Hair: to cut or not to cut

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Jan,

Before we continue the discussion on 1Cor 11, I can see that you really have
a problem with our paradigm.  I am of the opinion that many of the UPC
people you are so critical of do not even consider the pattern in which you
approach the scriptures.  If I could illustrate by referring to the next few
verses without incurring a correct historic rendering.  I am not asking you
to agree, nor disagree. The motive I have is to clarify that we are not
talking about forcing an opinion, controlling people, mind manipulation,
degrading women, overlording etc. 

In Luke 7:36-47 we have a woman of ill repute wiping the feet of Jesus with
her hair, (I wonder if she unwrapped her head? I'm having fun here.) ;-).
He then asks those who are condemning the act a question in the form of a
parable, concerning two debtors.  One owed more than another, but both were
forgiven.  Who, Jesus asked, loved more?  The answer, he that owed more.
Jesus said that was right, and then shows how the woman's actions paralleled
her heart felt thankfulness.

IMHO it was not that the woman was somehow a worse sinner than Simon, but it
was the perspective that the woman had, compared to that of Simon.  She
loved much because she perceived how great her sin was.  Simon did not
perceive his sin to be 'too bad' and certainly not as bad as this woman's,
and therefore loved little.  This paradigm I believe has been adopted by
most people on this list.  Call it myopic, fundamentalism, legalism,
whatever you like but I think this loving response is an acceptable thing in
the sight of God. 

Again, when Jesus preached in Matthew 5 with an eye upon the intended
purpose of the Law, saying over and again, 'You have heard that it was said
by them of old time, but I say unto you' and then goes on to teach something
*not written* in the law, something even beyond the letter of the law, i.e.
a higher standard.  This I believe illustrates the paradigm that many hold
on this list that seems to frustrates you.  Yet this frustration is also on
our part in that you are not interested in what we consider the *spiritual
intent* of the Scriptures to be.  Our discussion examples this is so many
ways.  

Your paradigm is foreign to us in that you have concluded that the gospel
need not be preached, each and every scripture reference has no meaning
beyond the historic setting.  I DO NOT really believe that you would hold to
this strict of an interpretive maxim.  Yet, you are fond of applying it to
all your discussions.  

I would be interested to know how you view the message of the cross.  Should
it be understood *only* in the light of the then and there circumstance.
You have already stated that the gospel need not be preached and so I do not
draw this conclusion without merit.  If you go beyond the historic setting
then you will find yourself in the same situation as a fundamentalist in
that there is a message that transcends the historic record.

                                                                 The New 
>Testament certainly does *not* consider itself inspired. Yet, tradition 
>has caused it to be considered the word of God alongside (even above) 
>the Old Testament.
>
Here is the rub.  I agree that the New Testament was not written as if it
were to span millenniums but was written with a particular people in mind.
The then and there of the first century.  Yet when you make the next
statement that tradition has caused it to be considered the word of God, you
loose me.  I am very comfortable being a fundamentalist and holding to the
precept that the Bible is indeed the logos of God.  Written by men to men of
the first century, but the whole still inspired and inspired of the Lord.

This we hold dear.  We call it the annointing.  Paul says it like this:
 
1 Corinthians 2:4-16  And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing
words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of
this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which
God ordained before the world unto our glory:  Which none of the princes of
this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the
Lord of glory. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard,
neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath
prepared for them that love him.  *But God hath revealed them unto us by his
Spirit*: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in
him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.  Now
we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of
God; that we *might know the things that are freely given to us of God*.
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth,
but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with
spiritual.  But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of
God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because
they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things,
yet he himself is judged of no man.For who hath known the mind of the Lord,
that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

I am not attempting to leave the discussion of 1 Cor 11, just allowing some
space to clarify the argument.  I do not believe this is not an argument of
words and phrases, but a question of application of the scriptures. 
He who sows