[OBW]

Jane,

I never considered that you would think I was picking on you. I was just making sure that others didn't think that.

And I wasn't suggesting that you were intentionally leaving out v.29 to make some point.

But in totally different contexts I keep reading how we are prone to finding what we think we want to find. And while theology is not science, there is an aspect of dealing with words, contexts, structure, etc., that does provide some kind of bounds. And it is being observed that even scientific study is often full of people expecting a result and looking for it, even to the exclusion of data that disagrees. That is why it is generally required that more than one study be performed. Without accusing the original study, others begin to replicate it. Even study the structure of the study, looking to find fault in it. Not to debunk it, but to establish that it is truly telling us something of value.

And it is found that the human brain is excellent at finding patterns. For example, the number of background noises that can sound like voices saying words to the human mind is,well, mind-boggling. And it is even more prevalent when we are looking for it.

And when coupled with some recent studies concerning use and misuse of context that suggest that once we think something says something specific, it is difficult to see beyond that even if it is found that the context would suggest a different meaning, I question how quickly we find a way to ditch the context of order, and even restriction, that starts before v. 31 and continues beyond it to read this one verse as an open-ended invitation to everyone to speak.

As I mentioned before, I do not think that more open meetings are simply wrong. But it would seem that Paul is saying that it should not be the rule. And I provided the initial example — the apostle's teaching in the Temple and breaking bread from house to house. In that pattern was a clear delineation between the work of the teachers and the fellowship among the believers.

And even if Paul suggests that they all seek to be prophets (among the various gifts) that does not mean that they can simply be it if they set their minds on it. Gifts are given as the Spirit determines, not as we dictate or desire. Even if we are really sincere about it. (Still looking for that tongue-in-cheek smilie.)

And what I keep seeing/reading from so many who hold this "all meaning everyone" view of v. 31 is that assemblies that do not follow that reading are just not so good. They are deficient. And the LRC, or a Reformed LRC is the only real way to go. And we lower the superiority of the LRC from "the only place God blesses" to "the best place around although God blesses others." And we get off-the-cuff comments like the one about a Southern Baptist congregation. It doesn't meet our "all participate" standard so it is inferred to be deficient and unacceptable — followed by a retraction in which we say "I didn't mean to judge them" or something like that.

I fear that we seek to make this teaching right because it is our preference. And in the process find ourselves excuse to look down a little on all the places that don't measure up. It seems such an awful shame to be judging so many excellent Christians in excellent assemblies just because one verse might suggest that everyone should have the opportunity to speak in the meeting. Especially when it is at least as likely that the context might actually be saying the exact opposite. Maybe everyone shouldn't speak in a meeting in which they all come together. Everyone shouldn't be inserting the song that really impresses them. Maybe there should only be 2 or 3 speaking, and possibly 2 or 3 allowed to speak in tongues (if there is an interpreter).

I wouldn't go so far as to say that such open meetings are deficient and contrary to 1 Corinthians 14. But they might be closer to it than the ones down the street at that Southern Baptist assembly. Not praising all things Southern Baptist. I'm not one. And probably won't be. But I don't have a problem with them or their meetings.

I'm beginning to think that all the emphasis on the form of a meeting, from openly participative, to somewhat participative in portions, to structured, to liturgical, is a distraction from what really matters. And it is not the form of the meeting. It is not definitionally wrong to "do church" the way the Lutherans, Anglicans, (even RCC, excluding the prayers to Saints and Mary), the Eastern Orthodox, Methodists, Presbyterians/Reformed, Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Pentecostals/Charismatics, Brethren, Baptists (all of them), Mennonite, Bible churches, or any number of different nondenominational/free groups, and home groups do it. Even the LRC. A particular form might be a distraction to me. And my form may be a distraction to someone else.

It is said that tradition is the living faith of the dead. Traditionalism is the dead faith of the living. No matter how we do it, we have the choice of either. We can be living, and alive in Christ, and using any of those forms. Or we can be doing any of those forms and be dead. It is not the form/tradition. It is the participant. We may argue that the more extremely lively forms are more likely to be undertaken only by the truly living. But that is not really true. We can be living as we practice in entirely new ways, like the previous generation, or those 500 years ago, or those 2,000 years ago. The way is not the key. It is the participant.

My purpose in digging into what I think that Paul is saying here is not to say the LRC is simply wrong (although they might be). It is to demonstrate that they weren't simply right. And there is ample evidence that other ways easily meet Paul's standard of "order." Leaving the LRC removes us from a place of forced uniformity and dumps in a place of great diversity. Surely there are potential errors all around, just as there was in the LRC. But the fact of diversity in almost everything is not an error. The discussion about "all can prophesy" has not been about "I like churches that practice that. . . . other churches that do it different are just as good, but not my preference." Instead it has been more about proving the point that it is some kind of preference of Paul's and that doing it a different way is a spiritual problem. That may not be your position, but it permeates the underlying rhetoric I have been reading. The manner and structure of the comments would be read by most as a kind of insistence on it for true spirituality even if not outright stated.

I thought we were trying to purge out that kind of leaven. More seriously spiritual people engage in worship in Lutheran churches every week than in the LRC. But the LRC almost relegates them to Hell. Have we done much more that graduate them to the 1,000 years of summer school?

And do I catch myself on these kinds of things? All the time. What I just wrote about those other groups would not be what I would have written just two years ago. Do I think they don't have problems? Clearly they do. Just like the LRC and just like us. And I have found that in accepting that it is "just like us" is quite liberating and enlightening.