Here I find myself in nearly total agreement with the presentation.... ok, one cavil and a coupla points that I think should have been developed that were not. BUT I would say that this is the best "tour" in the series except that the next one is even better, and we still have one lesson to go in our class.
First, the cavil: Del reads from Genesis that it is not good for man to be alone and asks whether that is a judgement of quality or a moral judgement. He then develops from his speculative theme of Gods "nature" reflected in His "system" that God is a relationship and being alone is contrary to God's nature and therefore it is a moral judgement. He emphasizes marriage and family and the inference is that it is immoral not to be married. He didn't check with Paul.
For further development: Del notes that "submission" is a recurring theme and simply states that it is good and not the jaundiced perception we hold in society. I would like to suggest that there is a lot more to the social use of "subission" in the New Testament than society normally thinks of, and that it is based on a sort of contract situation. I like the Weymouth translation of Ephesians 5:21; " and submit to one another out of reverence for Christ," and my point is that, if the "submission" spoken of is like that viewed normally, then how could I submit to one who is busy submitting to me? SO, we look at other exhortations to "submit" and find that they are accompanied with the point that the one being submitted to has the best interests of the one submitting very much at heart; husbands, elders, leaders or whomever. I was talking with a pastor whom I greatly respect in a class, and I asked about the Quaker practice of "eldering." She said that there were a few people she would grant that she would just do it if they said to back off. Of course that practice must be done in love and consideration for the best interests of the party being eldered. I submit* that it is no virtue to "submit" when one knows darn well that the "authority" has its own program and not the interest of the one supposed to "submit."
The second point is closely related and that is that the nature of authority bears a heavy responsibility to be sure that the leadership or authority is handled for God's purposes and in the best interest of the people being led, not for the leaders purposes or as an exercise of power.
*ok, really bad pun. I'm ashamed
Quaker and Pagan Means What, Exactly?
15 hours ago