Can I be candid?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Margaret Barber, missionary from England. Little is known about her. James Reetzke of Chicago has a booklet about her, but none of his writings are objective or unbiased.

What the allegations against Barber as missionary actually were has been largely unknown, but the missionary board was always blamed. It was said that Nee lasted the longest under her, and he was in his early 20's. Most of the early hagiography about Barber and Nee comes from Lee, and is suspect.

What is incongruous to me, whether Barber was 'saintly' or 'harsh' or some combination thereof, is why are people running the LSM/lc, who won't allow women to minister, then extolling these women as pillars of the recovered church?

That goes for JPL, MG, DY, RL as well. They give these women their own web pages, trafficking on their supposed spiritual credentials, then they won't allow any woman to have any functional role?

And are people that: a) brain-dead; b) bewitched; and/or c) afraid to point out the obvious?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

What is incongruous to me, whether Barber was 'saintly' or 'harsh' or some combination thereof, is why are people running the LSM/lc, who won't allow women to minister, then extolling these women as pillars of the recovered church?

That goes for JPL, MG, DY, RL as well. They give these women their own web pages, trafficking on their supposed spiritual credentials, then they won't allow any woman to have any functional role?

And are people that: a) brain-dead; b) bewitched; and/or c) afraid to point out the obvious?

The positive history of influential women in the recovery give the rest of them hope.

The constant ministry of condemnation causes women inside the program to believe that they are the problem and not the system they are in.

Hence ... distorted congruity! LC style.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

What is incongruous to me, whether Barber was 'saintly' or 'harsh' or some combination thereof, is why are people running the LSM/lc, who won't allow women to minister, then extolling these women as pillars of the recovered church?

That goes for JPL, MG, DY, RL as well. They give these women their own web pages, trafficking on their supposed spiritual credentials, then they won't allow any woman to have any functional role?

And are people that: a) brain-dead; b) bewitched; and/or c) afraid to point out the obvious?

I don't get too worked out about this because it is common among Christians, and not peculiar to the LRC.

I think the fundamental problem is taking certain verses out of context. For example Paul said he does not suffer a woman to teach, and in another place says the elder sisters need to teach the younger women. Therefore you have to realize the word about not teaching is in a very specific context. The chapter talks about kings and dealing with the local government. It is literally the chapter in the NT addressed to the churches "PR department". In this chapter only those given the authority to address the government officials are to do so. This is very common today. Just because you are a cook at McDonald's doesn't give you the authority to speak on behalf of McDonald's to the press. Every large corporation understands this and practices this. Employees are informed not to speak to the press unless it is their job to do so.

I am a teacher in the NYC Department of Ed. I do not speak to the press about the DOE. The chancellor could say that she "does not suffer me to speak or teach the press". That is true. It would also be completely absurd to generalize that and say I am not to teach.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I don't get too worked out about this because it is common among Christians, and not peculiar to the LRC.

I think the fundamental problem is taking certain verses out of context. For example Paul said he does not suffer a woman to teach, and in another place says the elder sisters need to teach the younger women. Therefore you have to realize the word about not teaching is in a very specific context. The chapter talks about kings and dealing with the local government. It is literally the chapter in the NT addressed to the churches "PR department". In this chapter only those given the authority to address the government officials are to do so. This is very common today. Just because you are a cook at McDonald's doesn't give you the authority to speak on behalf of McDonald's to the press. Every large corporation understands this and practices this. Employees are informed not to speak to the press unless it is their job to do so.

I am a teacher in the NYC Department of Ed. I do not speak to the press about the DOE. The chancellor could say that she "does not suffer me to speak or teach the press". That is true. It would also be completely absurd to generalize that and say I am not to teach.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that "recovery women" in 1927 were suffered to teach, and in 2017 they're not. Put differently, recovery women in 1927 eventually got LSM/lc-fueled internet panegyrics extolling their spirituality and women of 2017 do not, nor will they ever.

Something happened in the intervening 90 years to bring about the sea change.

Originally Posted by Ohio

The positive history of influential women in the recovery give the rest of them hope.

The constant ministry of condemnation causes women inside the program to believe that they are the problem and not the system they are in.

Hence ... distorted congruity! LC style.

The juxtaposition of the positive history against the negative present of condemnation and repression could hardly be more striking. All these women from the past getting their web pages and even published biographies extolling their spiritual virtues, while current members are supposed to disappear in the faceless proletariat. Whatever you do, don't be noticed; don't stand out. Don't have an individual or unique voice or a face - if you get noted in the LSM/lc today it's because you're near to the burning - to a "sister's rebellion" or some such. Better to hide in the proletariat - be a ''small potato".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I don't get too worked out about this because it is common among Christians, and not peculiar to the LRC.

I think the fundamental problem is taking certain verses out of context. For example Paul said he does not suffer a woman to teach, and in another place says the elder sisters need to teach the younger women. Therefore you have to realize the word about not teaching is in a very specific context. The chapter talks about kings and dealing with the local government. It is literally the chapter in the NT addressed to the churches "PR department". In this chapter only those given the authority to address the government officials are to do so. This is very common today. Just because you are a cook at McDonald's doesn't give you the authority to speak on behalf of McDonald's to the press. Every large corporation understands this and practices this. Employees are informed not to speak to the press unless it is their job to do so.

I am a teacher in the NYC Department of Ed. I do not speak to the press about the DOE. The chancellor could say that she "does not suffer me to speak or teach the press". That is true. It would also be completely absurd to generalize that and say I am not to teach.

Great point about understanding the context of scriptures.

Reminds me about how Hebrews 10.25-26 is misinterpreted to imply that missing meetings will send you to hell. I grew up in the RCC with that dreaded guillotine swinging over my head..