I listened to very painful testimony on NPR this morning by a young woman who was forced by America’s most prominent polygamist, Warren Jeffs, to marry her nineteen-year-old cousin when she was just fourteen. She remembers pleading with Jeffs not to make her marry him or to have sex with him.
But she was told that a woman’s job is to submit. She was threatened with hell. She was told to yield to authority. God’s authority.
Religious fundamentalism when combined with Taliban-like views of human beings (male and female) is such a frightening thing.
I hope they charge Jeffs with assisting in a rape. A child was forced to have sex because “it was God’s will.” Or so said the leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints. There’s always some religious authority who has a direct line to God and an infallible interpretation of scripture.
- - - -
Kramer has gone from being incredibly funny — a master of physical comedy — to being very unfunny. Likely you’ve seen clips of his outburst at a comedy club either on the news or on youtube.
In his disingenuous apology, he insisted that he isn’t a racist — that the horrible things he was screaming at some African-American hecklers don’t really represent who he is. (Mel Gibson, part two.)
Jesus, the world’s wisest teacher ever, said that it is “out of the overflow of the heart that the mouth speaks” (Matthew 12:34).
- - - -
Have a wonderful, refreshing holiday.
The Church of Christ does not have women elders or preachers due to God’s will (interpretation of scripture).
Although not as harmful as Jeff’s LDS church or the Taliban, it does appear to be a subset of this type of behavior based on God’s will.
Re: Kramer:
There are some things you just can’t ever, ever say. Whether that apology/explanation was genuine or not, some words truly do change the course of your whole life like James says. You can only guard your tongue for so long; better to guard your heart, then.
The only thing that gives Michael Richards any credibility at all is the fact that Jerry Seinfeld is trying to stick up for him as a person while still strongly condemning what he did. If you haven’t watched the apology clip yet, you can do so on the Letterman site:
http://www.cbs.com/latenight/lateshow/
Personally, I think Richards fancies himself as a provocative comic in the Andy Kaufman mold — a comic who tries to get a rise out of his audience. Unfortunately for him, he pales in comparison.
Mike,
Happy Thanksgiving to you and your’s. I just wanted to pass on a note that one of your loyal readers and fellow minister - Preacherman - is not doing well at all. I have copied a note from his wife here below from his blog. I’m sure they would appreciate prayers. Thanks for the interruption, and here it is:
____
As some of you know, he had a disease as a child (Guillian-Barre’ Syndrome) which paralyzed and almost killed him. Well, it’s back. It’s sort of like lightening. It’s unusual to be struck once, but almost unheard of to be struck twice.
Last Thursday I brought him to the Emergency Room because he had begun falling at different times. They did several MRIs and other tests including 2 spinal taps and gave us a diagnosis today. He began treatment today, but as of yet, there is no change in his condition.
________
I heard the same news report on NPR. It was hard to hear a now 20 year old woman reliving what she considers the darkest day of her life. The “prophet” told her, she said, that sometimes something feels wrong, but it is right because the Lord and His prophet say it is to be done.
The heart is deceptive, but sometimes it can serve as a warning bell to us that something isn’t right. When religious leaders tell us that we should do something that we have moral qualms about simply because there’s a “Thus saith the Lord,” we should take pause and consider the situation more objectively.
Of course, that wouldn’t help a 14 year old girl who is being forced into a sexual relationship that she doesn’t want.
I know this isn’t the way courts are supposed to work but I was ready to convict Warren Jeffs on the basis of the young woman’s testimony alone. It was hard to listen to and there was no doubt in my mind that he help to facilitate a rape. The comparison with the mis-led religous zealotry of the Taliban is not too great a stretch.
And Michael Richards needs to find a more appropriate place for his apology to the African-American community than a late-night talk show.
Have a good Thanksgiving, Mike. It’s begining to look a lot like Christmas in Searcy.
Kent, where’s the link to Preacherman’s blog?
Here’s the link to Preacherman’s blog, sorry I forgot it earlier:
http://www.kinneymabry.blogspot.com/
Mike- I’m a little curisous about why you think Michael Richard’s apology was disingenous but you thought the opposite about Ted Haggard. Any reflections? What was the substantive difference between the two apologies that made you think differently about them? Do others share this view? Just some pre-Thanksgiving wonderings…
The reason Michael Richards appologized on David Letterman was because Jerry asked a favor from Dave …. They are all friends and comics that go way back….I think Michael felt “safe” in that environment… Was it the best place… probably not… but it was a friend trying to help a friend…..
AND on the other subject…. One of the reasons I worship at Highland (mikes church) is because they DO allow (if that is even the right word) women and girls to speak and participlate in church… I don’t think I could be part of a COC where they didn’t…
I agree, Julie. I too worship at Highland partially because all members are encouraged to excercise, develop, mature the gifts God has entrusted to them, be they man, woman or child. I would find it very difficult to worship with any congregation that attempted to modify the participation of all members and am so thankful for Highland’s wise and inclusive leadership.
Regarding the Jeffs issue.
I’m very interested, psychologically and theologically, about the dance between morality and our reading of scripture. Clearly, the text influences our moral vision. But just as clearly, our moral sensibilities inform the way we read text. It’s a worrisome dynamic for many. What is driving a particular reading, text or our (pre-existing) moral position?
I’m mainly interested in how different people dance this dance. What seems very clear to me is that anyone claiming that this dance doesn’t exist, that they have THE MORAL READING OF THE TEXT, is at risk for a Jeffs’ type reading: I KNOW that this IS God’s will.
To me, circumspection and community are essential to achieve a moral reading of scripture. Isolated and arrogant readings are a sure recipe for disaster (hermeneutically and morally speaking).
I’m bummed about Kramer. As i watched the two guys who were the brunt of the anger express their thoughts about it all - it’s clear - these guys were deeply offended - AND - they know, they’re about to get paid some big money.
Richards is on his way to the Betty Ford clinic, I’m afraid. I think what he did was the most aweful and unwarranted public act of racism I’ve ever witnessed.
It’s “overflow of the heart” at it’s clearest. It was textbook…
Keep the gloves up, Leland. Equating pedophilia and rape with biblical church governance issues is not a valid tactic in this case.
I find it more than passing strange that there is more umbrage over the N-word than the M-F hyphenated word. If the former is deplorable then the latter is despicable. And comedians pepper their monologues with the latter all the time, yet no umbrage. It’s a strange, strange world we live in, Master Jack!
Jordan,
You can read scripture (Biblical governance) and justify Jeff’s actions. There are numerous polygamist’s in the OT.
I think Jeff’s action are reprehensible but I cannot come to that unambigous conclusion by reading the Bible.
This would not be rape in the early US or any culture (more do than don’t) that pre arranges marriage.
Keeping women from being the preacher and an elder is reprehensible. I cannot come to this unambigous conclusion by reading the Bible (Biblical governance).
Hell, you can even own slaves according to Biblical governance. Just don’t put their eye out, knock out their teeth or beat them so bad that they can’t get up for two days.
Don’t arbitrarily trash one man’s view of scripture without taking a hard look at one’s own.
I think Jeff’s action are just as f-ed up as keeping women out of the pulpit and eldership.
This is my point.
I think I understand what you are trying to say, Leland. While I agree that women should be allowed to fully participate in worship services, I’m not sure that telling my fourteen year old daughter that she can’t be the scripture reader is on the same level as forcing her to get married. What makes it deplorable is the fact that there was basically no escape for the girl. If my daughter wants to be able to be more actively involved she can choose to go to another church. (I hope that some day she won’t have to do that, but am not holding my breath on that one.)
Grace and peace.
I think Lelan’s point is that the Jeff’s deal is a big and in your face example of misusing scripture but that the same thing on a less in your face way actually occurs in churches across the world daily.
Sorry Leland, I know how to spell your name
I think a woman preacher would be obscene.
Thanks Chris for clarifying my point better than me. Owe you one.
You can make scripture say what ever you want it to say. We’ve all heard twisting the scripture to say what “we” want it to say. I have a cousin who is gay and extremely smart. He thinks it is totally ok in God’s eyes to “live” a gay lifestyle and be an active church member and uses scripture to “back his point.” I think God is extrememly clear on homosexuality. I forsee this as being the next “fad” to come along in the church. “Who are we to say people living a gay lifestyle can’t be active members in the church.” It’s coming, just watch. My opinion is that the bible clearly states what womens roles are. C’Mon you can’t be serious about women being elders? Or well maybe you are? Again, I think the scripture is very clear on that one. I believe men are the only ones who qualify to be an elder.
P.S. I would feel totally uncomfortable serving communion or leading a public prayer. I won’t judge Highland on how they choose to let women participate, but I just wouldn’t be comfortable leading or serving within the worship service. Is this on a voluntary basis or are all women at Highland encouraged to serve in worship service at some point? Just curious.
Thanks again for open dialogue.
“Jesus, the world’s wisest teacher ever, said that it is “out of the overflow of the heart that the mouth speaks” (Matthew 12:34).”
He is talking about other people like Kramer, right.
i think a women preacher with a mouth like Kramer would be obscene.
no reference to you reJoyce
Lee,
you said “I think God is extrememly clear on homosexuality. ”
I God is exteremely clear on killing those who worship other Gods:
Deut 13
“If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.
Killing those who disobey parents:
Deut 21
18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.
So why aren’t we killing athiest’s, Hindus etc and putting our rebellious children to death? There are numerous times in Deut. the Lord says to obey all my commands. Yet we hang on to the saying sof these books to renounce monogamous homosexuality (promiscous a sin).
We need to quick chicken picking the Bible to suit our viewpoint and use good ole reason to determine morality. Jeff’s viewpoint is justified by scripture, yet I find it obscene. That should tell you something about the good Book.
Leland
What?
So ~ do you agree or disagree that those living a “gay” lifestyle should be OK in the eyes of God or are they “sinning daily” and thinking God approves of “same sex” relationships?
Again, God is clear on homosexuality. It is a sin. Living in sin daily and knowingly thinking it is OK???
Lee,
My point is “How do you God is very clear on Homosexuality?”
Is it because the Bible tells me so?
If it is, God is also very clear on the issues I quoted in Deut. Yet why don’t follow these very clear instructions?
Yes, I think God (who or what ever that may be) doesn’t care about one’s sexual disposition only how it is acted upon. Heterosexual and Homosexual promiscuity is wrong but monogamous versions of both are not.
I examined my views on homosexuality and could find no reason , other than it was foreign to me, to deride it.
Thanks for the discussion.
Again I am reminded how dearly Jesus cared for the suffering of the women He encountered…and how counter-cultural it was to empower them in an age when they were merely property. I pray this young woman will find that Jesus’ words are true and healing when Warren Jeffs’ are not.
“And Jesus said to her, ‘Mary.’” That was all it took for her to recognize Him. I pray that is all it takes for me as well.
Leland (and others interested in the homosexuality discussion)-
You may be interested in these posts from my blog last March:
http://chrisfield.blogspot.com/2006_03_01_archive.html
Begin with Soul Force Equality Ride, then Open Letter To A Homosexual, and finally the $1,000,000 question. The posts themselves are not nearly as good as the comments that followed.
Hope it blesses you as it did me.
LOL, Clint. Here’s one time I am thankful that my last name is spelled “ar” at the end and not “er”.
Happy Thanksgiving, Mike.
Sin is terrible in any form it takes…but that is definitely a terrible thing that was done to that girl.
aargh. Move on
Where is the ACLU in defending M.R’s freedom of speech. Just because we may not like what someone says doesnt mean he doesnt have the right to say it? I am sure we all agree how horriable what he said was,but since when is it a crime to have a breakdown in public(baring no one is physically hurt). You don’t like what some comic says..leave..don’t spend your money on his shows anymore. And, as far as judging weather someones applogy is “Good enough”..YIKES… How on earth can I ever expect to be forgiven of mistakes if I cannot forgive someone of theirs. It is not anyones call weather someone is sincere or not! BTW..I think the definition of racism has been lost over time. To be a racist means that you feel your race is better than another. Just because you may not like the culture of a race and feel it is in some way “cathartic” or something to use nastyness to get your point accross does not make you a racist..an idiot maybe, but not necessarily a racist.
C.C.,
I haven’t heard anyone calling Richards’ actions illegal or threatening prosecution (help me out if I’m wrong). If that happened I think the ACLU would be justified in working on his behalf to protect his speech. Legally, we should have every right to say what we want (which exceptions for things like inciting violence, etc.). But that doesn’t mean any of us have to pay for or enjoy Richards’ comedy in the future, or that his actions should be condoned. On speech, what should be said and what is illegal are not necessarily synonymous.
Be right back, I’ve got a flag to burn…
In my study of the bible, I don’t see where women elders come into the picture. I believe this is an example where what might seem logical or politically correct is clouding our understanding. God created men and women differently. Why do we want to make them the same?
That being said, essentially every church has women elders. I don’t know an effective elder who is not married to an equally gifted, loving, leader. Perhaps the man gets the notoriety (something elders are certainly not to seek), but ask any elder’s wife–she is sharing in the labor/work just as much. Most elders question their own qualifications in light of the scriptures. Not only do they question their qualifications, but they question their own motives. I guess I would have to question the motives of any woman who wishes to be an elder? If a man can struggle with rising to the task when the Bible calls for men, how can a woman accept the task when the Bible gives no examples of women elders? Women leaders– many biblical examples. Women elders, none.
Kramer, Kramer, what have you done?
My guilty pleasures, Seinfield was one.
You made me laugh, now you’ve made me cry,
Now I, a fellow cracker wear a black eye
Free speech is great, it should stay that way
Misuse it though and so many pay.
Perhaps you’ll recover, pay back your debt
But such harsh words are hard to forget
The scriptures are very clear that the homosexual lifestyle is wrong. It is sinful. But so is any sin that God reveals in the scriptures.
Scripture is also very clear about women not being preachers and serving as elders.
It is not obscene to believe what the Holy Spiirit has given to us as truth. Any person who lives in rebellion to the inerrant will of God can behave in such a way as to be obscene.
I wouldn’t equate Richards with Gibson, though many do. Gibson was intoxicated, and making odd, warped historical comments about war and religion. Richards was sober and simply screaming racist words in public.
Ray,
“Any person who lives in rebellion to the inerrant will of God can behave in such a way as to be obscene.”
Where are you finding the inerrant will of God? Is it the NT, parts of the NT, the OT, parts of the OT? If its parts then I guess its really the inerrant will of Ray.
And if its only the NT then I guess the women and men have some dress modifications to make and we should stopping helping widows under the age of 60.
If it includes the OT then read Deut. 13, you have some killing to do Ray.
God is very clear on a lot of things we don’t practice. We have determined them to be cultural because they no longer fit our viewpoint or lifestyle.
So Ray, I don’t think God is very clear on anything when you read the good book in its entirety. You may want it to be clear but its not.
Leland , It is very clear to me. And I do not beleieve the writers of the scripture were influenced by their own insight as to culture and then they wrote. They were inspired of God. All of the scriptures are inerrant. The scripture does teach a differnce in the behavior of believers in the new and old testaments. None of what is written is of me. It is all of God. And He is perfect , just and whatever He inspired an author to write was the precise truth He wanted to be applied for the testament a believer lived under. I realize this is not what you beleive, but this is where I stand. Let the discussion continue.
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.
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.
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?
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 .
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…
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
Chris, Thank you. God bless your work in His Kingdom.
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.
Oh and this isn’t the Ray from the Nov. 25th post (or earlier).
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?
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.
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.
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.”
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.
Google is the best search engine