Two of the three thought it a good idea because it was, in the sixties, a novel idea only beginning to gain traction with academics. In fact, Dr. LeCroix pulled one book on the subject from her personal library and pointed me to another.
Your haughty nature does feed us some amusing assertions, however.
I wonder how you would perceive these issues if you could stop your mind from conflating the spiritual Ekklesia and the institutional church?
“... being in a religion where magic thinking is strong it is understandable that you imagine of that one member of my three something which fits your haughty perspective.”
No magic thinking. Miraculous thinking. The haughty perspective is clearly yours if you deny the difference.
“But the reality is different from your assumption.”
The end result is the same. You were overruled. Sanity prevailed.
“Two of the three thought it a good idea because it was, in the sixties, a novel idea only beginning to gain traction with academics.”
Oh, your view is a product of sixties nonsense. That explains much. You are not doing yourself any favors here.
“In fact, Dr. LeCroix pulled one book on the subject from her personal library and pointed me to another.”
End result was the same: You were overruled.
“Your haughty nature does feed us some amusing assertions, however.”
Your “haughty nature” was overruled by your professor.
“I wonder how you would perceive these issues if you could stop your mind from conflating the spiritual Ekklesia and the institutional church?”
The Church is the Church. There is no conflation. There is a proper distinction. In any case, Protestants sects are neither “the spiritual Ekklesia” or the “institutional church”.
You were overruled. Sanity won the day.