lesterb wrote:Valerie wrote:...This passage seems to teach that it is NOT left to the laity to determine what Scriptures mean- or to dictate doctrine- but it should have come from those in leadership that it was entrusted to- and for them to teach laity-
Couple of quick thoughts on this...
1. The leadership of the congregation you attend feels that the woman's covered head is subversive and unnecessary. According to your own testimony, you are wearing it because of your personal conviction, rather than the interpretation of your leadership.
2. This doesn't line up with the practice of the Church in Acts, specifically in Acts 15 but also elsewhere. The "multitude" came together to discuss the issues.
3. This idea flies in the face of a lot of what Anabaptism teaches about community, brotherhood, and the kingdom of Christ. In fact, Anabaptists would not exist had they held to this teaching. Groups like the EO and the RCC like this teaching because it gives them total control over the people under them. I will not be part of a group that locks the brotherhood out of the interpretation process.
This is a fair question lesterb but my conclusion is based on what I see happened through the centuries with Protestantism in general & Sola Scriptura- because they broke away, and started over trying to figure it all out by Scripture alone (which Scripture doesn't claim itself to be the 'only' authority) then we have the situation of today- where over 20,000 denominatins outside of the ancient Church has interpreted all Scripture, while it 'seems' they include ancient writings in helping with that- it has totally sected out Christianity beyond real recognition of One Holy Apostolic Faith- this is what I see as a very sad situation. In light of your question, our former pastor of 20 years when we had reached an answer by prayer & understanding regarding covering, he simply said "I thought it was the hair. I don't see how some doily represents anything (or something like that is how he said it regarding doily-apparently visiting Holmes County often since we are close in proximity) even pastors today trying to understand the Anabaptists get confused about the different obvious sectarianism so probably don't see that as 'the answer' as well- recalling a man asking a waitress about the various coverings in Mrs. Yoders- he said the larger ones then are like 'super Christian'- see there is confusion in witnessing the variety-like that-
My conclusion is Pastor's learn where they go to 'theology' school and by praying to understand- it makes it easy for me to often fall back then on ancient writings and teachings and see where the Church at large has departed-
Just an aside- I really don't see, when having visited the numerous EO parishes we have, any "power" type of authority from clergy- not at all- honestly and truly, I see servants up at the altar and living out their priesthood very much like Christ- serving. Bringing healing. Compassion. The laity in the congregation we spent a year, loves loves loves Father Andrew, to them he has a huge heart and is all about serving not demanding an authoritarian role- A brotherhood situation is something I've never personally experienced in churches-like the Anabaptist-
Reading Scripture at face value, it seems to me though- the bishops played a very important role, the elders, the deacons- and in Churches like EO, there hasn't been a need to figure things out 'Scripturally" forever- those in leadership go by the early interpretations- the service is about worship, the homily or sermon, the Eucharist (being the most important part), prayer, singing, fellowship afterwards- there doesn't see this power struggle going on that I feel you suggest? However in decision making- I guess it has always been according to the pattern in Acts 15 among the leaders- that's where councils began-