IS GOD A REPUBLICAN?

Is it just me, or is there abroad in our land a brand of Christianity that is more American than it is biblical? I'm not talking about the style of meetings we have or the way we present ourselves in a marketing frenzy, though either of those things would require a designation of  being more American than biblical for sure. 


I'm speaking about only one thing at the moment and it isn't often addressed or maybe even thought about, but I'm believing it is a real big thing in importance. Maybe more biblically important than we have ever thought.

I'm talking about the American Christian's failure to see our connectedness with other Christians anywhere and everywhere they are found. That connectedness in scripture is called being part of the Body of Christ and it makes us one with every other true believer regardless of their race or nationality. 


In reality, as a Christian, I am MORE connected to an African Christian or a Russian Christian, or a Korean Christian than I am an American citizen who is NOT a Christian. [When writing this I'm thinking of the Church in the biblical "organism" way rather than the American "organizational" way.] 


Scripturally, as I follow Paul's journeys it is clear to me that he left every country he visited on mission, having shared the gospel to which many responded, with a desire that those believers know they  were connected with all other people in Christ. [A Kingdom person as opposed to being just a citizen of any country.] 

In the American brand of Christianity however, being an American is often celebrated to a greater degree than being Christian. Or at least it is thought of in connection with our country rather than as a Body worldwide. Thus we wind up with a nation-church functioning as Siamese twins with a disconnect concerning other believers in other nations. It even reminds me somewhat of Israel in the days she thought of herself as God's ONLY nation. [Which she was with the singular purpose to be a blessing to ALL other nations with her seed who is Christ.] 


In the New Covenant, however, God's one holy nation is not a political system or a national group of citizens. His holy nation is made up of all redeemed people from EVERY nation, tribe, tongue. or ethnic group and they are my brothers and sisters.

Don't think for one minute that I am disparaging a healthy patriotism. Loving one's country and hoping for and working toward her well-being is a good thing. I am grateful and even celebrate being an American and will defend her as my homeland. As a citizen I would want her sovereignty and safety to be protected with passion. I applaud and on occasion weep at the sacrifice our troops make in that defense.


But America is not my Lord. There is a dangerous kind of patriotism that tends to  think of our nation as the only nation that God has and will bless in a special way and  that Americanism and Christianity are joined at the hip and you   can't have one without the other. 


His Kingdom, however, is on a different level entirely and as His Kingdom kids from and in every nation on earth, we have one message. It is the message of the Cross.


There is a great deal of accusation going on in the political world about whether Republicans believe God is on their side and not the side of the Democrats. The Democrats get very angry about this, for good reason I would think. 

But may I say it? God isn't a Republican OR Democrat. I don't think God is even American.

THE A B C's OF THE BLAME GAME

One of the things that can be really refreshing in a relationship is when both come to the place that neither are willing or wanting to any longer play the "blame game." [Henceforth referred to as the BG.] You know what the BG is don't you? It's where what I feel or do is your fault. You can pretty well know if someone is playing this game because it's revealed in such language as [you fill in the blanks] "I did_____ because you______," or "if you hadn't_____, I wouldn't feel______," or "you make me feel______," or "if you had only______, I wouldn't have to_____."

I have to confess that this is being written by a master blamer. I learned it early as a child and practiced it often as an adult until I got into a relationship with a real person for life. [It's called marriage] It was THEN that I discovered, when called on such a practice by her opting out of the game, that life became just too miserable trying to play the BG solo, so I opted out of it too. That opting out for both of us began about twenty-five years ago [remember we've been married fifty-two years] and it's still the path we choose to walk together.

Now it is true that people are even different in playing the BG. I was a blame giver and she was a blame taker. I used the BG to my advantage in the control issues I had personally and she, by her own confession, used it for her false image of biblical submission. Both were wrong and unbiblical as well as unhealthy. But I digress.

This BG started in the garden of Eden as we're all aware. After the fall, upon being confronted about what went wrong by the One that really matters, Adam said, "It's this woman you gave me." Thus the door was opened in his mind for a shifting of responsibility for his thoughts, feelings and actions that might have been inappropriate or unhealthy, not to mention sinful. That mind-set prevails today.


Be aware that while Adam said it's this "woman's fault," the emphasis ultimately was on "that YOU gave me." So if it wasn't her fault he was in the pickle he was in it was surely God's because He had messed up so badly in what He had allowed to come about. That's the flip side of "The devil made me do it" argument. Boy that's classic. Been there done that... myself.

A principle I've learned [from reading Larry Crabb] is that A never causes C...[Read that again..slowly.] A is the event, situation, person or happening and C is my feeling or choice made after the happening or event. [Read that again slowly also.] I always tried to believe and convince others that A CAUSED MY C. ["Because you...I."] The more lousy my feelings or actions [C] the more obvious, at least to me, that the A was to blame and the A is YOU. [Certainly someone/something other than me caused what's wrong in me...right?]

One day I discovered that A does not cause C at all. B causes C. B is my thinking about A. [Whether that A is a person, situation or event. Now it was clear to me that C is my feeling or action, but what wasn't as clear was that my C was actually the result of my B. It is my B that is the culprit when faced with the lousiness of my C. Get that down. [Could it be this is what is meant by "as a person thinketh, so is he?"]

This is the simple ABCs of the blame game. How you THINK about a situation or event or person saying something is the cause of what you feel or do, not what is done or said. 

An illustration, used with permission, might help here.Years ago, as this was fleshing out to reality in me personally, Mary and I were apologizing to our older three kids for the sorry parenting job we had done with them. Some of our parenting was good but a lot was bad. [I will speak only for myself from this point on and Mary can speak for herself, as she does extremely well in these matters, hence the first person singular from this point forward.]


For example, I tried to make them trophies of my ministry early on instead of trophies of His Grace and used angry control to do them. [Talk about an oxymoron...trophies of grace made with anger and control. Go figure.] Now that's BAD, really BAD. They've forgiven me, but the process was not easy.  I'm just glad all four of our children were and are that kind of gracious forgiving people.

I digress here with cause-----The family dynamic that went into working through the baggage we all carried as a family was as painful as any process you can imagine. It took MANY family times that often went into the wee hours of the morning long after the little kids, our grandchildren, were in bed. Those times were worth the price but I never want to minimize the depth of pain and difficulty involved for all of us.


Mary and I were surprised when one day a friend who is a medical doctor said to us when told of our times of asking forgiveness, "Oh, you guys are part of that rare 2% [he could have said 5% I don't remember the exact small number he used] of parents who are willing to say I'm sorry." I don't know where he got his facts or figures but I think he's right about the rarity of it. It hurts too much for some families to go there.------Now back to the illustration.

Late one evening, after a family time much as just described, Cherri, our oldest, was talking to me and made a comment to the effect that my admission helped her see the reason for some of her behavior that had been reactionary to me as a parent. I said to her "Wait babe, I did you wrong and thank you for forgiving me, but your behavior is the consequence of what you've thought about what was done to you. I won't take responsibility for your behavior...that's yours." She says it was that exchange that set her free to genuinely be on the road of Grace living. I say her change came about because she's the kind of girl who is courageous enough to take responsibility for her thoughts and actions instead of blaming an obviously faulty father or any other faulty family member.

It has to be obvious that if I do not take responsibility for the bad choices she made, I can not, with legitimacy, take credit for the good ones either. She is the heroine here. She is not a victim but a victor in life because of refusing to play the blame game. Her mind became ultimately occupied with who the REAL Father is and what He's like and that mind-set empowered her choices and actions and set her free to make good choices and have good feelings instead of the negative ones she had been having. [The B of this ABC stuff. It's called living by faith.] When this becomes the environment of an entire family it truly CAN become what Jeff VanVonderen calls "A family where Grace is in place." That's the journey the our family is on. We haven't arrived yet, but we're traveling down that road.

Remember we are ultimately speaking here of relationship skills that we need to learn that grow out of the truth we know about who we are in Him and to Him all because of the person and work of Christ and what He's done on our behalf. We forgive BECAUSE we are already forgiven ourselves. We love BECAUSE we are already loved ourselves. We extend mercy BECAUSE we already have mercy extended to us. We are FREE to act, choose, do BECAUSE we are accepted.

So...when I feel terrible, or choose badly or act like a jerk, I can honestly see it and not blame any one else, and deal with my responsibility for it. My person hood is NOT dependent on my performance but His and He has accomplished it all. I now live in the Grace of it and extend that Grace to others on the journey with me.

A final practical, simple illustration of this could be the many motorcycle trips of up to twelve days taken with my brother-in-law, Fred Cherry. Two different kind of guys together a long time on their bikes, at times cranky, short-fused, tired, as well as hungry and thirsty, mixed in with the good. How do we do it? Well, if you don't play the blame game, and we don't, there is no "taking it out on the other one." Neither of us will permit that. Too much respect to permit that. But we don't have our person hood tied to our performance either. So we can be honest about the lousy conditions and our own feelings, without blame, and laugh about the good conditions with joy and really enjoy the trip to the fullest regardless.

By the way, marriage is something of a forever motorcycle trip without the motorcycle. Just two people on a journey together and it sure helps to have leaned some of this stuff....together.

Life is good...difficult on occasion...but when the difficult does happen it's all her fault....if she would just.... :)

Paul B.

MY THEOLOGICAL JOURNEY TO UNDERSTANDING GENDER BIBLICALLY

I've been asked on occasion about my theological journey that brought me to my present understanding of the gender controversy we face in the Church today. It's not a simply thing to respond to that question. There was no revelatory or epiphany moment to it for me. It was, in fact, a bit of a journey, especially theologically.

It probably started with some honest questions about my own behavior and where I had been in my thinking of things relationally. [This is a story within itself and has more to do with a growing marriage relationship and the discovery of my own controlling personality than anything else. I may address this in a blog post later.]  Let's just say that I had to come to grips with some issues personally that raised questions about gender. 


It was then that I found myself reading others who had the same questions I did about the biblical and personal ethics of a male dominated society, home, or church, as had been practiced by my family of origin and, thus, by me. Also things didn't seem to jive with what I had begun to discover about Jesus when I looked closely at His life and ministry as revealed in scripture with regards to gender. 


That personal struggle and discovery led to several theological questions that needed answers. I couldn't just write my struggles off to culture or any specific movement. The bible was then and is now my guide so I wanted to be sure I was honest about those scriptures that I said I was interpreting. This led to researching the text anew. I will briefly mention just a few of those questions I had about scripture and the answers I found.

It began with a question about the differences between the Old and New Covenants. I saw how the Old Covenant established between God and Israel had to do generally with gender, age, and race. I knew the ultimate purpose was for Israel to bless the Nations through her seed the Lord Jesus which she did. But I saw that it seemed to be only if, as someone said, you were an “old Jewish guy,” you had it made in the Old Covenant, especially in the realm of authority. However, the New Covenant was said to reveal better things than that. I wanted to find out if it, indeed, did.

So I began to look at the New Covenant and it's promises [new Law] for the latter days referred to in the book of Acts, which had been ratified by the Blood of Christ. Did that New Covenant not produce a different kind of relationship? Was it not something other than gender, age or race and was it not for something other than an “authority” thing? Was it not a servant thing instead? The answer to that began to be obvious to me.

For example, I saw that scripture said both “sons and daughters” would be able to prophecy, “young men and old men” would dream dreams, and of course the hated Gentiles would be included in that New Covenant. This made it appear that the New Covenant had a new kind of relationship among Covenant people involved in it. This connected well with Paul's statement "There is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus." [Gal 3:28] He was not speaking of the physical obviously, but he was speaking to Kingdom stuff.


Could it be that things like male gender, age or racial prominence were out of character when the meaning of the New Covenant was entirely and correctly understood? I had to find out.

I began to honestly face the question about the textual meaning concerning women like Pheobe and others in the New Testament. King James said she was a "servant." But that's the same Greek word that, when used of a man in the KJV, is translated “deacon.” 


Now granted, it couldn't be "deaconness" since there is no feminine for the word. But I began wondering, in light of my knowledge of the New Covenant, if this was perhaps more a King James era thing than a grammer thing. Maybe the word was meant to be "deacon" for her too.

Another woman was said to be a “helper” [different word] which is translated, when used of men in the same KJV, as ”Overseer." This is spoken of the woman Junia who ministered with Paul. Did she give oversight to his ministry or is it again a King James thing? 


If there IS a New Covenant change presented in the text of scripture, then perhaps when carefully studied, it could really mean she was an "Overseer" also? I was beginning to REALLY wonder about things I'd believed. 

I had my question about 1 Timothy 2:12  obviously. I found that Paul used a word for “authority” there that was used no where else in scripture. Not even in the Septuagint. This was actually the only time the verb "authenteo" was used in the New Testament and it. 


I knew it traditionally had been translated, “nor to usurp authority over the man,” meaning she had her place and it's never over a man. That view assumes that the very act of a woman teaching a man is inherently a wrongful deed that violates male headship. But I vividly remembered that our Lord taught us that in his kingdom “authority” – who’s in charge – is to be a non-issue (Matt.20:24-28; 23:11; Mark 9:34; Luke 9:46; 22:24)

Add to that the fact that there is no command (imperative) from Paul in this 1 Timothy text either. The wording in the King James Version, “I suffer not a woman,” can certainly sound like a command, but it isn’t. Instead, it is in the simple present tense, “I am not now permitting a woman…" I saw that this COULD imply a shift in Paul’s strategy because of the problems that existed in Ephesus. 

I also found that word "authenteo" to be a street word and that it even had sexual overtones. So I began to think it could be that Paul, under inspiration, is saying this to the pastor [Timothy] of a church filled with women saved out of the mystery religions. They formerly used sexuality to control men and were carrying that attitude over into their present day life. Old patterns don’t die easily even after you become a believer and one women seems to be doing exactly that to her husband in the church in Ephesus.

I would think Paul did have a need to address that. He seemed in the language to be saying, ”I do not in this instance allow [suffer[ this woman [wife] to take charge over her man [husband] in an unseemly [my toned down word] manner."  [Woman and man are singular and when used together usually mean a husband and wife.] 


Good advice for all women of all ages in church life, it would seem to me, but certainly a good word for pastor Timothy and the church in Ephesus with their major problem. That interpretation began to look like a sure thing in my New Covenant understanding. [Due diligence had to be given to the meaning of 1 Corinthians 14:34 as well to properly land on this view.]

Then there is that ever present question about Genesis chapter one. I do believe the pattern was established in Genesis 1 where “He said to “them” have dominion and to “them” to multiply and to “them” to care for the garden. It looks to me to be at least a partnership going on from the very beginning. Of course, the fall messed it up and both THEN tried to “be in charge.” She tried by “desiring her husband” [the meaning is not a Godly thing but one of taking charge] and he tried to “rule over her." [No Godliness here either as it means as a despot.] 

What God said in His address to them seemed to me to be a description of the result rather than a prescription for the behavior He expected. So both are pretty well messed up by now in this authority thing. 

But hang on, God straightened all that up in Ephesians 5:21 [New Covenant remember] where all were told to submit to one another and to serve one another in the power of the Spirit as they are walking in Him. 


The wife by CHOOSING to serve her husband. Hupo-tasso was used in the middle voice which says it was from inside her and not because of an outside requirement. Hupo-akuio would have said that. And the husband CHOOSING to love her as his own body was his way of serving her. 


A man choosing to love is not less submissive than a woman choosing to serve.  It's just the New Covenant way of correcting the "Whose the boss" failure and making it a non-issue. We all know the Lord Jesus is the boss. So all Christians are servants to Him and to one another. 

It had been this authority thing that kept throwing me in the past remember, but now I had begun to understand it in servanthood terms because of Ephesians 5 and it's context. It was, as I heard one fellow say about the Genesis1/Ephensians 5 passages, an entirely new graceful way of living. And the old “who’s the boss” thing of Genesis 2&3 was a curseful way of living. It was becoming obvious to me that Christians are to live in the grace of it all. [Of course.]  Not in the curse of it all. [Of course not.] My questions were being answered.

One final thought about this "woman being created second" question. I never had seen how man being created first and woman coming from man would set up an authority thing. No doubt he was and she did, but, if whose created first is a principle for authority then the animals and birds should rule man. Of course the women in Ephesus [coming out of the mystery religions of Ephesus] had believed the woman was created first by their gods and was far superior to any male. So when Paul addressed who was created first I settled on him correcting heresy of the mystery religions again.

Also remember that since that original creation moment, every MAN has come from a woman. Not a lot of bragging room there.  So my view that Paul was setting them straight on creation and the craziness of this “woman is superior” stuff seemed to fit again.

Now if we could just get believers to get as straight on men not being superior either just because they were created first things wouldn't that be refreshing! Different? Yes! Superior? No. In New Covenant stuff the Spirit is the gifter, decider, authority, power, and sender of all gifts and ministry. So all of it did really begin to make spiritual and biblical sense to me.

I KNOW what I have said has been said much better by many others who are far better than I am at explaining things. But maybe it will help to see my journey theologically to where I am today. I HAD to have some biblical answers to not come down on the old familiar, cultural, even religious side of male authority being ordained of God as boss. I got them. Now the New Covenant really DID make a world of sense to me.

Loving people who differ in opinions about it all is no problem for me. [I hope it's no problem to you.] So, without my being dogmatic and, while I continue to study the text of scripture, I’ll trust us as Christians to study, dialogue, decide, and follow the Lord as we see and hear Him, walking in love and life with others who may disagree with us on issues like these. Unity though not necessarily uniformity may be the biblical position even on some things theological. 

Paul B

UNITY VERSES UNIFORMITY

At the risk of driving a subject into the ground, having addressed unity in a first of the year post, I think it wise to say something else about it. The present day spirit of dis-unity and even harsh dissension in homes, churches, and especially politically, may indicate a need for a more thorough look at the subject of unity.

I'm going to attempt to give some very personal and certainly fallible thoughts on the subject. Having been married for 53 years, a parent for 52 of those married years and having pastored churches for nearly 40 of 57 years of a preaching ministry,  I have had ample reason for struggling with this very messy issue for a long time.

In my opinion there isn't a lot of difference between a family, a church, or a business in terms of working with people. Each grouping is different in some ways, to be sure, but each group is still made up of people who are different from one another but still just people. So unity will always be a work in progress.

Families often choose to struggle behind closed doors, for whatever reason, but as John Powell says, "A family is unhealthy to the level of it's secrets." Some churches tend to be a little more upfront with problems, or maybe not, but they have them just the same. The business or political structure that pretends that only positive things are going on and refuses to deal with the real problems that everyone knows are there is as unhealthy as that family that lives behind closed doors.

It is a rare person or group that can face their own weaknesses and openly deal with issues. But for unity to be maintained as a reality, a lot needs to be thought through and talked about sensibly, as well as openly, whether it's two people in  a marriage [or friendship] or thousands of people in the group.

We need to begin with a clear statement of scripture. In Eph. 4:3 Paul said we are to endeavor to "Keep the unity of the Spirit," The idea here is God has already created us, as Christians, as united in Christ. No need to create unity. He's done that. And notice there is no talk of a local church here and marriage is introduced later in chapter 5, so this is a statement to ALL believers. It's that One Body of verse 4 being referred to. 


We are one with all true believers and we know that group is made up of all who name Jesus as Lord. So, we must be able to maintain unity of some kind with differing churches, denominations, or groups...or...do away with the groups because unity IS to be maintained. Simple fact of scripture.

You can already tell I do not believe unity is equated with uniformity. What's the difference? Permit me to use a list someone else put together but illustrates the differences quite well.

Unity implies diversity; uniformity eliminates it.

Unity makes us different but one; uniformity makes us the same.

Unity creates an organism; uniformity craves organization.

Unity combines and includes; uniformity confines and excludes.

Unity forms a totality; uniformity is totalitarian.

Leaders promote unity; tyrants impose uniformity.

As long as Christians are willing to be in a relationship with only those who agree with each other based on the acceptance of a contrived system of human thought, whether it be theology, politics or even social issues, they will simply be producing and protecting their own sectarian uniformity which is a type of bondage instead of freedom. 


The end results will be, as someone I read put it,  "A stifling sameness which is defined by a very narrow set of temperamental preferences, philosophical opinions, inductive conclusions and institutionalized traditions that are of human origin instead of Divine authority,"

It is only fair and honest to admit that true unity doesn't eliminate struggles. In fact, true unity being maintained necessitates struggles whether in a marriage, family, church or denomination. But what happens is it enables the people involved to deal with the REAL issues and not the ones that are not of the Spirit. Those REAL issues have far more to do with attitudes than with actions as we shall see.

Paul B.