Comments on:

By: Kathy Brazier

Kathy Brazier — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:16:12 +0000

Google is the best search engine

By: Ray

Ray — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 02:32:29 +0000

Brett, ( This is from Ray- Nov. 25 ). Sorry to have been so long…Guess I just over looked your comment.
It seems to me that the point Peter was making about braided hair was in the context of speaking to women that had non-believing husbands and that their beauty would be a quiet and gentle spirit. In other words their attitudes would do more to influence their husbands to become Christians. The women at the congregation where I attend can braid their hair or not. It is not my decision to make.
I still do not beleive that the prohibition against being homosexual is cultural because God in His word as He inspired Paul said it was an unnatural relationship- Romans 1 : 24 - 27. Also he wrote about the Christians in Corinth and what they were at one time but were cleansed - I Cor. 6 : 9 -11. ” And that is what some of you were. ” It seems to me he was saying their behavior had changed. Homosexual behavior was included in the “what some of you were . ”
Again I am sorry for the long delay. Let the discussion continue.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 02:00:28 +0000

Other Ray - Have you watched the clip on youtube? (Serious language warning here!) My claim is that the one thing he can’t say is, “I’m not a racist.” Not if Jesus is correct. Those words of utter hatred came from the heart.

Here would be a better apology: “I was so stupid. I can’t believe I said those things. The audience was rude, but that is absolutely no excuse for what I did. Honestly, I didn’t even know that kind of stuff was lodged inside me. I’m going to get help immediately. I never thought I was a racist — but nonracists wouldn’t say those things, even in anger. So I’ve got my work cut out for me. Again, I’m so very sorry.”

By: Brett Keller

Brett Keller — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 19:50:54 +0000

Mr. Cope, I had a comment above that was not approved. Was that an oversight or did I violate a rule? If the latter, please let me know how so that I can avoid it in the future. Thanks.

By: Cole

Cole — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 16:07:05 +0000

If Michael Richards’ apology CAN’T be trusted because “they’re just words,” than neither can the racial epithets. They’re “just words” too. You can’t dismiss one and not the other.

Thank God for forgiveness that comes from apologies.

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 01:50:40 +0000

I have a theory I’d like to try out on folks here concerning church health. I’ve had the misfortune of attending a church that went through a messy dispute and I’ve watched some other church/Christian organizations go through similar problems. There were 2 things that these situations had in common: 1) a leader with an oversized ego and 2) poor or minimal oversight from the elders/overseers. I’ve heard Mike mention several times on this blog how appreciative he is of the elders at Highland. I’m sure that’s true and probably a major reason for Highland’s success as a church (I know Mike is a big part of it too). But my theory is that the main reason for these problems is because of the weak/poor oversight from the elders. There is another church situation playing out on the front pages of the Tennessean website that looks to me like a group of overseers who may have gotten it right after letting things go on too long. Any thoughts?

By: Ray

Ray — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 08:00:23 +0000

Oh and this isn’t the Ray from the Nov. 25th post (or earlier).

By: Ray

Ray — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 07:59:33 +0000

I really hesitate to condemn Richards…. Especially after Mike gave the benifit of the doubt to Ted Haggard. I really don’t understand the inconsistency.

By: Ray

Ray — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 03:18:36 +0000

Chris, Thank you. God bless your work in His Kingdom.

By: chris field

chris field — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 01:33:41 +0000

Ray-

Thanks for your response. We may not agree but I am grateful for your ability to give your opinion in a kind and gracious manner. Yours is a great example of how all dialogue in the church should be. Blessings.

chris

By: Brett Keller

Brett Keller — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 21:27:08 +0000

Ray,
Sorry if I wasn’t very clear in my post. Let me rephrase the question.
I understand that from your interpretation of scripture that men and women have generally different roles because they were created differently. To me, that seems to be a general, inviolable principle. Paul’s specific prescription against women braiding their hair, however, seems to be culturally influenced, as are some (though not necessarily all, in your view) of the ways in which women are to be submissive. I’m hoping you recognize that women in your church-unless it is extremely, extremely conservative- are likely more outspoken in worship/bible classes than Paul would approve of. So there are some specifics there that seem to be at least partially culturally influenced. So please answer the specific question; do you allow ‘your women’ to braid their hair? If so, it would seem that you recognize that while there is a general principle in scripture (women and men having different roles) you can also acknowledge that some of the more specific ways in which those general principles are realized can be influenced by culture.

By extension, scripture points people toward a monogamous, faithful partnership through which they help each other along in faith, satisfy each other sexually, care for children (biological or adopted orphans), etc. This preference for faithful monogamy seems to me to be a general principle. However, the prohibition against homosexual activity in the writings of Paul and others could possibly be an influence of culture. Why? Because homosexual activity at the time was largely associated with promiscuous living, which would violate the ‘will of God’ in many ways, just as such promiscuous living would today. However, today there are also faithful, monogamous homosexuals who are acting in accordance with their biological orientation. Is it possible (not even likely- merely possible) that the prohibition against homosexuality in general was not a condemnation of the actual act of sodomy (or lesbian sex, for that matter, as lesbianism is mentioned much less often than male homosexuality) but of the general promiscuity that that behavior was associated with at the time?

That’s the point I was trying to make, I think…

By: Ray

Ray — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 18:28:53 +0000

Brett, I am not sure if I fully understand all your questions and could even answer in a way that would be an answer as to what you want me to say. I guess what I just said is confusing.
I know there are cultural considerations when anyone interprets scripture and I know there will never be an agreement on the subject.
Let me go back to the main point presented in this specific blog.
I do not think it is obscene and it is not being mean spirited to identify the homosexual life as sinful. This, in my way of thinking is not cultural, it goes back to what I think is very clear teaching from Romans 1 and I Cor. 6 and other passages. When Paul wrote about the limitations on women teaching he goes all the way back to Genesis , so it was not just a Corinthian cultural issue. Teaching that women should not preach is not being oppressive it is just the design of God for male spiritual leadership. Yes some men have abused women and some women have abused men. But just because there has been abuse does not mean that the whole design is to be thrown out. That was the point I was trying to make. I know some will not agree with me .

By: Brett Keller

Brett Keller — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 15:46:44 +0000

Ray, do you allow your women to braid their hair? If not, why do you not follow that particular command by Paul? Is it solely a culturally specific command? If the prohibition against braiding hair, or helping widows under 60, are specific to those situations, maybe they simply appeal to a higher ethic- modesty and serving others, respectively. It seems there is a good deal of anti-homosexual sentiment in the New Testament (about them burning in lakes of fire along with liars, etc.), but maybe that’s a codemnation of the promiscuity associated with homosexual activities in Paul’s time. If the value is monogamy, why not accept homosexuality?
I understand that you believe the Bible is inerrant. But if this difference beween the OT and NT is in what you specifically obey (ie., not obeying commands to kill non-believers), on what basis do you choose which to follow?

By: Ray

Ray — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 13:45:34 +0000

Chris , I did answer the questions . All of the Bible is inerrant. New and old testament. There is a difference in obedience in the new.
My point was in saying that women should not preach and that stating the homosexual lifestyle is sinful is not obscene. If that is true then any time we teach against any sin , then we would have to make a blanket statement saying any teaching against any sin is obscene.
Paul does teach about the women being silent , and it was not just a cultural situation because he said he taught this in all the churches. Also he was very clear in teaching about being homosexual.
That is not to say that anyone should hate anybody or bash anyone. We preach about forgivenes, the grace of God, the blood of Jesus for redemption so sins can be forgiven. Any sin, all sins.
It just seems to me that we are now in a reverse kind of legalism that makes it wrong to ever teach against sin. We have to or else we are not helping people to be set free from the consequences of sin.

By: Chris Field

Chris Field — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 04:16:34 +0000

Ray-

You didn’t answer Leland’s questions. What allows us to follow some of what the Bible says but not all of it? How do we decide what is cultural and what is not? That is the issue at hand.