Old Brad Wilcox racism/dismissal of dissenting voices

Unfortunately, I believe that the church is stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one. If they ask members to make room for those with different and non-traditional perspectives there is danger that these people might over time alter the church.

I think that the greater danger is dilute the teachings of church/practices being practiced to the point where the church as an organization does not survive – mostly because it is not passed onto the future generation(s).

I think that church leaders are aware that this dismissive and disparaging approach causes members to bury their doubts or leave the church entirely but that is considered to be a lesser evil. By driving people with different perspectives away they see themselves as maintaining the doctrinal purity of the church.

It is a calculated risk that enough members stay active in the church, enough children are raised in the church, and enough individuals convert to the church teachings and adapt to church culture to the point to maintain the survival of the organization.

The collateral fallout of the church’s operating policy is the decreasing relevance of those church teachings. For myself, the doctrinal teachings of family hierarchy and organization became worthless when I became the primary presider & provider (of the things), and when I recognized that my personal “nurturing style” is closer to “Momma Bear with Cubs” and less like “Love at Home”. It was even harder to reconcile that “while I was the aberration”, when I talked to other women at church – their lived experience was closer to mine then not.

It doesn’t help any that one of my children is “quasi-tone deaf” when it comes to organization structures and transfer of power. This child cannot “perform deference” as a hierarchal default. This child runs a mental meritocracy internally that determines whether you are a voice to be heard out/have anything useful to say. “Presiding Over” this child is the best way to traumatize them and prevent them from doing what needs to be done.

NOTE: This child is not attempting to be willful or defiant (though there are moments). The ONLY tactic that works is “sharing power” and “transferring autonomy” to this individual – asking over and over again, “What do you know about what you need to do/are doing/want to do/need?”.

P.S. I observe that church leaders are somewhat welcoming to those with doubts or questions as long as those people are willing to ask church leaders in faith and either accept the answers they receive or be willing to park those doubts on a shelf and possibly not get satisfactory answers until some future time. This is different than those that have different beliefs/ideas/or answers than what official church sources might say. It is this latter group that I believe church leaders continue to consciously drive underground or away from the church.

They are welcoming only as long as they feel that “you want to belong to the community” and/or “you might be rescue-able”.

I treasure in my brain the times when I was introduced to a person I hadn’t met before at church functions and their facial response when I told them, “I am at best an Easter and Christmas Mormon”. Their facial contortions, speechlessness, and then attempting to recover from being caught off guard are impressive/memorable.

I agree, it’s a bad look to be so dismissive of people’s legitimate concerns. Leaders may be between a rock and a hard place. They may feel like validating some specific concerns may be seen as approval. It can be especially hard to be validating with a person that you may disagree with but being invalidating in that manner… well we all saw what happened.

If I’m remembering correctly, that was the same talk where Brad Wilcox said most people in the world are merely “playing church.” Where he clarified that people in other churches are sincere in their efforts but since they don’t have authority (aren’t the true church), it’s play pretend.

The one true church mindset can be a poison. It gives credence to the phrase perfect is the enemy of good. If it came to it, I’d rather have a good church than a true one.

Unfortunately, I believe that the church is stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one. If they ask members to make room for those with different and non-traditional perspectives there is danger that these people might over time alter the church.

The church is going to change over time regardless. Perhaps the question is, “If the church is going to change anyway, what does the church want to become?” I’d rather the church steer towards inclusivity than exclusivity. Ironically being more inclusive can end up being exclusive, as you describe.