Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
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.
|
That's not my position. My purpose in raising the questions I did was just to have some more discussion about this chapter and what you had said about it. It seemed to me you came down too hard on the other end of the see-saw and were jettisoning the idea of all being able to participate. I just wanted to get it back on the see-saw since it seems to me to be in the Bible. Anyway, I think there has been some good discussion.
You are right that we need to try to set aside our assumptions and preformed constructs when we come to the Bible. It's not easy to do, but important. That is one of the things I think I have enjoyed the most (about reading the Bible) since finding a measure of freedom from all the interpretive overlays I acquired while under Lee's teaching.
Jane