are minors under 18, and I do not disagree with a separation of boy and
girls, even
though I personally prefer the Europe and Australian model of separate camps,
and combined adult leadership.
>
>
> "Our number one priority is to get men involved [as leaders] in soul
> winning and the discipling of boys." These are the words of Rev. Burton
> Pierce, one of the forefathers of RRs.
>
> Why was Rev. Pierce making this emphasis that men be involved? It was
> because countless boys left the church life and drifted away from God.
> As we know, a decision was made for a specialized ministry geared towards
> the needs of the boys, Royal Rangers.
*I agree and know that in 1962 Cdr.Johnnie began a great work, not to build
walls to Leadership but to build boys with the inner man of character and
meet
the challenge of the mission!
With respect- in this year we cannot quote Cdr.Johnnie or Rev. Pierce as
"gospel" for the institution has changed with time from AG Men's Fellowship
oversight to the current independent status under the authority of the
General Council.
The top-bossman today is Rev.Tom Trask, who oversee's both RR and Missionets.
He has sent a letter to indicate his desire is to see the two US program not
com-bine.
That is his decision and prerogative, and I respect his judgment.
>
>
> Women were the main Christian educators in the church back then. A void
> of men (except in Sunday service and maybe some other minor events) left
> an unfulfilled need in those boys lives. That need was proper Christian
> 'male' role models. There was only so much a boy could learn from a
> woman but the rest had to come from emulating men. They needed role
> models to show them proper male character - spiritually as well as
> socially, something they couldn't get from a women.
Cdr. Sonny Green VP FCF preached long and hard around the country on
making Royal Rangers "for the boys".. *You may be correct in assuming
that early Rangers had that 'flavor" of a top-down authoritarian style,
resting
on adult male leadership, planning and facilitation. *But along the way
training
was developed and the thinking turned to ministry of the "whole boy" and
developing in him qualities of ethics and leadership.. and the LTC began.
Cdr.Johnnie was a dominant force at that time, and desired Rangers to not
follow the "para-military" route that it seemed to be going. He began FCF
as well a Buckaroo's to re-introduce the "Western Adventure" and a more
"boy-friendly" outdoor adventure program, akin to Scouting but also similar
to Royal Ambassadors and Christian Service Brigade.
*Yes! "allmost exclusively that era was Father-Son membership"
>
>
> I heard a story once. Around dusk in an African village an annual event
> would occur. The men of the village marched through the center of the
> village and called out the boys to join them. This was a coming of age
> ceremony. The mothers would stand in the doorway, the boys that were not
> ready to be with the men hid in back of mother, but those who were ready
> moved past the mother to join the procession. The march would end at a
> meeting (camp) ground where throughout the night the boys would hear
> stories of manhood and learn lessons from the elders.
*See we don't need that- we need to preach Jesus Loves you, Salvation,
Rapture,Holy Ghost,Healing and 4 gold points of Mental-Social-Phyisical
and *Spiritual!
By "reflection" on these virtues, a boy may choose his way...
The boys enjoy "stories" but we must operate inside the organizational
structure
and not add something that isn't there.. In my 1962 Outpost we added military
drill with chrome helmets, white belts and our own unit patches and awards..
Cdr.Johnnie complimented us on our "look" but quietly told our Commanders:
"Nice white belts.. lose'em. Get rid of the un-official patches too.. It's ok
to
have a snappy color guard, but Rangers isn't army training"
>
>
> Now this may not be as factual as it was told to me but the meaning
> remains; boys need to move away from behind mother (and her skirt) and
> join the men so they may learn from them. Today, our boys don't need
> another motherly figure from a women commander but a male who will
> demonstrate to them what it means to be a godly man. Something a
> motherly figure cannot 'fully' teach.
Women in the Outpost can 'share authority can't they? You respect your
leadership team, and don't jump in to prevent a Buckaroo leader from
showing some leadership to a Pioneer do you?
*Respect is the key- and I propose that like NTC suggests the Men sometimes
'steal" the thunder of the junior leadership to act as real leaders in their
groups!
To build the patrols... you must not hover like a mother hen over each
detail..
but TRUST them to take instruction (*in a calm voice) and act as leaders!
*Becomeing a leader is a "self-taught evolution" and hands-on time is
required!
*Must only a man? give instruction or information from the program?
Let's first do the program, to build the opportunity of the "teachable
moment"
and let the "adventure" be found in self discovery for a lifetime of loyalty
to OUR *Ministry/*Program...
>
>
> Why does everything have to be gender neutral?
*It don't...
> Developmental science
> tells us that boys will be boys and girls will be girls. Girls are
> naturally going to go after the dolls and boys after cars and trucks.
That isn't the basis of the Royal Ranger ethic... the main thing is
fundamental
change in the heart, mind and soul of the boy. Leadership is his personal
commitment to achievement and assisting others in service. Men do that,
so do Women in their desires for their sons to become strong men and
good family members.
>
> What's so difficult to understand that there are differences, and with
> those differences come unique traits and attitudes that only those of a
> particular gender can understand. Have you ever heard a women say, "you
> don't understand, it's a women thing"? Well, if there are women things,
> naturally there are men things.
But the Ranger emblem is not bound to one gender by it's virtue...
The differences between genders is well taken, but secondary to the ethics
of playing fair, speaking right and holding critical thinking skills that
back's
the development of Character, and I say "family values"...
>
>
> Who else can relate to a boys struggles and joys than a man who has had
> similar life experiences. Who best to demonstrate the character of God to
> a boy than a man. In a sense these boys are our spiritual children. The
> faith, encouragement and support we give to these spiritual sons will
> carry them through manhood.
*Bravo! Cdr.MOM can relate... right?
>
>
> I understand in some countries girls and women are allowed to join RRs
> because there was no alternative girls programs. The leaders adapted to
> what will work best for them.
>
> But we in the U.S. have a girls program - Missionettes. This is a
> Women's ministry. "Well, they don't have all that fun stuff like camping
> and hiking." Yes they do, check into it. If they don't have those
> elements that attract ladies to RRs, then they should change
> Missionettes not Royal Rangers.
*I agree.. my wife has no desire to work with Missionetts, why should she?
She has only one son and a Royal Ranger husband, the camping has never been
a hindrance, but what has is the negative attitude showed her as a Ranger
leader!
>
>
> One final thought, suppose there was a movement in the church that men
> wanted to become Missionette Sponsors, how far do you think that would
> go? I'd pull my daughter out of it immediately, because a man has no
> business working strictly with girls. Shouldn't this apply to women who
> so desires to be a part of RRs, or is there some double standard we have
> to abide by?
Not the point...
What if God called your daughter to be a Pastor of your church? Would you
serve
on the board, or work to prevent Pastor from concealing?
There's nothing preventing that but the opinions of the membership..
*Why build a man-made wall to the moveing of the Holy Spirit to call anyone..
to service as a servent of God? Our greatest commandment is to Love the
Lord with all we have, and love others as our selves!
I cannot "see" differences between gender's with the Love of God...
Yea- we are different! but we are equal in his sight!
In closeing- Let National abide in peace with what-ever decision they
decide to follow, but *Please act like you were talking to Jesus if you
find a Women Commander in camp!
-=A=-
_______
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe rangernet" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Eat the hay & spit out the sticks! - A#1's mule" RTKB&G4JC!
http://rangernet.org Autoresponder: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
