Why are women no longer required to cover their hair when they come into a church?  Are we being disrespectful to God and our husbands by not covering our hair?

Sincerely,
Lady In Wonder

Dear Lady In Wonder,

Women must always have their heads covered while praying (1 Cor 11:5), but God has built into every woman a permanent head-covering – her hair (1 Cor 11:15).  God designed men and women differently… this should be no surprise to anyone that has ever dealt with the opposite gender!  Men are to be the leaders in the home (Eph 5:23) and the church (Tit 1:5-6).  Women are the heart of the family (Tit 2:4-5), and men are not complete without them (1 Cor 11:12).  Both genders are equal heirs of salvation, but they are designed with different strengths and roles (1 Pet 3:7).  One way that God signifies this is by having men look different from women.  When women have long hair and men have short hair – it pleases God (1 Cor 11:14-15).  There are varying degrees of long and short hair, but ultimately – men are to look like men, and women are to look like women.  This principle is even borne out in the Old Testament (Deut 22:5).  The teachings of 1 Cor 11:1-16 are simply teaching that a woman’s long hair is a God-given covering for her head, and men are not to have that same covering due to their varying roles in leadership.

     If a couple gets married by a christian pastor but does not record it with the local government, how does God view it?  I would assume He deems it legal and binding.  But, of course, the government does not view it as legal and binding.  Thank you for answering my question!

Sincerely,
Veiled Vows

Dear Veiled Vows,

Whether or not the marriage is legitimate could very much be debated, but there is really no Biblical precedent for being “married before God” and not married before the law.  Christians are supposed to obey the laws of the land (Rom 13:1-3).  In fact, you can't even find a verse that says marriages need to be performed by religious figures.  If a religious figure could perform a marriage ceremony without legal documentation... why couldn't a Justice of the Peace perform the same ceremony without legal documentation?  The religious leader doesn’t have any more biblical authority to skip the paperwork than the civil leader would.

The Scriptures say that people should get married rather than live together in a sinful relationship (1 Cor 6:18), AND they say that we should obey the laws of the land (1 Pet 2:13-15).  In your scenario, the couple would be obeying one command… but not the other (if they are “not legally married”, that – by definition – means they would be doing something they believe/know is illegal).  We can’t simply obey some of God’s laws and forsake the others.  The sum of God’s Word is truth (Ps 119:160).

     Jesus said "Get behind me, Satan!" in Matt 16:23 and Mark 8:33, but throughout the whole chapters of Matthew 16 and Mark 8, there are no details given if the devil is literally present at this scene or of him taking any action or starting a dialogue.  It just says Jesus mentioned the word "Satan."  A buddy tells me that Peter is possessed by the devil, but I'm not so sure about that because he doesn't act like a demoniac, and also Peter seems so concerned about Jesus after Christ telling him about His suffering and death.  Another buddy suggests that since Matt 16:23 says "Jesus turned and said to Peter...", Christ is calling Peter a "Satan" or, more literally, an adversary, but how do you explain this?

Sincerely,
A Little Help Please

Dear A Little Help Please,

The word 'satan' literally just means 'adversary'.  Context decides whether or not 'satan' is referring to the great adversary or just a normal adversary or opponent.  The latter part of Matt 16:23 makes it clear that Jesus is telling Peter that he is opposing God's will and being an adversary to God's plans.  There is no reason to believe Peter was possessed – Peter just wasn't respecting God's wishes.

     Are 1 John 5:19, John 12:31, and John 16:11 all referring to Satan?

Sincerely,
The Devil Is In The Details

Dear The Devil Is In The Details,

Yes, all three of those verses are referring to Satan.  Satan is called the ‘father of lies’ (Jhn 8:44), the evil one (1 Jn 5:19), the devil (Matt 4:1), the prince of this world (Jhn 12:31), and the prince of the power of air (Eph 2:2).  All of those names refer to the same wicked being.

     If I am a homosexual, why should I believe in God (I am going to hell anyway)?

Sincerely,
Cursed

Dear Cursed,

Whether we believe in God or not, God still exists.  Ignoring the fact doesn’t change that reality.  Read “Is God Real?” for some of the evidence that God is.  Whether someone chooses to follow or believe in God is irrelevant; we will all see Him at the Judgment Day (Heb 9:27)

Homosexuality is such a controversial issue because modern society teaches that people are born homosexual, but this simply isn’t true.  You are not forced to have a sinful homosexual relationship.  The argument of the homosexual community is that they are born desiring people of the same sex and that they have no choice.  That simply cannot be true.  God makes it clear that He will not allow us to be tempted beyond what we are able (1 Cor 10:13).  Even if you are born with a predisposition toward homosexuality – you aren’t forced to act upon it.  We always have a choice. There is always a way of escape from sin.  We often use 1 Cor 10:13 as a proof text that no one is born “gay”.  
Homosexuality is like all other sins; we sin when we act upon the lust.  God does not tempt us to sin (Jas 1:13).  It is our own lusts that entice us to do the wrong thing (Jas 1:14-16).  One person has a tendency toward anger, another has a tendency toward alcoholism, and some may, in fact, have a tendency toward homosexuality – but that tendency does not force them to sin.  We need to put away all filthiness of the flesh and be doers of God’s Word (Jas 1:21-22).