Everyone knows that musicians and actors both ATTRACT and REPEL us. Some of you have seen this happen when MUSICIANS mount the podium. According to musicologists they must DEFUSE this mistrust by some kind of slight of hand (perhaps INFILTRATE AND DIVERT) to MAKE SPACE in the MAINSTREAM for those always relegated to menial and degrading "after worship" acts.

We have seen a series of efforts to, like Episcopalians, defuse some churches by having an AIDS PLAGUED PREACHER perform in the pulpit. This can only have the effect of DEFUSING people's view leading in some churches to an AIDS MINISTRY when church or SYNAGOGUE does not load that BURDEN on its disciples.

Now Rubel Shelly and John York do a magical dance trying to MAKE SPACE by comparing our views about women, which MUST CHANGE, to our views about homosexuals which HAVE CHANGED. I QUOTE IN PART:

SHELLY YORK: "The question for all of us is NOT what the BIBLE SAYS, but how and why...

...."Why don't we at least entertain the possibility that the BIBLE simply REFLECTS an ANCIENT TABOO or HOMOPHOBIC prejudice in a FEW people like PAUL – a TABOO and prejudice we need to outgrow?"

Of course, consistent with Machiavelli and Hegel, this is NOT a question but a STATEMENT OF NEW DOGMA just as the West End survey was a CREEDAL statement of what WE GONNA DO WITH YOUR TITHES AND OFFERINGS. The step after musical ministers as MONEY GRUBBING PALS is to impose "dormant" homosexuals as LEADERS. If I am wrong then I will turn in my SEER'S liscense.

The homosexual explanations I have visited on the Web make the argument that HOMOSEXUALITY is not wrong because the SCRIPTURES must be read in the context of what God WOULD HAVE said if He had lived in our world. They make a strong effort to make the BIBLE say that its own writers were BRAIN DAMAGED and just reflected their culture.

SHELLY YORK: "Those ADVOCATING more ACTIVE roles for WOMEN in the worship assembly take the Bible just as seriously as those who believe women "should be silent in the assembly."

But THEIR Scripture is sifted through philosophy and the writer's own personal agenda. Therefore, we have been WARP SPEEDED into a NEW universe and YOU gotta hire ME to "take liberties" and NARRATE a new Bible just to fit your needs.

If WE must understand GOD'S MOTIVES do we not QUESTION God's ability to say what He wants to say. Our review proves that HOMOSEXUALITY was not treated as just a SIN AGAINST NATURE but a violation of the WILL expressed clearly by God. Furthermore, it was the MARK of all of the emasculated priests serving the homosexual gods and goddesses.

http://www.piney.com/Shelly-Women-Homosexual.html

Their goal is to show that PAUL was also mistaken when he limited women. Therefore, we MUST UNDERSTAND that OUR culture is WRONG because it has not DEVELOPED. Only CONSERVATIVE churches of Christ are guilty of everything including bad breath. Hegel couldn't do it better.

What God and culture were unable to do, the new breed of "rhetoricians, sOPHISst, singers, musicians. sorcerers, hypocrites (the SECT OF) known as PARASITES will deliver to you. Singers? Oh, only $90,000.oo a year. The OLDEN parasites were happy to eat at the table as long as he didn't try to be Father and Husband.

Yes, singers and guitar players were "hypocrites" and sorcerers and PARASITES. $90,000.oo of the poor widow's living is a heap of HYPO for an unlawful, always perverted, OCCUPATON. And, Oh Yes, the DRUG which is administered through the HYPO'S creates "fight, flight and sexuality." Isn't that interesting? What do you do?

There is NO LAW OF TITHING and there is NO LAW OF GIVING because it is a violation of the will of God to deprive families: this makes you "worse than an infidel." Those whom you OWE get about the same TAKE as other criminal tele-maketers 5% to 10%. Obey the DIRECT COMMAND and 100% of your ALMS gets into the hands of the poor. Think about it: is it better to divert 90 to 95% for "overhead" and get 5 cents of potatoes or get a dollars worth of potatoes? Arent you STEALING from the POOR to feed the RICH made rich on selling the church financed books and CDs.

Ken Sublett

Mr. Sublett:

I have read many of your posts on this website, and I have to say your point gets lost in all the rambling. Are you saying you agree with having homosexuals in the pulpit or are you against it? I don't think the Bible leaves any room for interpretation regarding this matter. It clearly states "no sexually immoral person shall inherit the kingdom of God". I think the church accepting a homosexual minister is a violation of God's word. This world has become too "accepting" of homosexuals and their lifestyles. Instead of teaching them that homosexuality is wrong and bringing them back to God, we accept them as they are. I think they would be better served if we taught them about God and his hatred for homosexuality.

Sorry about that but I have to churn out lots of stuff during the day and only later discover that I do ramble. However, my goal is to post primarily the Biblical or historical quotes so you can do your own version.

Look at the links I have posted to see that NO I am not in favor of either PRACTICING or "pacified" homosexuals in the ministry HOWEVER perfectly they have been CONVERTED or however repentant.

The Elders,senior males, fathers are the only Biblical ministers of the Word along with the Deacons. They must be above reproach or doubt because we must try to imitate them.

Rubel Shelly speaks of PRACTICING Homosexual possible the victim of Paul's homophobia.


http://rubelshelly.ibelieve.com/content.asp?CID=17733HO


He goes on to try to prove that it is AGAINST NATURE but we have tried to show that it is AGAINST COMMAND of Scripture. He says there is NO COMMAND against it. Soe WE couldn't even think that Paul was homophobic.

Therefore, it is not very clear to me.


Ken Sublett

The book does not condemn homosexuals, known in the Bible as eunuchs. Every passage that is pointed to on this subject is either a preconceived notion or a text on idolatry. I have yet to hear these passages kept in context used to label homosexuals as sinners. Much is said by those on both sides but they don't bother to really study the issue. One can be a homosexual and be christian. One can be heterosexual and christian. One can be asexual and christian. That doesn't mean there is no moral basis for behavior. While I would argue that homosexuality is morally neutral there is ample scripture that speaks to christian conduct. The churches of Christ, as others have begun to do, ought to re-evaluate cherished and erronious beliefs.

Where and when did Rubel Shelley make his quote about the homophobic taboo? Do you have clear documentation for this? Please email me at my home address.
Thanks

From a posted sermon found at:

http://rubelshelly.ibelieve.com/content.asp?CID=17733

Rubel Shelly: "The question for all of us is not WHAT the BIBLE SAYS, but HOW and WHY. If what were our only concern, we could read it literally as God’s rule book for human behavior apart from any and all cultural contexts.

I am not inspired and therefore CANNOT know nor can I challenge God to demand the right to know HOW and WHY scripture says what it says.

Rubel considers the Bible filtered through human philosophy and the writers OWN personal agenda. Therefore, he teaches that the only thing we can hang our hat on is the CORE GOSPEL of seven facts ABOUT JESUS. Furthermore, in this sermon the concept of NARRATIVE THEOLOGY agrees with Shelly's TAKING LIBERTIES with the Scripture to compose HIS OWN narrative to give meaning to his life: he gives others this same right.

Because he believes that he has the SEPARATED HOLY SPIRIT living in his literal body he is one of those who will reveal new laws to FIT OUT culture: I don't know how else we are going to get NEW TRUTH to replace the OLD TRUTH which has been lost to us.

Rubel Shelly: "Neither is there anything that CHALLENGES the DIVINE ORDER in creation by having women partner with males in serving God. So isn't it at least POSSIBLE that there could be CULTURAL conditioning at work in some of the statements about how men and WOMEN function in the life of the church?
And couldn't Christians disagree in good faith about the interpretation of these statements without any party to the discussion jettisoning a high view of Scripture as the Word of God?

Rubel Shelly: "Let me give you an example to WORK WITH in relation to the question you've raised: HOMOSEXUALITY and the ORDINATION of PRACTICING homosexuals to MINISTRY.

....."Why don't we at least ENTERTAIN the possibility that the Bible simply reflects an ANCIENT TABOO or HOMOPHOBIC prejudice in a FEW people like PAUL -- a TABOO and PREJUDICE we need to OUTGROW?

I just don't grasp the import: does this mean that it is now ACCEPTABLE for a NON-PRACTICING homosexual to serve in te ministry? How about a non- practicing child molester? No, the Elder who is supposed to teach must be BEYOND QUESTION OR SUSPICION. We must not only follow his BIBLICAL teaching but watch the "outcome of his life."

Doesn't that confess that the Bible IS NOT INSPIRED? People can believe that: they cannot take pay to destroy faith.

A Bible believer does not WANT to discredit the Epistles and writers as the NEW HERMENEUTIC demands.

If we QUESTION then we find that Rubel is worng and that God MADE A LAW against homosexuality and inspires others to show that it destroys whole societies. What is the MOTIVE for making it POSSIBLE that Paul was just homophobic? Maybe you know.

And it is THAT POSSIBILITY that Paul was homophobic which may keep PRACTICING HOMOSEXUALS OUT OF MINISTRY.

Rubel then goes on to show that homosexuality is just wrong by NATURE while the role of women depends only on the CULTURE. He says that there are NO COMMANDS against homosexuality. But Paul spoke of the CREATED ORDER of Adam and Eve as well as the Law to show why women should not PRESIDE. The AUTHORITY could never exclude Paul's word "AUTHENTIA" which means both erotic and murderous. Effeminate male musicians exercise that same erotic and murderous authority: if they didn't ATTRACT then we wouldn't USE them and PAY them making them PARASITES.

I have tried to make it abundantly cleAr that neither does Rubel Shelly have any right to preside and sell the FREE WORD. NO preacher does especially when he breaks the LAW to "teach that which has been taught" in imitation of Jesus as "Son" who spoke only what the "Father" said through Him as the WORD expelled by His BREATH or SPIRIT.

I have shown clearly that in the Greek world Paul COULD NOT be a hired hand. All rhetoricians, Sophists, singers and musicians acted as sorcerers and were therefore known as PARASITES. Paul to the thessalonians spoke of many who were hanging around the new churches peddling their training in the Greek theaters. He idenfied them as Parasites and said "if they will not work neither shall they eat."

Therefore, the urge to get women into leadership roles, I believe, is because the STAFF INFECTION is catching on to the fact that the Internet is arousing more and more people to the scam of THE LAW OF GIVING. The SOLE roles in the church are the elders as pastor-teachers and the deacons who are also teachers which history shows to be in the missionary field as vocational ministers. Worship is GIVING HEED to the word of God in the PLACE of our own spirit: there is nothing in the charismatic praching or music which is remotely connected to worship IN THE SPIRIT. To ADD the fully recognized FEMALE sexual attractant could not fail to divert minds from GIVING HEED to the Word and to Christ.

http://www.piney.com/Shelly-Women-Homosexual.html

http://www.piney.com/Shelly-York-Narrative.html

My home page is

http://www.piney.com

Further questions welcomed.

Ken Sublett

Mr. Sublett,

In the article you’ve referenced us to, Rubel Shelly did not say: "The question for all of us is not WHAT the BIBLE SAYS, but HOW and WHY. If what were our only concern, we could read it literally as God’s rule book for human behavior apart from any and all cultural contexts."

John York is quoted as saying this.

Likewise, you have misrepresented Rubel Shelly as having said: "Neither is there anything that CHALLENGES the DIVINE ORDER in creation by having women partner with males in serving God. So isn't it at least POSSIBLE that there could be CULTURAL conditioning at work in some of the statements about how men and WOMEN function in the life of the church? And couldn't Christians disagree in good faith about the interpretation of these statements without any party to the discussion jettisoning a high view of Scripture as the Word of God?”

John York is also quoted as saying this.

A case can be built against Mr. Shelly’s teachings without making it up from whole cloth. To do otherwise completely negates any point you’re trying to make.

-EB

This is a sermon by Rubel Shelly in dialog with John York. John York is little sir echo and in some of the dialog sermons John isn't in agreement. I have directed you to the sermon so that YOU can read it unedited and then I show from Scriture that the both reject inspiration and say there is no command when there are commands.

Because there is only one who has been confessed as a THOUGHT LEADER among churches of Christ can anyone doubt that Rubel writes the sermon? I therefore group them into one lump: what one says the other says.

For example I always assign all to both and this is correct:

Rubel Shelly and John York: Rubel: Let me give you an example to work with in relation to the question you've raised: homosexuality and the ordination of practicing homosexuals to ministry.

...."Why don't we at least entertain the possibility that the Bible simply reflects an ANCIENT TABOO or homophobic prejudice in a few people like Paul -- a taboo and prejudice we need to outgrow?

Sorry, I confess to flaws: I will try to make it much clearer in the future. But, it is Rubel's WORDS from first to last and there is NO dialog.

Ken