Quote:
Originally Posted by MacDuff
...
When he asked the Galatians “who has bewitched you?...... Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?”, to what was he referring? A Spirit-led ideal? Is there something there between the lines these old eyes can’t see that says we really don’t have to take Paul seriously in this matter?
To whom was Paul referring? Protestants, who are individualistically minded to begin with, interpret what he says to conform with their own individualism. But Paul was writing to groups, to communities. His whole point was that believing communities were to be led by the Spirit. And only was referring to individuals as individual members of the community
1Corinthians comes after Romans for a reason. 1Corinthians shows what happens when believing men rule, or more specifically in this case, when believing men choose to follow specific believing men. Instead of the Spirit. Having seen first-hand what human rule amounts to in Christianity, the bad with the good, through your experience with the Recovery, I find it hard to believe you would advocate more of the same.
It’s my view that Christianity started when the idea of being led by the Spirit was to certain believers no longer tenable, and it’s been untenable to their followers ever sense.
....
MacDuff
|
I would push back a bit on this (even though I've used these same verses to argue against "offices of authority" in present day churches).
In these verses, there were
specific abuses to which Paul could point to as
evidence that they were not being "Spirit led." That is not an argument, necessarily, that being "Spirit led" is devoid of human structure. If their abuses hadn't come in, would Paul claim they were led astray, simply because they had human leaders? I'm not sure.
Just because something is "Spirit led" does not mean it won't have a concrete physical manifestation. That there end up "leaders" among groups of people is not
inherently incongruous with being "Spirit led." Indeed, if there is a "leader" who emerges "thru the Spirit," it might well be the case then that each individual believer is then "Spirit led," to obey and submit to that "leader."
Your argument presumes that there will not and cannot be a visible structure to the Spirit's leading. That may well be true, but I don't see it as automatically true.
I remember years ago when scientists found the chemical in the body that was supposed to be the reason people feel "love." The commentary then was "see, there's no such thing as emotional, spiritual love - because its really just a chemical." My response would be - just because something has a physical manifestation does not mean it doesn't have an emotional, or even spiritual origin. The presence of one is not the negation of the other. The data is simply inconclusive.
Analogy make sense?
My general approach is that I'm open to just about any path someone takes in their spiritual journey - meet with churches, don't meet at all in a formal way, join a "leadership" or sit back quietly. It's not the form it takes, in my view. I just keep an eye on the fruits of the path taken (particularly my own). I don't happen to belong to a formal church organization. However, if I find that my walk is devoid of community and fellowship, I take it as a sign that my walk is unhealthy. Likewise, I don't have an issue with others participating in a formal church structure I may disagree with. However, if their participation turns into judgement of other groups or other individuals for not doing likewise, I take that as a sign there's something unhealthy in their walk.
Thoughts?
Peter