When budget cuts may lead to your superintendent of schools having to give up one of her armed guards...
As hundreds of teachers, social workers and support staff are getting layoff notices from the Detroit Public Schools district, some board members are requesting that the superintendent cut her office's budget, starting with the armed police who escort her around Detroit and throughout the state.
---
The DPS superintendent's security unit was cut from a 24-hour detail after the end of the state takeover in 2005, but it still appears to be the most extensive in the country. It exceeds that of school leaders in districts four to eleven times larger than DPS such as Chicago, New York and Los Angeles, officials in those cities said.
Currently, DPS provides Calloway two officers who -- according to documents obtained by the Free Press -- receive about $95,000 a year combined in base pay. Those officers also incurred more than 400 hours of overtime, totaling $13,803 during a period of about two months, from July 1 to Sept. 5, records show.
The two DPS police officers initially assigned to protect Calloway also protected three previous leaders: interim Superintendent Lamont Satchel, Superintendent William F. Coleman III and Chief Executive Officer Kenneth Burnley.
However, those officers were reassigned about two months after Calloway's arrival in July 2007. The transfers were due to personality conflicts and because the cops refused to carry Calloway's handbag, according to district sources who asked not to be named because they were not authorized to talk about her security.
I assume she has armed guards because the schools she visits are so dangerous. Who is guarding the kids who go there once they leave the school grounds?
I love that she wanted the armed guards to carry her purse, after all someone so important that they warrant a $280,000 to oversee a shrinking, violent and failing school system certainly should not be expected to carry her own purse!
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Monday, November 17, 2008
Hear me sing...for free!
You can listen to samples and three full songs from the upcoming CD of singing at Together for the Gospel 2008. Sure there are 4999 other men singing, but if you listen carefully you can hear me. I am the one singing off-key.
Check it out here!
Check it out here!
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Think on this....
This from an article on Yahoo! about the protests following the passage of Proposition 8 in California...
BOSTON – Gay rights supporters waving rainbow colors marched, chanted and danced in cities coast to coast Saturday to protest the California vote that banned gay marriage there and urge supporters not to quit the fight for the right to wed.
Many cast it as a civil rights issue.
Crowds gathered near public buildings in small communities and major cities including New York, San Francisco and Chicago to vent their frustrations, celebrate gay relationships and renew calls for change.
"Civil marriages are a civil right, and we're going to keep fighting until we get the rights we deserve as American citizens," Karen Amico said in Philadelphia, holding up a sign reading "Don't Spread H8".
"We are the American family, we live next door to you, we teach your children, we take care of your elderly," said Heather Baker a special education teacher from Boston who addressed the crowd at Boston's City Hall Plaza. "We need equal rights across the country."
Interesting point, one that in my mind not only doesn't serve as a defense of "gay marriage" but also should raise some questions in the minds of parents. What do you really know about those who are teaching your kids if you send them to a public or even a private Christian school? You know that they have a degree, probably in education. You may meet them at the beginning of the school year and a couple of times during the year for a few minutes. Unless your kid is in trouble all the time, you will have very minimal contact with those you have given charge of your children to. What is their worldview? What is their agenda? What values do they hold and what values are they passing on to your kids? You probably don't know much about any of this stuff and that should give you pause.
We were both public school kids and our kids went to public school until a few years ago, so I am not just spouting off about something I know nothing about. Sure, some parents know a few of the teachers of their children pretty well but that is the exception. Do you really want someone you barely know and have met a couple of times teaching your children? Many professional educators are nice people as far as I know, but not knowing much of anything about them and yet entrusting your kids to them all day for a school year? That doesn't strike me as the right model for a Christian parent.
The raising up of the children God has blessed us with and entrusted to us is one of the greatest responsibilities of the Christian, one that simply should not be subcontracted out.
BOSTON – Gay rights supporters waving rainbow colors marched, chanted and danced in cities coast to coast Saturday to protest the California vote that banned gay marriage there and urge supporters not to quit the fight for the right to wed.
Many cast it as a civil rights issue.
Crowds gathered near public buildings in small communities and major cities including New York, San Francisco and Chicago to vent their frustrations, celebrate gay relationships and renew calls for change.
"Civil marriages are a civil right, and we're going to keep fighting until we get the rights we deserve as American citizens," Karen Amico said in Philadelphia, holding up a sign reading "Don't Spread H8".
"We are the American family, we live next door to you, we teach your children, we take care of your elderly," said Heather Baker a special education teacher from Boston who addressed the crowd at Boston's City Hall Plaza. "We need equal rights across the country."
Interesting point, one that in my mind not only doesn't serve as a defense of "gay marriage" but also should raise some questions in the minds of parents. What do you really know about those who are teaching your kids if you send them to a public or even a private Christian school? You know that they have a degree, probably in education. You may meet them at the beginning of the school year and a couple of times during the year for a few minutes. Unless your kid is in trouble all the time, you will have very minimal contact with those you have given charge of your children to. What is their worldview? What is their agenda? What values do they hold and what values are they passing on to your kids? You probably don't know much about any of this stuff and that should give you pause.
We were both public school kids and our kids went to public school until a few years ago, so I am not just spouting off about something I know nothing about. Sure, some parents know a few of the teachers of their children pretty well but that is the exception. Do you really want someone you barely know and have met a couple of times teaching your children? Many professional educators are nice people as far as I know, but not knowing much of anything about them and yet entrusting your kids to them all day for a school year? That doesn't strike me as the right model for a Christian parent.
The raising up of the children God has blessed us with and entrusted to us is one of the greatest responsibilities of the Christian, one that simply should not be subcontracted out.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Ah tolerance!
The forces of "tolerance" are out in full swing, even in hotbeds of radicalism like...central Michigan? From the Lansing State Journal...
Gay rights protesters disrupt Sunday service
People threw fliers, shouted slogans at Delta Township church
DELTA TWP. - A radical gay rights group is claiming responsibility for a protest Sunday at Mount Hope Church in Delta Township.
Protesters who entered the Creyts Road church along with worshippers surprised the congregation when they stood up during the service, threw fliers at churchgoers and shouted slogans such as "It's OK to be gay," and "Jesus was a homo," according to David Williams, communications director at the church. His father, Dave Williams, is the church's longtime pastor. He was not preaching at the church Sunday.
Another group of protesters demonstrated outside the church at the same time as the indoor protest.
The Eaton County Sheriff's Department responded to the scene Sunday but no arrests were made.
In a released statement, David Williams said churchgoers were unclear as to the purpose of the demonstration.
A Lansing group affiliated with a radical gay organization known as Bash Back, formed to protest the Republican and Democratic national conventions earlier this year, put out a call on the Internet on Oct. 7 for activists to come to a "radical queer convergence" in Lansing on Nov. 7-9.
A posting on its MySpace page declared the convergence a "fierce success."
Now if a bunch of Christian interrupt a "gay marriage" ceremony, you can be sure that the condemnation would be swift and severe. But in 2008 it is perfectly permissible to disrupt religious services, deface religious property and threaten and block entrance to houses of worship as long as you are on the side of "tolerance". Of course the problem is the amorphous nature of that word, which has come down to this: anyone who believes strongly in something that I don't believe in is "intolerant". Makes for a nice way to shut down conversation. I especially like the declaration that it was a "fierce success". In what way? How is a success "fierce"? Do they think that lots of people at that church are suddenly sympathetic to their cause? This was nothing more than a vulgar, narcissistic display glorifying sin.
From RightMichigan...
The lefties were a part of a liberal organization known as Bash Back Lansing and their collection of radical blogs, including one of the state's most widely read "mainstream" progressive blogs (and none which will receive a link on this website) called on "queers and trannies" from across the state and the region to converge on Lansing for what they refer to as an "action." While many of the members claim to be anarchists (they drove on roads, ate non-garden grown foods, printed materials on products created by government protected free markets, wore clothing, talk incessantly about "organization," etc etc etc) their broader goal is stated plainly on one of their lefty blogs.
"I can tell you that we are targeting a well-known anti-queer, anti-choice radical right wing establishment."
Mount Hope, for the record, is an evangelical, bible believing church whose members provide free 24 hour counseling, prayer lines, catastrophic care for families dealing with medical emergencies, support groups for men, women and children dealing with a wide variety of life's troubles, crisis intervention, marriage ministries, regular, organized volunteer work in and around the city, missions in dozens of countries across the globe, a construction ministry that has built over 100 churches, schools, orphanages and other projects all over the world and an in-depth prison ministry that reaches out, touches and helps the men and women the rest of society fears the most. They also teach respect for all human life and the Biblical sanctity of marriage as an institution between one man and one woman.
This is what Michigan liberals label a "radical right wing establishment," and over 30 of them showed up in force yesterday. Wearing secret-service style ear pieces and microphones they received the "go" from their ringleader and off they went.
This is the struggle we are in, and make no mistake the enemy we face is not these poor deluded homosexuals. It is the great Enemy that has been sowing strife and evil since the Garden. These people are lost and dead in their sins, and it is up to Christians to not knuckle under to these sorts of tactics, but instead to all the more boldly declare Christ and Him crucified. There is no hope in the homosexual lifestyle and that needs to be made lovingly but boldly declared to these people.
Gay rights protesters disrupt Sunday service
People threw fliers, shouted slogans at Delta Township church
DELTA TWP. - A radical gay rights group is claiming responsibility for a protest Sunday at Mount Hope Church in Delta Township.
Protesters who entered the Creyts Road church along with worshippers surprised the congregation when they stood up during the service, threw fliers at churchgoers and shouted slogans such as "It's OK to be gay," and "Jesus was a homo," according to David Williams, communications director at the church. His father, Dave Williams, is the church's longtime pastor. He was not preaching at the church Sunday.
Another group of protesters demonstrated outside the church at the same time as the indoor protest.
The Eaton County Sheriff's Department responded to the scene Sunday but no arrests were made.
In a released statement, David Williams said churchgoers were unclear as to the purpose of the demonstration.
A Lansing group affiliated with a radical gay organization known as Bash Back, formed to protest the Republican and Democratic national conventions earlier this year, put out a call on the Internet on Oct. 7 for activists to come to a "radical queer convergence" in Lansing on Nov. 7-9.
A posting on its MySpace page declared the convergence a "fierce success."
Now if a bunch of Christian interrupt a "gay marriage" ceremony, you can be sure that the condemnation would be swift and severe. But in 2008 it is perfectly permissible to disrupt religious services, deface religious property and threaten and block entrance to houses of worship as long as you are on the side of "tolerance". Of course the problem is the amorphous nature of that word, which has come down to this: anyone who believes strongly in something that I don't believe in is "intolerant". Makes for a nice way to shut down conversation. I especially like the declaration that it was a "fierce success". In what way? How is a success "fierce"? Do they think that lots of people at that church are suddenly sympathetic to their cause? This was nothing more than a vulgar, narcissistic display glorifying sin.
From RightMichigan...
The lefties were a part of a liberal organization known as Bash Back Lansing and their collection of radical blogs, including one of the state's most widely read "mainstream" progressive blogs (and none which will receive a link on this website) called on "queers and trannies" from across the state and the region to converge on Lansing for what they refer to as an "action." While many of the members claim to be anarchists (they drove on roads, ate non-garden grown foods, printed materials on products created by government protected free markets, wore clothing, talk incessantly about "organization," etc etc etc) their broader goal is stated plainly on one of their lefty blogs.
"I can tell you that we are targeting a well-known anti-queer, anti-choice radical right wing establishment."
Mount Hope, for the record, is an evangelical, bible believing church whose members provide free 24 hour counseling, prayer lines, catastrophic care for families dealing with medical emergencies, support groups for men, women and children dealing with a wide variety of life's troubles, crisis intervention, marriage ministries, regular, organized volunteer work in and around the city, missions in dozens of countries across the globe, a construction ministry that has built over 100 churches, schools, orphanages and other projects all over the world and an in-depth prison ministry that reaches out, touches and helps the men and women the rest of society fears the most. They also teach respect for all human life and the Biblical sanctity of marriage as an institution between one man and one woman.
This is what Michigan liberals label a "radical right wing establishment," and over 30 of them showed up in force yesterday. Wearing secret-service style ear pieces and microphones they received the "go" from their ringleader and off they went.
This is the struggle we are in, and make no mistake the enemy we face is not these poor deluded homosexuals. It is the great Enemy that has been sowing strife and evil since the Garden. These people are lost and dead in their sins, and it is up to Christians to not knuckle under to these sorts of tactics, but instead to all the more boldly declare Christ and Him crucified. There is no hope in the homosexual lifestyle and that needs to be made lovingly but boldly declared to these people.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
They say...
...it takes a big man to admit when he is wrong. Doubly so for me! But I feel compelled to say that my friend James Lee was right about something and I was wrong. The context is irrelevant, but suffice it to say that on this day I publicly admit that James, you were right, and I was wrong.
Mark it down, I may never admit that again!
Mark it down, I may never admit that again!
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Grace In Bloom: Growing in the Grace and Knowledge of Jesus Christ: Big Step of Obedience
Grace In Bloom: Growing in the Grace and Knowledge of Jesus Christ: Big Step of Obedience
Check out this blog, the author has been wrestling with the issue of headcoverings and has come to a point of conviction about the Biblical need for women to cover their heads. Give it a read!
Check out this blog, the author has been wrestling with the issue of headcoverings and has come to a point of conviction about the Biblical need for women to cover their heads. Give it a read!
Bye-Bye Banking!
Finally got a new job, out of banking and back in the retirement plan industry. It is a great move for us, and it will get us closer to the middle of Michigan and out of the Detroit metro area. It will initially require a pretty long commute, but with John Piper, Al Mohler and company on my iPod I should be in good hands on the drive!
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
There are two kind of companies in America...
There is a great editorial in the Wall Street Journal on how the hated Big Three automakers, creators of evil, gas guzzling, greenhouse gas spewing SUVs, THE symbol of the horrible environmental record of America has become the sweetheart of the Left. From Nationalizing Detroit...
In the Washington mind, there are two kinds of private companies. There are successful if "greedy" corporations, which can always afford to pay more taxes and tolerate more regulation. And then there are the corporate supplicants that need a handout. As the Detroit auto makers are proving, you can go from being the first to the second in the blink of an election.
Truer words have never been spoken! The same D.C. busybodies who have spent countless hours and dollars regulating the auto industry and empowering the labor unions now is turning to the taxpayers and telling us we have to fix a broken industry, an industry broken in large part by the government and the unions who now want us to save the same jobs they have priced out of competitiveness.
For decades, Congress has never had a second thought as it imposed tighter emissions standards on GM, Ford and Chrysler, denouncing them for making evil SUVs. Yet now that the companies are bleeding cash, and may be heading for bankruptcy, suddenly the shrinking Big Three are the latest candidates for a taxpayer bailout. One $25 billion loan facility has already been signed into law, and Senator Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.) wants another $25 billion, this time with no strings attached.
----
A bailout might avoid any near-term bankruptcy filing, but it won't address Detroit's fundamental problems of making cars that Americans won't buy and labor contracts that are too rich and inflexible to make them competitive. As Paul Ingrassia notes nearby, Detroit's costs are far too high for their market share. While GM has spent billions of dollars on labor buyouts in recent years, they are still forced by federal mileage standards to churn out small cars that make little or no profit at plants organized by the United Auto Workers.
We ought to let GM and Ford declare bankruptcy, tear up their union contracts and dealership deals and start over as smaller, leaner and more competitive companies. Instead, under the benevolent leadership of Washington liberals and the capitulation of the now limp-wristed Bush administration the taxpayers will dump untold billions into a failed system, a bailout that will prolong the death throes but cannot fix the problem. Hey, sounds a lot like the way we treat public education!
In the Washington mind, there are two kinds of private companies. There are successful if "greedy" corporations, which can always afford to pay more taxes and tolerate more regulation. And then there are the corporate supplicants that need a handout. As the Detroit auto makers are proving, you can go from being the first to the second in the blink of an election.
Truer words have never been spoken! The same D.C. busybodies who have spent countless hours and dollars regulating the auto industry and empowering the labor unions now is turning to the taxpayers and telling us we have to fix a broken industry, an industry broken in large part by the government and the unions who now want us to save the same jobs they have priced out of competitiveness.
For decades, Congress has never had a second thought as it imposed tighter emissions standards on GM, Ford and Chrysler, denouncing them for making evil SUVs. Yet now that the companies are bleeding cash, and may be heading for bankruptcy, suddenly the shrinking Big Three are the latest candidates for a taxpayer bailout. One $25 billion loan facility has already been signed into law, and Senator Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.) wants another $25 billion, this time with no strings attached.
----
A bailout might avoid any near-term bankruptcy filing, but it won't address Detroit's fundamental problems of making cars that Americans won't buy and labor contracts that are too rich and inflexible to make them competitive. As Paul Ingrassia notes nearby, Detroit's costs are far too high for their market share. While GM has spent billions of dollars on labor buyouts in recent years, they are still forced by federal mileage standards to churn out small cars that make little or no profit at plants organized by the United Auto Workers.
We ought to let GM and Ford declare bankruptcy, tear up their union contracts and dealership deals and start over as smaller, leaner and more competitive companies. Instead, under the benevolent leadership of Washington liberals and the capitulation of the now limp-wristed Bush administration the taxpayers will dump untold billions into a failed system, a bailout that will prolong the death throes but cannot fix the problem. Hey, sounds a lot like the way we treat public education!
Happy Veterans Day!
Or if you are a liberal: National Day of Shame and Repentance for America's Acts of Imperial Aggression and War-Mongering against the oppressed.
Good day to be in banking since we are one of the few businesses to be closed today. A good day also to remember those who served our nation honorably and ably over the past century, a number that shrinks daily and along with it shrinks our sense of national duty and pride. Fewer and fewer people around us every day have that sense of shared cause and shared sacrifice, and that directly results in the every increasing sense of entitlement and the culture of narcissism that infects America. This next year is going to be another tough one economically and very likely one or more of the automakers is going to disappear or go bankrupt. Our way of life is changing at lightning speed and I fear that the current population of America is not up to the challenges we face. In the past we always pulled together as a people, but today we seem more likely to point a finger of blame than we are to raise a hand to volunteer to help.
Good day to be in banking since we are one of the few businesses to be closed today. A good day also to remember those who served our nation honorably and ably over the past century, a number that shrinks daily and along with it shrinks our sense of national duty and pride. Fewer and fewer people around us every day have that sense of shared cause and shared sacrifice, and that directly results in the every increasing sense of entitlement and the culture of narcissism that infects America. This next year is going to be another tough one economically and very likely one or more of the automakers is going to disappear or go bankrupt. Our way of life is changing at lightning speed and I fear that the current population of America is not up to the challenges we face. In the past we always pulled together as a people, but today we seem more likely to point a finger of blame than we are to raise a hand to volunteer to help.
Thanks to those who served our country and I hope we can become a nation once again that is deserving of their sacrifice.
Sunday, November 09, 2008
Hope? Change? Politics as usual
In the midst of a financial crisis, Obama is planning on reversing executive orders regarding stem cell research and oil & gas drilling. Wow, that is different from what we normally get from liberals.
WASHINGTON – President-elect Obama's transition chief said Sunday the incoming administration is looking to reverse President Bush's executive orders on stem cell research, oil and gas drilling and other matters.
John Podesta said the president can use such orders to move quickly without waiting for Congress to act, highlighting the extraordinary powers a president can wield beyond signing legislation approved by Congress. Podesta said people should expect Obama to use those powers to reverse many policies of the Bush administration.
"I think across the board, on stem cell research, on a number of areas, you see the Bush administration even today moving aggressively to do things that I think are probably not in the interest of the country," Podesta said in a broadcast interview.
"There's a lot that the president can do using his executive authority without waiting for congressional action, and I think we'll see the president do that," Podesta said.
President Bush has limited federal spending on stem cell research, a position championed by opponents of abortion rights. Obama has supported the research in an effort to find cures for diseases such as Alzheimer's.
Also, the federal Bureau of Land Management is opening about 360,000 acres of public land in Utah to oil and gas drilling, leading to protests from environmentalists.
"They want to have oil and gas drilling in some of the most sensitive, fragile lands in Utah," Podesta said. "I think that's a mistake."
Brilliant. Since gas prices have dropped down, let's forget about oil drilling until the next time gas hits $4. Far better to tax the heck out of oil companies. I am sure they won't pass the cost onto consumers. The next big oil price spike could finish off the Big Three auto companies, I guess that is what he means by aiding Detroit. Just think of all the vacant office space and factory capacity when they go under.
Brilliant!
WASHINGTON – President-elect Obama's transition chief said Sunday the incoming administration is looking to reverse President Bush's executive orders on stem cell research, oil and gas drilling and other matters.
John Podesta said the president can use such orders to move quickly without waiting for Congress to act, highlighting the extraordinary powers a president can wield beyond signing legislation approved by Congress. Podesta said people should expect Obama to use those powers to reverse many policies of the Bush administration.
"I think across the board, on stem cell research, on a number of areas, you see the Bush administration even today moving aggressively to do things that I think are probably not in the interest of the country," Podesta said in a broadcast interview.
"There's a lot that the president can do using his executive authority without waiting for congressional action, and I think we'll see the president do that," Podesta said.
President Bush has limited federal spending on stem cell research, a position championed by opponents of abortion rights. Obama has supported the research in an effort to find cures for diseases such as Alzheimer's.
Also, the federal Bureau of Land Management is opening about 360,000 acres of public land in Utah to oil and gas drilling, leading to protests from environmentalists.
"They want to have oil and gas drilling in some of the most sensitive, fragile lands in Utah," Podesta said. "I think that's a mistake."
Brilliant. Since gas prices have dropped down, let's forget about oil drilling until the next time gas hits $4. Far better to tax the heck out of oil companies. I am sure they won't pass the cost onto consumers. The next big oil price spike could finish off the Big Three auto companies, I guess that is what he means by aiding Detroit. Just think of all the vacant office space and factory capacity when they go under.
Brilliant!
A call for a new Reformation in the church: Headcoverings?
Let’s start with a pretty obscure question. In most evangelical churches, the notion of women covering their heads is not on the radar, not even really recognized as being an issue at all. I mean it is 2008 and we aren’t Amish, so why in the world would women in Christian churches cover their heads?
Well, because it is an explicit commandment. See 1 Corinthians 11:
Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. (1 Corinthians 11:1-15)
But unlike some commandments, this one gets virtually no attention outside of some smaller denominations that many people would see as being on the fringe (Mennonites, Plymouth Brethren, etc.)
Why is there such opposition to this? It is a clear commandment, it meshes with covenant headship and the order of creation, and it isn’t a huge sacrifice for women to wear a headcovering. Let’s look at some of the objections that may come up…
Maybe the argument is that if we set this as an expectation and godly women in the church model it, it will make people uncomfortable and maybe it will be a stumbling block to unbelievers coming to church. I mean what if people come to church and see women covering their heads demurely, who wants to go there? Plus the women already at the church aren't going to want to wear headcoverings! The last thing we should do is make people get out of their comfort zones, don't you know what that does to attendance numbers and the offering!?
But is that a) true and b) a legitimate concern? The most discomforting place an unbeliever should be is in a Bible preaching church, being confronted with their sinful nature and the exclusive hope of Christ. If the Gospel is being preached from the pulpit, women wearing a head covering should be the LAST thing that sinners are discomforted by!
Well, what about arguing that women covering their heads is a cultural issue of that time and no longer relevant in these modern times? Well liberal theologians have made those arguments about all manner of doctrinal issues that most conservative churches takes as settled matters: homosexuality, marriage, divorce, etc. It is amazing how quickly some rise to the defense of prohibitions on homosexuality or cohabitation when told they are merely cultural constructs of that time, but then assume that something like women covering their heads in church is merely a cultural sign of marriage, like a wedding ring.
Or the most compelling argument, that the headcovering was a sign that a woman was married and under the headship of her husband, a symbol which is fulfilled now with a wedding ring?But there is a huge difference between an extra-Biblical tradition like the exchanging and wearing of wedding bands and the covering of a woman's head. The context is not cultural, it is covenantal.
Even after the great battle in the past decades over the inerrancy of the Bible, a battle won in the Southern Baptist Convention and clearly abandoned in more liberal, “mainline” Protestant denominations. I would suspect, and I have tested this theory, that when shown 1 Corinthians 11, many Christians shrug their shoulders, agree that it is a command but then still feel free to ignore it.
What is the point of this? To keep women in their place? Not at all. Women quite simply should wear head coverings in church because it is a commandment and it has a real theological symbolism and purpose. The greater issue and the real reason for this post is that we don’t see women wearing head coverings in church, among other issues, for two reasons: 1) It is never brought up and 2) we have capitulated to the culture.
It is never brought up because we flat out ignore a lot of Scripture because it is easier to skip over the problematic verses. You can’t do that if you preach chapter by chapter, verse by verse through a book. Anyone can preach about David, or John 3:16 or any number of other, straightforward verses. It is harder to preach about God commanding the utter destruction of a pagan people or reading about Lot getting drunk and impregnating his daughters.
We have also capitulated to the culture, to some extent in most churches and almost completely in many others. Not just in the obvious ways like we see in “seeker-sensitive” churches that everyone is always railing against. We have already capitulated to fashion and feminism. We have capitulated to fashion in that women just don’t want to wear what is proper or modest, they want to adorn themselves with what is cute and fashionable. So what if it causes brothers to stumble, makes a mockery of worship and declares God’s Word to be irrelevant in our advanced and enlightened culture. We have capitulated to feminism in that women see Biblical submission as a slight against them. Even in good, conservative, Republican voting churches feminism has a subtle influence over the women of the church. But that is not where it ends, or even the real problem. Much of what we do in a given week is driven by the pressure of tradition. Is VBS really an effective evangelism tool? Probably not, but you better still do it because we have had VBS at this church for fifty years! It is a tradition and by golly we are doing VBS until we run out of cute themes to use!
The real issue is not headcoverings, it is rebelliousness and bowing to Protestant traditions, traditions that have much of the same hold on the Christian church as they do on Papist churches. We have gone so long shuffling along doing the same thing, the same way, it becomes almost impossible to imagine that we need to do something different, especially when it is radically different. We have established some things as tradition for so long that it becomes unthinkable to do things differently and some things despite their explicit commands are ignored for the sake of expediency and a surrender to the culture. As long as we keep doing this, clinging to tradition and ignoring commandment, the local, visible church is doomed to keep muddling along looking less and less like the Bride of Christ and more and more like just another social organization. I am a member of the Rotary Club but I don't expect to find Christ there, because the church and social organizations are not the same thing. Being salt and light, becoming all things to all people is not a white flag of unconditional surrender to the winds of whim and change. If we are going to claim to be a Bible believing people, we had better start checking everything we do against the Word, and if something is contrary to the Word we need to stop and is something is in the Word and we aren't doing it, we better start.
Well, because it is an explicit commandment. See 1 Corinthians 11:
Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. (1 Corinthians 11:1-15)
But unlike some commandments, this one gets virtually no attention outside of some smaller denominations that many people would see as being on the fringe (Mennonites, Plymouth Brethren, etc.)
Why is there such opposition to this? It is a clear commandment, it meshes with covenant headship and the order of creation, and it isn’t a huge sacrifice for women to wear a headcovering. Let’s look at some of the objections that may come up…
Maybe the argument is that if we set this as an expectation and godly women in the church model it, it will make people uncomfortable and maybe it will be a stumbling block to unbelievers coming to church. I mean what if people come to church and see women covering their heads demurely, who wants to go there? Plus the women already at the church aren't going to want to wear headcoverings! The last thing we should do is make people get out of their comfort zones, don't you know what that does to attendance numbers and the offering!?
But is that a) true and b) a legitimate concern? The most discomforting place an unbeliever should be is in a Bible preaching church, being confronted with their sinful nature and the exclusive hope of Christ. If the Gospel is being preached from the pulpit, women wearing a head covering should be the LAST thing that sinners are discomforted by!
Well, what about arguing that women covering their heads is a cultural issue of that time and no longer relevant in these modern times? Well liberal theologians have made those arguments about all manner of doctrinal issues that most conservative churches takes as settled matters: homosexuality, marriage, divorce, etc. It is amazing how quickly some rise to the defense of prohibitions on homosexuality or cohabitation when told they are merely cultural constructs of that time, but then assume that something like women covering their heads in church is merely a cultural sign of marriage, like a wedding ring.
Or the most compelling argument, that the headcovering was a sign that a woman was married and under the headship of her husband, a symbol which is fulfilled now with a wedding ring?But there is a huge difference between an extra-Biblical tradition like the exchanging and wearing of wedding bands and the covering of a woman's head. The context is not cultural, it is covenantal.
Even after the great battle in the past decades over the inerrancy of the Bible, a battle won in the Southern Baptist Convention and clearly abandoned in more liberal, “mainline” Protestant denominations. I would suspect, and I have tested this theory, that when shown 1 Corinthians 11, many Christians shrug their shoulders, agree that it is a command but then still feel free to ignore it.
What is the point of this? To keep women in their place? Not at all. Women quite simply should wear head coverings in church because it is a commandment and it has a real theological symbolism and purpose. The greater issue and the real reason for this post is that we don’t see women wearing head coverings in church, among other issues, for two reasons: 1) It is never brought up and 2) we have capitulated to the culture.
It is never brought up because we flat out ignore a lot of Scripture because it is easier to skip over the problematic verses. You can’t do that if you preach chapter by chapter, verse by verse through a book. Anyone can preach about David, or John 3:16 or any number of other, straightforward verses. It is harder to preach about God commanding the utter destruction of a pagan people or reading about Lot getting drunk and impregnating his daughters.
We have also capitulated to the culture, to some extent in most churches and almost completely in many others. Not just in the obvious ways like we see in “seeker-sensitive” churches that everyone is always railing against. We have already capitulated to fashion and feminism. We have capitulated to fashion in that women just don’t want to wear what is proper or modest, they want to adorn themselves with what is cute and fashionable. So what if it causes brothers to stumble, makes a mockery of worship and declares God’s Word to be irrelevant in our advanced and enlightened culture. We have capitulated to feminism in that women see Biblical submission as a slight against them. Even in good, conservative, Republican voting churches feminism has a subtle influence over the women of the church. But that is not where it ends, or even the real problem. Much of what we do in a given week is driven by the pressure of tradition. Is VBS really an effective evangelism tool? Probably not, but you better still do it because we have had VBS at this church for fifty years! It is a tradition and by golly we are doing VBS until we run out of cute themes to use!
The real issue is not headcoverings, it is rebelliousness and bowing to Protestant traditions, traditions that have much of the same hold on the Christian church as they do on Papist churches. We have gone so long shuffling along doing the same thing, the same way, it becomes almost impossible to imagine that we need to do something different, especially when it is radically different. We have established some things as tradition for so long that it becomes unthinkable to do things differently and some things despite their explicit commands are ignored for the sake of expediency and a surrender to the culture. As long as we keep doing this, clinging to tradition and ignoring commandment, the local, visible church is doomed to keep muddling along looking less and less like the Bride of Christ and more and more like just another social organization. I am a member of the Rotary Club but I don't expect to find Christ there, because the church and social organizations are not the same thing. Being salt and light, becoming all things to all people is not a white flag of unconditional surrender to the winds of whim and change. If we are going to claim to be a Bible believing people, we had better start checking everything we do against the Word, and if something is contrary to the Word we need to stop and is something is in the Word and we aren't doing it, we better start.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
More on the Proposition 8 protests
This is what happens when you cross the radical homosexual movement....
Certainly the attack on the protestors was unacceptable and no doubt would be denounced by the vast majority of mormons and by their church. But the "protestors" climbing on the walls of private property, hanging up signs, vandalism. That is the mode of this movement, cries of intolerance while blocking entrance to a place of worship, jumping on police cars, graffiti.
This whole debacle should concern everyone in this country. Don't think for a second that this is an isolated incident. This is the future. Today it is the mormon temple in L.A., tomorrow it may be your church building. Today there are arrests for violence, tomorrow it may be YOU in cuffs if you speak out in opposition of the radical homosexual agenda. It is not about equality, it is about submission. Anyone who dares cross the homosexual movement becomes a target and they now have advocates in the most powerful positions in the world: the Presidency and the Speaker of the House. Be watchful Christian. Today it is the mormons in L.A. but have no doubt that the Baptist church in Des Moines and the Presbyterian church in Savannah are next.
(I wonder what would have happened if the building was a mosque instead of a mormon temple?)
(HT: Evidence Ministries)
Certainly the attack on the protestors was unacceptable and no doubt would be denounced by the vast majority of mormons and by their church. But the "protestors" climbing on the walls of private property, hanging up signs, vandalism. That is the mode of this movement, cries of intolerance while blocking entrance to a place of worship, jumping on police cars, graffiti.
This whole debacle should concern everyone in this country. Don't think for a second that this is an isolated incident. This is the future. Today it is the mormon temple in L.A., tomorrow it may be your church building. Today there are arrests for violence, tomorrow it may be YOU in cuffs if you speak out in opposition of the radical homosexual agenda. It is not about equality, it is about submission. Anyone who dares cross the homosexual movement becomes a target and they now have advocates in the most powerful positions in the world: the Presidency and the Speaker of the House. Be watchful Christian. Today it is the mormons in L.A. but have no doubt that the Baptist church in Des Moines and the Presbyterian church in Savannah are next.
(I wonder what would have happened if the building was a mosque instead of a mormon temple?)
(HT: Evidence Ministries)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)