Are you sure there have never been Protestant women's societies in the modern mission movement? I am willing to be corrected, but I understood that the post-civil war US Church, at least, gave rise to a host of women's societies (sending women to Korea with no small impact, among other places). Sorry I don't have time to dig up specific info now… but I just found this post which might give you a lead or two if you are interested. (http://www.christianhistorytimeline.com/GLIMPSE...) It's a fair question and an interesting topic, though it's probably also worth exploring the factors leading to the shift away from these women-only societies within 100yrs of their inception (I have some guesses). Of course, this is only the US context so very limited in scope.

Yes, there definitely were many women's missionary societies, but these were not sending agencies – they were in fact support groups for missions, prayer societies, etc. This underscores how powerful and effective women are: they were the principle force getting the missions movement back on its feet following the civil war, and it was their prayer and mobilization activities that helped facilitate both Christian Endeavor and the Student Volunteer Movement. Without women, missions history – particularly the “bump down” in the total number of unevangelized people that happened as a result of the mission surge early in the previous century – would be vastly different. I would love to know the % of women involved in missions vs the % of men. Even today, who carries out the International Mission Board's Lottie Moon Christmas Offering that brings in over $100 million for missions? — the Women's Missionary Union.

One reason for exploring this thought is that American missions tends to export its ideas all over the world, and has a formative hand in the creation of mission societies worldwide. So a further extrapolation would be – why are there few/no Protestant women-only societies worldwide?

Are there any? There certainly aren't any large ones, none on the Christian/secular media radar…

Perhaps one reason, particularly during the Victorian era that you mention, though even continuing today to some measure, was the idea of trying to protect women. One of the main excuses that people like Gladys Aylward and Amy Carmichael ran into in trying to get to the mission field was that it was “too dangerous.” While this is a noble thought on the part of men who are looking to protect young single women, it probably is not reason enough for them to be prevented (as they well proved). I have run across this answer myself as a young single missionary woman and also as a married woman doing relief work in war-torn Africa. It is, of course, true. There is danger. But that has never truly been a reason for not embarking on ministry for anyone. Women, particularly single women, should also be allowed to follow a call into dangerous territory when God has called them there. They may give up their lives. They may give up far more, such as Helen Roseveare. But that is not usually a call for a mission board to make (though one can sympathize with the position it puts them in). Married women are often also in danger, men are in danger and our brothers and sisters around the world are constantly in danger, regardless of their gender or age – all for the cause of being a bearer of the Gospel. It's not for everyone, God doesn't ask that kind of sacrifice from everyone. But for those He has asked it of, historically mission boards have not been quick to support the idea of danger and death to women. This is, on one level, understandable, though it has been a source of frustration for single women who knew the calling on their lives and were blocked at every turn. However, it is also why those who persevered have become so well-known to us and are held up as heroines of the faith.

I think they actually were sending agencies. Sodalities. Societies. Whatever title we pick, I think they were women-founded, women-funded, women-staffed agencies that sent a large number of single women to the field (or at least proportionately large). I'll try to find some time to back this up with actual examples.

Hey, it would be great to see those case studies. I would love to follow up on that in much greater detail. Get us some examples and lets see what we can dig up!

Hi, Justin. I can't tell you how pleased I was to see this post. As a long-time missionary who has studied the topic and tried to bring change in her organization, I can definitely tell you that you've hit on some critical points. First, you say, “one wonders if we have felt that women had little to contribute to missions.” Both research and personal experience bear out the truth of this statement. The attitude generally seems to be that men 'do missions' and women keep the home and family going.

You say that you've noticed that women make up a larger percentage of the missionary force. Also true, statistically too. Quite a few single women go to the field, but hardly any single men. Hence the discrepancy.

It's also true that very few women are in mission leadership. It's a cycle: the agency thinks they are there to care for home and family, so their ministry goes unnoticed. When there is a need for leadership, the women's contributions are unknown, so no women are considered qualified. The areas that do get women in leadership are often stereotypically female; MK work, women's ministry, member care. But these are not areas contributing to the overall strategic leadership and thinking of an organization.

Though you didn't find it, there actually was brief time in Protestant history with women-only sending agencies. Dana Robert's book American Women in Mission details it. As you say, the male mission leaders wouldn't send single women to the field. Yet the wives on the field clearly saw the need for single women in the work. So they wrote begging for help. In 1868 the Congregationalists became the first denomination to establish a women's mission board. Other denominations including the Baptists, Methodists and Presbyterians quickly followed suit. According to Robert, by 1900 there were over 40 denominational women's agencies, with three million active women! These women appointed their own single missionary women, raised their support and sent them out.

On page 137 she describes the extent of the Methodist women's sending agency, the Women's Foreign Missionary Society, and the kinds of work they did (including medical, educational and evangelistic ministries)

On page 184 she tells of Lottie Moon, single Baptist missionary to China, who threatened to resign from the mission if she were not give voting rights like the men on her field. She eventually starved to death from lack of support, yet is now the name of the major Southern Baptist missions fundraising campaign.

In 1910 the women's missionary movement celebrated their Jubilee. (p256) So what happened? Over the next 10years or so, the male-led denominational boards voted to take over the women's boards and merge them into the general work of each denomination. By the Second World War, the women's missionary movement was effectively over (302)

Robert states of the women's groups, “They were powerless to defend themselves because they had no laity rights in the church. . . women's missionary agencies were unable to stem the tide–especially when women had no voice in the councils of their churches and could not be ordained.” (304) She says this makes for depressing reading–I agree!

So where does that leave us? Is a separate agency for women the answer? Those agencies did great work, and women can often reach other women and children who are inaccessible to men. Yet I don't believe that 'separate but equal' is the answer. God's design in Genesis is for partnership, and modeling God's image through male and female. When we separate, both men and women lose something important and we fail to adequately represent a God of reconciliation. Rather we perpetuate the separation brought by the Fall.

That said I do believe there is a need for major reform and reconciliation in some mission agencies themselves, before we can bring God's message to the world that so desperately needs to hear it!

Thanks for the details on the women's missionary societies. That will give me something to run down. You do make an interesting and compelling point about God's design being for partnership, which I am in firm agreement with. I have also been thinking about places where a women's only agency–or perhaps a women's only base or ministry within an existing agency–would be useful. Working amongst victims of sexual trafficking or amongst women in the Middle East are two of the most obvious examples, of course. I'm sure there are others. The point about partnership is a strong one, however. I wonder if men ought not re-visit that passage in Scripture about serving wives, and apply it more generally in missions toward serving – aka enabling, facilitating, etc – women in ministries.

If I get links to these kinds of agencies, I'll put them as updates in the body of the article itself.

Justin, I would just say that there are agencies who aren't “afraid” of the idea of teams of women for specific ministries. Those would be the same agencies who aren't afraid of women taking leadership roles. I agree with Leanne that a completely separate agency would miss the design of gender roles. However, there is no reason to think that we couldn't send teams of women to do specific ministries where that would actually be more fruitful, or based on a sense that God is directing them into that kind of work.

Actually, women did create a number of missions agencies just for sending other women around 100 years ago. Check out Jane Hunter's book The Gospel of Gentility. Some scholars, such as Dana Robert, advocate for modern-day “woman to woman” missions as well.

Just for info, the sending agency that I work for (Pioneers) currently has the following percentages of women:

25% of our staff are single females
8% are single males
67% are married couples

This makes the total “census” of women 58.5%. These are international numbers, not just US staff. In the past I determined that US staff are more female than the international census, but I don't have the number in front of me to give you.

Anecdotally, I would suggest that single women go to the more difficult fields of service and are more willing to be single on the field more often than men over the long term.

I think one reason why you see few gender-specific agencies is that life changes. Many single people get married or at least want the option of staying with their organization if they do. I think that InterServe may have started out as a women's only agency and then morphed. Can anybody verify that? If not, it's a great example of a female-founded agency as I believe it's original founders were women.