Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
I had the good fortune of being in a privileged class: white, male, educated. Being white, I was by default accorded access to levers of societal power. Male, meant that I wasn't a female, who could be too emotionally expressive - uncomfortably so, really - also unstable, not able to "bear weight before the Lord" if you know what I mean, wink, nod. Educated meant that I could play with words to my personal benefit.
...
|
I resemble this remark! One experience stands out to me, strongly. We had a sister in our locality who was, perhaps, the smartest person I've met and who was extremely clear on cutting straight the truth. The main thing she did wrong was...speak authoritatively (that is, speak with conviction) on doctrinal issues. This, of course, was a major offense (as Paul warned) and she was repeatedly told to keep the head covering. She wasn't silenced, she could still testify and speak of experience (like Guyon) but not teach. It's too bad because she was more erudite than the brothers!
But this isn't unique to the Local Church -- it's the pattern of fundamentalist Christian churches. So, although a shame and a loss, it is withing orthodoxy to shut out the voices of women.
As one Blended Brother once told me (regarding excluding non-celibate homosexuals), it is a shame but it is the way of the Bible. If the church changes to allow non-celibate homosexuals (and women to teach), is it bearing the testimony?
Thus, this aspect -- patriarchal bias -- has no solution among Pauline literalists.