Quote:
Originally Posted by rayliotta
Like awareness said, if you're gonna have a program, have a program.
But is that the same thing as an elder playing this game of, "Hey look at me, look at how cleverly I can treat the meeting like a fast-paced game of chess, maneuvering the pieces to shape the board just how I want it! -- aren't we clever?"
All the while boasting in how much they let "the Spirit" flow in their meetings, in a way "Chris-chee-aa-nity" does not.
Is that the same thing?
P.S. I'm exaggerating. But am I exaggerating that much?
|
But in the LRC they (we) define(d) the flow of the Spirit in terms of the freedom that we had to go where we wanted and to what we enjoyed. And we defined the presence of the Spirit by our feelings.
If 2 or 3 should prophesy, then there is order. If all refers to the 2 or 3 then there is order. If all refers to the congregation, then there is chaos. But it might be enjoyable and give a good feeling.
We may be long gone from the LRC, but do we still use it and its meetings as a yardstick for the "flow of the Spirit" without discovering whether the Spirit was, in fact, flowing in those meetings? Or have we presumed that what we called the Spirit in those days was actually the Spirit and not just our personal enjoyment of freedom from old forms?
And we presume that the Spirit does not flow in well-organized meetings. Why? Because Lee said so? Because they aren't full of everyone "Prophesying"? Are we sure that is prophesying? Or is it just everyone talking and feeling good because they were allowed to speak?
And for any quick response, on what basis do you respond in the manner that you do?
I'm not answering. I don't think scripture gives us the kind of direction that was given in the LRC. That doesn't make other ways right or wrong. It just makes the ways less important. But are we presuming that the LRC way (when not directed by Mel Porter) is simply
the way?