How does one address difficult issues, issues requiring change in people and institutions if one is not aggressive?

Looks like a (possibly) accidental mix-up between “aggressive” and “violent”. Been done before. Hardly ever works.

If the antonym for “aggresive” is truly “gentle”, then “gentle” must mean “passive”.

If it is really desired that men become passive, I could see why it would be dressed up in other words. If it is not desired that men become passive, then acting as if being “aggressive” is somehow morally equivalent to being violent is counterproductive.

My congregation has a pretty good mix of male and female leadership. Since our higher allowed us to be deprived of a pastor, we have been running our own affairs and a woman running a group gets just the same respectful attention as a man running a different group. Pam says do this, we do it. Paul says do that, we do it.
We’re entertaining a question: Is having a pastor required, or merely traditional?

There is no gender issue in our congregation. I do know, however, of congregations where the men have been marginalized. For whatever reason, they don’t bother. Not to lead, not to attend. The hypothetical of figuring out what to do about it, and attempting to get the current power structure to do it brings up interesting possibilities….