Previous | Next

January 1980 · Vol. 9 No. 1 · pp. 13–24 

Attitudes Toward Women as Reflected in Mennonite Brethren Periodicals

Saundra Plett

Church papers serve a double function: they reflect the opinions of the constituency as well as help form those opinions. The three major publications of the Mennonite Brethren Church, the Mennonite Brethren Herald in Canada, the Christian Leader in the United States, and Direction, the publication of Mennonite Brethren schools, reflect the opinions regarding the changing role of women in the Mennonite Brethren Church as well as shape those opinions. A review of articles in these publications directly related to women’s roles sheds light on attitudes of the church toward this important question in the last few decades. If an article or statement doesn’t ring true to general consensus at the particular time of publication, it remains a reasonably reliable indicator of what has been, or will be, the attitude of many church members.


The 1960’s were years of social upheaval in North America, most particularly in the United States. Tradition and authority were being openly questioned on all fronts, not the least of which concerned the place of women in the home, in employment outside the home, and in the church.

If the Christian Leader did not reflect much of the change of the era, it was asking questions and making attempts. For several years the Leader had featured a woman’s column known as “Pots, Pans and Patter.” This regular column concerned itself most often with how a Christian woman may be an ideal wife and mother. The focus was instruction, from woman to woman, on the particulars of raising a Christian family. In 1961 this feature was discontinued to be replaced the following {14} year with Katie Funk Wiebe’s “Women and the Church.” If titles tell us something, we already have a clue that some women were ready to give time not only to functioning at home, but at church as well. In her introductory column Mrs. Wiebe told her readers that her articles would be devoted to strengthening Christian ideals in home, church, and community living.

In the early 60’s only one article on the role of women in the church was published. An editorial, published in May 1961, encouraged mothers not to enter the work force, but to stay at home, lest their children stumble because of lack of guidance. In her column, Mrs. Wiebe was encouraging women to read, to pray, and to be responsible for their own faith. In an important statement in 1962 she said that in an age of emancipation, the greatest call is to be a godly woman. What kind of implication “godly” had in 1962 is reflected in her topics of prayer, faith, family relationships, and mothering.

For several years Mrs. Wiebe concerned herself largely with columns on activities of women’s organizations, family life, personal development, and ethics. She wrote of money management, family devotions, child education, and support of mission and attendance of women at church conferences. During 1963 she compared the comfort of the Holy Spirit to a woman’s comfort. Once again she stated that spiritual leadership belongs to the men, but raised the issue of working women. The following year she made some stronger statements, although she still insisted on the importance of and fulfillment in being a wife and mother. Mrs. Wiebe began to encourage women to reach beyond their homes in work or in community involvement. For the first time she spoke against a strongly dominant husband as destructive to the humanity of both wife and children.

The next few years saw more serious ventures into the realm of feminist thought. Phyllis Martens published an article in 1965 1 encouraging women to pursue careers and personal fulfillment. She also encouraged women to do this without sacrificing femininity, or competing with men. Meanwhile Mrs. Wiebe made it clear that she was ready to lead the Mennonite Brethren women into a radical departure from tradition. In 1965 she reviewed Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique and asked whether or not the church had been holding women back. Her next columns were devoted less to women’s issues and focused more on contemporary subjects of interest and concern to the whole body of believers. Among her topics were racial prejudice and the problem of human suffering, as well as calls for the theological training of women, albeit for the purpose of training children properly. Toward the end of 1966 Mrs. Wiebe openly stated that “women can no longer look for safe, easy roles away from the social and intellectual ferment of our age.” {15}

Finally, in 1967, “Women in the Church” was discontinued and Katie Funk Wiebe began to write “Viewpoint,” which had much the same content as her previous columns but was no longer labeled for women only. Taking care not to label herself as “Militantly feministic” she charged that “many women do not aspire high enough in church-related service and are too readily content with trivia.” 2

In the last of three major articles in the 60’s written about women in the Leader, in May 1969 3 Marlin Thomas painted a picture of the ideal Christian mother as submissive to her husband; the result of women’s disobedience was broken homes, rebellious children, and a hard life for the husband.

The Mennonite Brethren Herald also saw some changes in attitude, but nothing as direct or as strong as Katie Funk Wiebe’s leadership in the Leader. “Homemakers,” a counterpart to the Leader’s early women’s column, continued until 1965. At that time it was discontinued and nothing took its place. The column, written almost always by Elfrieda Dyck, presented ideas on keeping baby books, conquering holiday blues, writing cheerful letters, getting to church on time, and planning children’s birthday parties. The feature lacked spiritual depth and failed to touch on important social or church issues.

Perhaps the fact that “Homemakers” was left without a successor prompted the creation of more articles concerning the role of women during the 60’s in the Herald than the Leader. Editorials, invariably in May, the month of Mother’s Day, encouraged women to stay at home and concentrate on children and family life. In 1962 Jacob Suderman 4 articulated this position clearly for the home front and the following year was supported in the church arena by I.W. Redekop. 5 Mr. Redekop spelled out the duties of women in the church to include singing, teaching Sunday school, child care, and to hold no authority over men. He concluded with “therefore let everyone serve with the gifts he has received” (emphasis mine).

The year 1966 was a productive one for discussion about women. Evidently the women’s movement had begun to raise questions that required a response. In February of that year David Ewert 6 looked to the early church as a model for restricting women to teaching children and women and for not assisting in public worship. (“Public,” I assume means “mixed”.) Hedy Durksen 7 responded a few months later that women have no desire to lead, but do have an obligation to speak up. She wrote, “It is not enough for women to sit back and listen to men speak.” That same month Katie Funk Wiebe 8 published an article calling for more training for women in order that they might be better mothers. In the same year she called for women to expand their concerns beyond the home. Clearly, responsibility for home and family has a strong pull. Six months later she reinforced her position for family responsibility and {16} again asserted that Christian duties do not end there. In June, John H. Redekop 9 made a stand that was both progressive and cautious:

I see no reason why women’s work should not be fully recognized as a regular branch of the church . . . We have made much ado about overcoming racial, educational, and economic barriers: it is high time that we put into practice the notion that Christian extends to women as well.

He did not suggest that women and men do the same work, only that they be considered of equal importance.

It is 1968 before we read more about the issue in the Herald, when Mrs. Joe Wiebe 10 offered a Mother’s Day article, pointing out that a woman’s primary task is to teach her children about Christ. The following year John Jantzen 11 affirmed this outlook. Also in 1969 the move John Redekop began in the church took a step backward in the home when Selma Hooge 12 placed the sole responsibility for the rising divorce rate on women.

In the midst of conflicting and changing opinions, more and more women were becoming involved in church activities. In their paper presented to a symposium in 1976, John Fast and Gaylord Goertzen listed three reasons why the 1960’s were a “watershed for involvement”: (1) A large number of women attended the 1966 General Conference; (2) at the same conference women were called upon to take part in the evangelistic mandate of the church, and (3) there was some input from the Dutch Mennonites, one-fourth of whose ministers are women. Attitudes were far from stable with the close of the sixties, for there was much more to be said and done by both women and men in shaping the future of women in the life of the church.


The decade we are now completing has seen great advances in the secular women’s movement, although most feminists agree that there is much to be done before women are granted full equality in the working world. The attitude of the church has also been changing—so much so that I believe a women’s column in one of the two periodicals which dealt primarily with housekeeping would be unthinkable today.

As in the 1960’s the 70’s saw a more progressive attitude in the American church, once again under the guiding influence of Katie Funk Wiebe. I am impressed that the tone of all writers in the 70’s in the Leader remains loving and open, non-condemning and essentially non-demanding. Mrs. Wiebe’s regular “Viewpoint” column continued to serve as a voice for Mennonite Brethren women and men struggling with questions concerning the role of women. Late in 1970 Mrs. Wiebe 13 pleaded with those who still viewed the women’s movement with a joking attitude. She wrote, “The issue finally is not whether {17} women should keep silent or speak up, but whether they are treated like persons and not like objects.”

Almost two years later a missionary wrote an article dealing with the role of women in overseas missions, especially in the area of education. 14 No longer would women learn only how to do housework and child care. With this article, the impact of the women’s movement was felt from yet another direction. In June of the same year two articles appeared which came close to countering each other. The first, by C. William Nichols, 15 recognized that women in the early church enjoyed unprecedented freedom. Without making any explicit suggestions, he then called for freedom in Christ for women. In the same issue, Mrs. Darlene Sartain 16 made a plea for submissive wives, especially to those married to unsaved husbands. Working from a base of Christian love, she applied that to traditional modes of relating as husbands and wives.

The next two years, 1973-74, brought strongly feminist statements to the Leader with no conservative backlash, although the idea was still very much in ferment. Katie Funk Wiebe spoke to the issue of women in church roles, “Can we accept Augsburger’s words to confront because we care? Too many people, both men and women, and their gifts are at stake to disregard it again.” 17 Luetta Reimer 18 addressed feminist concerns directly:

The general spirit of equality, justice, and personal dignity promoted by the [Women’s] movement is clearly compatible with Christ’s teaching on human relationships. Our response should be to look beyond unfounded stereotypes and develop a new awareness of the God-given potential in each human being.

That attitude received much support in 1975, but was not left altogether unchallenged. Early in the year a “Viewpoint” column 19 called for a readiness to accept gifts regardless of sex, and for more women in decision-making roles in the church. Two months later John Vogt 20 countered the momentum and suggested that the Mennonite Brethren Church pay close attention to Bill Gothard’s “Chain of Command.” Katie Funk Wiebe 21 in the same issue wondered why we as Christians apply Paul’s call to submit to one another more sternly to some persons than to others. Later, F. Kay Toews 22 took essentially the same stand as did Phyllis Martens ten years earlier. She encouraged women to move outside home circles if it didn’t interfere with the leadership of husbands or the men in the church. The end of the year brought a review of the Evangelical Women’s Caucus in Washington, D.C. 23 and the surfacing of a question that even now is not likely to receive a quick answer—are we willing to ordain women into ministry? The last significant statement to date appeared in “Windows of the Bible” 24 in which the author took a look at God in feminine imagery in the Bible. {18}

The American Mennonite Brethren Church has been faced with many difficult questions regarding the role of women and has given some consideration to discussing non-traditional answers to the issue. The last twenty years have moved a few women, if not many, from the kitchen into conference committees. Whether or not individual congregations and members are willing to make these changes is another question entirely.

The Canadian periodical tells quite another story. It is more cautious, less willing to question tradition, and sometimes hostile and extreme on this issue. The first year of the decade of the seventies brought a lively discussion on the role of women, all of it rejecting feminist ideas. Anne Ratzlaff began by asserting that

while women have been busily working for more freedom and liberty for themselves, their homes have fallen into disharmony and strife. God save Christian women from an unchristian attitude of equality! 25

Summer and fall of 1970 brought two statements to the Herald which not only failed to be open to honest questions but displayed a closed and hostile attitude. Lillian Giesbrecht 26 wrote a sensationalistic article which identified the women’s movement in its entirety with offbeat organizations such as WITCH (Women’s International Terrorist Confederacy from Hell), and SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men).

Finally, in December, Anne Unruh 27 directed the thought in tones of Christian concern when she suggested that men and women have inherently different characters, and the only liberation needed is found in Christ.

Evidently enough feelings and questions were stirred up so that in 1973 an entire issue was devoted to the “Woman Question.” Surprisingly, the two lead articles were supportive of the women’s movement in the church. Allen Guenther and Herbert Swartz 28 made four main points:

  1. The Word affirms equality before God in privileges and in gifts.
  2. The examples of women prophets must be admitted as evidence of the divine use and the acceptance by God’s people of the woman of faith to lead and teach the community of believers.
  3. Paul’s teachings deal with marriage relationships rather than with church offices.
  4. Women should be encouraged to use gifts, not only those used in the past, but also voting, serving as convention representatives and board members, and preaching.

Preaching! For the first and only time, someone had said the word {19} openly. In a reprint from the Leader, Katie Funk Wiebe supported the growing tendency to write about what it means to be a truly liberated Christian woman. However, this special issue was not without dissenting opinion. In the “Letters” section, a writer expressed disapproval of women in the seminaries, for they are needed at home. The common sentiment of readers was probably closer to this attitude than that of Guenther and Swartz. That suspicion received a hearty confirmation when the next month D.B. Wiens 29 contributed a response that was devastatingly negative toward the liberal attitudes.

After such a blow there was silence about the issue for a while. Then in 1975 a few brief pieces called for traditional patterns carried out in the framework of Christian love. The last word was a gentle series by Hedy Martens, carried through several issues in 1976. She pointed out that Jesus was never one to stereotype, that equality need not necessarily mean sameness, and that as Christians our emphasis should be mutual submission rather than role-playing.

Other publications, Voice and Journal of Church and Society, remained silent throughout the uproar of the 1960’s, and only in spring of 1971 did the latter venture a statement. Therein, George Konrad 30 listed working wives and loss of role clarity as some social influence contributing to the breakdown of the family. The following year, as the periodicals consolidated in Direction, Katie Funk Wiebe 31 offered the scholarly community a solemn prediction:

Women in Mennonite Churches will not always sit outside the inner circle of church life . . . the church will not always be afraid to give women the opportunity to develop full use of their talents of love, concern, intellect, spiritual and special skills. They will not always be second-class citizens in the kingdom of God. I rejoice.

Mrs. Wiebe called for the development of women’s talents in no uncertain terms lest women turn to the secular world for opportunity to exercise them. Two years later, in 1974, another version of Luetta Reimer’s article in the Leader appeared. She made a plea to take the women’s movement seriously and not see it only as the fanatical stuff on which the media capitalizes.

Now Hedy Martens, 32 noted as Ms. Martens, appears as a leader in the women’s movement with an article published in 1976. She suggests that if we are living in the kingdom, the question of role-playing becomes moot—we belong to each other in Christ. She unequivocally states:

Equality, therefore . . . means a God-intended equal right to be a self-determining individual within society, and in the {20} spiritual realm, the equal right to direct access to God through Jesus Christ without a differentiating need of other protection or intercession.

Howard Loewen 33 supports that viewpoint when he evaluates the Pauline texts and sees mutual interdependency as important. Paul’s concern, he says, is for orderliness and unity. “The Pauline woman provides for us an image of a full-fledged co-worker in the body of Christ.” Given an opportunity to respond to that emphasis, David Bergen insisted that distinctions be maintained in church work in light of various Scriptures. Men have leadership responsibility that women do not.

One last and very recent observation can be made from John Regehr’s 34 review of Genesis 1:26-2:25. While Regehr supported equality and the advancements of the women’s movement, he cautioned against the push for sameness.

The academic community appears not to have as many reservations concerning the changing role of women as does the broader church constituency. In the course of the 1970’s women in Canadian Mennonite Brethren Churches were given the right to serve as delegates at conferences, were permitted to vote, and a few began to serve on conference committees. Often much of this talked-about freedom did not filter through to local churches. 35


Official statements or recommendations, or even attempts at statements on the role of women in the church are few. The Board of Missions and Services has been willing to speak to this question sooner than the other conference boards, probably because tradition does not easily cover all situations in overseas missions. A 1963 statement 36 speaks to the position of single missionary sisters and grants them full rights, with the possible exception of legislative participation. The same board in 1964 37 worked with the responsibilities of a missionary wife. The conclusion was that her first duty is to serve her husband and children; to set an example for the national women. However, if she does have spare time, she may participate in approved activities.

A full decade later the Committee of Reference and Counsel heard a paper by Frank C. Peters. 38 Peters acknowledged that sisters are truly co-heirs of salvation but insisted that the biblical pattern is for sister participation, not leadership. However, in special circumstances, God may call a sister to do and say that which under ordinary circumstances she would not. Although feminists may have been disappointed with the conclusions of the paper, it is encouraging that the committee did feel a need to discuss the issue.

It would seem as though the Canadian Mennonite Brethren Conference {21} is willing to put more effort into this difficult question than the U.S. Conference, although Canadians are reluctant to discuss the question in a positive light in the Herald. Evidently this reluctance does not mean a choice to ignore or delay the discussion on the changing role of women. At the 63rd Convention of the Canadian Conference two papers appeared. The first, by Herbert Brandt 39 instructed women to “submit but not sell out”, referring to man as the initiator, woman as the responder. David Ewert 40 dealt more specifically with the function of sisters in the life of the church. Women, he said, should be able to serve as council members and conference delegates, as long as that service does not prove disturbing to the fellowship. In other words, he suggested a degree of advancement but not at the expense of division within the church. Speaking directly to the most radical question of ordination and preaching, Ewert stated that because of both Scripture and tradition, the church should not entertain notions to ordain women into the preaching ministry or pastoral leadership.

In spite of apparent opposition to expand the role of women, changes have been made in the Canadian Conference. One indicator of the new mood can be seen in the growing number of women serving as delegates to the conference. 41 The United States conference has not responded in the same fashion, but in 1976 a symposium was held at the Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary to discuss “Women and the Church.” Well aware of the impact of the recent feminist movement, the symposium recognized a need to rethink and redefine both theology and practice in regard to the role of women. The conclusions were ambiguous and no statement was formulated.

Throughout the entire history of the Mennonite Brethren Church only two official statements concerning the role of women in the church have been released. The first appeared as early as 1879, not a surprising time, for a concern for ethics and structure in lifestyle ran high in the early years of the church. Also, the deeply spiritual nature of the movement tended to allow more freedom to women. By 1879 a need was felt to make a recommendation: 42

Sister (In Church Activities)

That sisters may take part in church activities as the Holy Spirit leads. However, they should not preach nor take part in discussion in business meetings of the church.

This does leave freedom for discussion in Bible Study groups and the like, but clearly excludes women from leadership responsibility.

The conference has yet to make another unified statement. However, in 1975 the Canadian Conference issued a position 43 which, after a brief introduction stated: {22}

Be it therefore resolved:

  1. That the Canadian Conference of M.B. Churches go on record not favoring the ordination of women for the preaching and pastoral ministry nor their election to boards and offices whose work is of the nature of eldership.
  2. That the Canadian Conference declare women eligible to be elected as delegates to conferences and to church and conference boards and committees other than those referred to in recommendation No 1.

This statement represents progress. Although women are still restricted from leadership positions, they may serve as representatives.


The Kauffman/Harder study Anabaptists Four Centuries Later, is a useful tool for discovering what the “grassroots” feeling is. Since the research has been done only once, it is not possible to study changing attitudes. Following are two questions asked in the study and the responses of Mennonite Brethren. 44

  1. In the future should larger number of qualified women be elected or appointed to church boards and committees at denominational, district, and congregational levels?


  2. Should the policy on ordinations in your denominations be changed to allow for the ordination of women to the Christian ministry?


This data was collected in the early 1970’s. At the time, the Herald and the Leader were unable to produce a united stand as we are unable to do now. But the prevailing attitude of Mennonite Brethren seemed to be firmly conservative; in fact, the findings indicate that Mennonite Brethren are among the most conservative of the five Mennonite groups included in the research. The author hopes a time will come when the tests can be repeated, and trends can be detected.


Twenty years ago a frustrated sister in the church whose gifts were not being used might have felt helpless and alone. Today she would find much support or at least find many ready to discuss the issues. While the secular women’s movement has influenced this change, those speaking out in behalf of women from within the church have never failed to point to their faith as a basis for thought and growth. {23}


  1. Mrs. Phyllis Martens, “Women in Fulltime and Professional Service,” Christian Leader, May 11, 1965, pp. 3-5.
  2. “Viewpoint,” Christian Leader, Nov. 7, 1967, p. 29.
  3. Marlin Thomas, “Christian Mother 1969,” Christian Leader, May 6, 1969, pp. 2-5, 15.
  4. Jacob Suderman, “Christian Authority for Marriage and the Home,” Mennonite Brethren Herald, September 28, 1962, pp. 1, 4-7.
  5. I.W. Redekop, “The Woman’s Place in the Church,” M.B. Herald, March 15, 1963, pp. 4-5.
  6. David Ewert, “Women in the Church,” M.B. Herald, February 25, 1966, pp. 4-6.
  7. Hedy Durksen, “Women’s Work in the Church,” M.B. Herald, May 20, 1966, p. 17.
  8. Katie Funk Wiebe, “Women’s Work in the Church,” M.B. Herald, May 27, 1966, p. 16.
  9. John H. Redekop, “Women—Second Class Christians,” M.B. Herald, June 24, 1966, p. 2.
  10. Mrs. Joe Wiebe, “A Mother Remembers,” M.B. Herald, May 10, 1968, p. 17.
  11. Mrs. John Jantzen, “A Christian Mother’s Refresher Course,” M.B. Herald, March 21, 1969, p. 24.
  12. Selma Hooge, “Your Husband Is Also a Man,” M.B. Herald, August 22, 1969, p. 24.
  13. Katie Funk Wiebe, “Women’s Lib Is Not a Joke,” in “Viewpoint,” Christian Leader, November 3, 1970, p. 19.
  14. Marie K. Wiens, “Adam’s Rib Is Showing!” Christian Leader, March 21, 1972, pp. 8-9.
  15. C. William Nichols, “The Apostle Paul and Women,” Christian Leader, June 13, 1972, pp. 2-4.
  16. Mrs. Darlene Sartain, “Women’s Lib—The Bible Way,” Christian Leader, June 13, 1972, pp. 4-7.
  17. Katie Funk Wiebe, “Viewpoint,” Christian Leader, November 27, 1973, p. 19.
  18. Luetta Reimer, “The Christian’s Response to the Liberation Movement,” Christian Leader, October 29, 1974, pp. 4-6.
  19. Katie Funk Wiebe, “Viewpoint,” Christian Leader, February 18, 1975, p. 19.
  20. John E. Vogt, “Respect Building—A Family Project,” Christian Leader, April 15, 1975, pp. 3-5.
  21. Katie Funk Wiebe, “Viewpoint,” Christian Leader, April 15, 1975, p. 19.
  22. F. Kay Toews, “On Being a Woman,” Christian Leader, June 10, 1975, p. 5. {24}
  23. Katie Funk Wiebe, “Viewpoint,” Christian Leader, December 23, 1975, p. 11.
  24. Kathy Falkerstern, “Windows on the Bible,” Christian Leader, December 6, 1977, p. 19.
  25. Anne Ratzlaff, “Recipe for a Happy Home,” M.B. Herald, May 15, 1970, pp. 6-7.
  26. Lillian Giesbrecht, “New Feminists Challenge Old Ideals,” M.B. Herald, July 24, 1970, pp. 2-3, 39.
  27. (Mrs.) Anne Unruh, “Liberated Women,” M.B. Herald, December 24, 1970, pp. 2-4.
  28. Allen R. Guenther and Herbert Swartz, “The Role of Women in the Church,” M.B. Herald, May 4, 1973, pp. 4-9.
  29. D. B. Wiens, “Effeminating Man—Masculinizing Woman,” M.B. Herald, June 15, 1973, 12-13.
  30. George Konrad, “Christian Families, Another Look,” Journal of Church and Society, 7 (1971), 12-20.
  31. Katie Funk Wiebe, “Women’s Freedom—The Church’s Necessity,” Direction 1 (1972), 82-84.
  32. Hedy L. Martens, “God’s Word: To Women as to Men,” Direction 5 (1976), 11-26.
  33. Howard Loewen, “The Pauline View of Women,” Direction 6 (1977), 3-20.
  34. John Regehr, “Equal and Different: Listening Again to Genesis 1:26–2:25,” Direction 8 (1979), 34-36.
  35. John Fast and Gaylord Goertzen, “Anabaptist and Mennonite Brethren History and Practice Symposium: Women and the Church,” M.B. Seminary, May 6-7, 1976, p. 20.
  36. Minutes of the Board of Missions of the Conference of the M.B. Churches of North America, Fall Agenda, 1963 (July 26-29).
  37. Minutes of the Board of Missions of the M.B. Churches of North America, Fall Agenda, 1964.
  38. Frank Peters, “The Place of the Sister in the Life of the Church.” Presented to the Committee of Reference and Counsel, 1973.
  39. Herbert J. Brandt, “Man and Woman Under the Lordship of Christ,” Canadian Conference M.B. Yearbook, 1974, pp. 12-23.
  40. David Ewert, “The Christian Woman in the Church and Conference,” Canadian Conference M.B. Yearbook, 1974, pp. 30-43.
  41. Fast and Goertzen, p. 121.
  42. We Recommend . . . 1878–1975. Published by the Board of Christian Literature of the General Conference of M.B. Churches, 1978, quoting the General Conference Yearbook, 1879, p. 4.
  43. Yearbook of the 64th Convention, Canadian Conference M.B. Churches, Regina, Saskatchewan, July 5-8, 1975, p. 106.
  44. Howard Kauffman, Leland Harder, Anabaptists Four Centuries Later (Herald Press: Scottdale, Pennsylvania, 1975), p. 196.
Saundra Plett is a recent graduate of Fresno Pacific College, Fresno, California. She was active in the Peace Club there and now is involved in the educational program of the Clovis College Community Church. Her husband, Dwight Miyake, is a music teacher.

Previous | Next