IT'S A GIVEN FOR ME___PART TWO

Country singer John Conlee has produced some great songs. I don't like all country music just like I don't like all gospel music. The lyrics and beat have a lot to do with whether I like a song regardless of the genre.

"The Old School" is a Conlee song that tells the story of high school love that is lost as she goes for a career after graduation and marries for money while he drives a truck and raises a family. Her marriage fails. His thrives. Reunion time comes. She asks for a dance. As they glide across the floor an exchange is sung this way by Conlee...

"It could be like old times__

you ask if I understand you__

well yes__ I'm afraid I do__

you say everyone does it__ 

I don't care if they do__

"I'm of the old school."

In that sense the "old school" is the old-fashioned way of viewing immorality and the keeping of marriage vows. I say 'hooray' for the old school and for John Conley. [Although he's just singing about it at the moment.]

But if you move the "old school" idea out of the realm of morality and placed it along side the "new school" comparing it to new ways of thinking about things that are merely cultural or things the bible doesn't speak with total clarity on, it isn't that simple. The "old school" isn't always right because it's old and the "new school" isn't always wrong because it's new.

Also, in the issues where the scriptures do speak, often new insight into the meaning of Greek words, a better understanding of the context of a passage or better understanding of the historical situation may enable one to move from an old school of thought and embrace a new school of thought and be honest, biblical and correct in doing so. [And it not be heretical at all]

With that in mind, I want to look at what I perceive to be "old school" "new school" ways of thinking about several issues and try to track why I personally may have moved from one school to the other or, in fact, stayed with the "old school." It's a given for me! The "old school" is not always right because it's old and the "new school" is not always wrong because it's new. And vice-versa!

Take a simple thing like manners. The "old school" of thought has caused me to open doors for women, rise when a woman joins us at a table or our group and remove my baseball cap inside a building such a restaurant or church facility.

The "new school" of thought is different. At a Starbucks recently I held the door open for a young woman and she glared at me as she said "I can do it for myself." It was obvious to me she had felt the indignity of in-equality heaped upon her by our culture in the home or workplace and certain actions shouted out to her that she was considered less as a person, helpless and feminine in gender to boot.

Add it all together and what she was hearing me say by what I was doing was, "That sweet little helpless thing needs a man to help her." But she was not having any of that. My response to her was literally an embarrassed "Sorry, I'm of the old school." I don't think she cared where I went to school or how long ago it might have been, she neither needed nor wanted my help. The fact that my gesture had a different purpose and intention behind it was fine for me to know, but it didn't help my moment of interaction with her.

Now. I could argue that I was right [old school] and her new way of thinking was wrong [new school] and her thinking was destroying manners in our society. The truth is, it was a cultural moment and no right or wrong way of doing or thinking was involved at all. Just different ways of doing and thinking. If I had gotten angry or had shown my displeasure with her or projected myself to the head of the table [above her] in my assessment of character based on that exchange, I would have effectively declared war on her and her culture of new thought and that declaration of war would be known by all because my attitude would leak...profusely. For me to ever impact her and her culture with the gospel would be practically impossible were I to persist in that attitude of war.

One more example. Removing your baseball cap. I'm of the "old school." I still find it difficult to wear one inside a cafe, I do...but it has taken a while to experience freedom in doing so. I still can't keep it on in a church building. I think it shows respect to remove it in a church gathering and there may even be some sense of a respectful atmosphere in it's removal although there is certainly no clearly stated command to do so that I can find. But it just feels right to me. It's my generation I'm sure. We're "old school" you see.

Young people today are of a "new school" of thinking. A baseball cap to a young man today is a bit like his pants, no matter how dirty, they are NEVER to be removed except at night in order to stand them in the corner until the next day. When a young man leaves his cap on in church I could tell him to "take it off in the house of God," as one deacon did that I heard about. But it's said that the teen-ager responded, "Sir, this cap is ON the House of God." [While hoping he didn't mean to be disrespectful, I'm thinking the kid had better theology than the deacon don't you?]

In elevating an "old school" of thought on manners as that deacon did about the hat on in church to an ought/should/must, may be seen as another declaration of war to our culture [new school/cultural thinking] and a door can be heard slamming shut to the gospel being effectively shared with a young man and much of his generation.

Don't hear me saying we can't establish boundaries and even request young men to remove their hats in church, but it might be wise to do so on a cultural or personal basis rather than a right/wrong moral basis. If we're angry, judgmental, or condemning of their actions...it leaks...as I said.

I might request that for the worship hour hats be removed out of respect for our gathering unless there is a personal reason or conviction against removing it which would be understood and respected as well. In such a case, feel free to not remove it.

Were I to do this, I probably would do it regularly as a teaching moment when someone's hat isn't an issue, much as I do with my statement "crying babies are like good intentions, it would be a help to everyone if they are carried out immediately." I DON'T declare that in the middle of a crying session. Or I might choose to NOT make a big deal about it at all. But, as I say, it's hard for me not to. "Old school" remember.

Someone may be wondering why I even mention such mundane matters as manners. It is to establish a principle of relating to people who are different in cultural attitudes. They are not the enemy. If I consider them to be, that carries over into major things rather quickly.

People are important and my view of a lot of things is not the right view because it's mine and is of the "old school." It has to pass muster with whether or not my view is, in fact, something clearly biblical or whether it is my "old school" cultural thinking and is still just that.. cultural.

If it is JUST cultural, things have a way of changing culturally and it may be legitimate to move from the "old school" to the "new school" of thought and know you would NOT be bankrupting your Christianity at all.

Baseball caps on in church is mundane perhaps. But styles of worship? Marriage? The pulpit and politics? Preaching exegetically or topically? Do we tend toward making sacred certain things that are not__in fact__sacred at all? May it not be just cultural? [Just a different one than the present.]

We may be unnecessarily declaring war on our culture if we are not careful and hinder the gospel because we wind up being more committed to an old school of thought than we are to Jesus and His message.

In other words, I could be Baptist with a certain view of things and think of it as Christianity and it not be biblical at all. Just some of my "old school" Baptist thinking that is, in fact, only cultural. Old culture. MY old culture.

Bottomline? I would say this.......

One__People are important. Maybe MORE important than my old Baptist culture even.

Two__We're NOT at war with people and their ideas automatically even if they AREN'T Christian.

Three__It is POSSIBLE to be "old school' and more cultural than Christian and not even know it.

While accusing others [splinter in the eye] of embracing culture into their Christianity, some of us may have a 2 by 4 in ours. More later..

Paul B.

IT'S A GIVEN FOR ME!

When something is characterized with the phrase "that's a given" or "it's a given" it means that whatever the something is, it's so "obvious" that no one really needs to point it out. It's already "accepted as fact."

I'm going to mention over the next few posts some things that are "a given" for me personally. Let's see if you agree!

It's a given for me that there is a difference between "discrimination" and "differentiation."

To differentiate between male and female, for example, as to public restrooms with certain products and equipment [I'm sure you understand what I mean here] would NOT be a diminishing of one or the other at all. Thus, no discrimination is involved. [Assuming the restrooms of both are equal in NEEDED facilities and necessities.] THAT is just recognizing differences.

There ARE differences between a male person and a female person after all. 

I AM glad, I might add, that diaper changing stations having been added to men's facilities in our present day, since we are fathers to our children and need to know how to do our share of parenting to them, is a welcome thing. [Every dad needs to know how to change his kid's dirty.] I'm even glad birthing rooms in hospitals now permit fathers [if they can handle it] to be present and wish it had been so in our day. It wasn't!

That said, as an aside here, to make ARTIFICIAL differences between men and women with statements like "a women shops but a man hunts when in a department store," is to make a general statement that may not be true at all. Another stated difference often made as an absolute is "Men are logical and women are emotional." It is, frankly, the opposite with Mary [my wife for those who don't know] and me. As to the first, I'm the shopper while she's the hunter. As to the second, I'm more emotional while she's more logical. [Though she is quite emotional at times and I'm even logical at times..but we're both a little bit surprised and are likely to call attention to it when either happens. :)] 

But I'll stop there before someone thinks she's Paul and I'm Mary. 

So there certainly are basic differences, particularly biological, between men and women, but to teach in marriage seminars that in some artificial way things are "always" this way or that way may do a great disservice to some couples and their marriages. 

But that's DIFFERENTIATION and, while acknowledging the biological differences, it would be helpful for artificial ones to NOT to be pressed as absolutes.

However, DISCRIMINATION is a horse of a different color entirely. THAT is more of a judgment made on the bases of some difference that produces the demeaning of someone BECAUSE of those differences and would be robbing them of some of their value as a human being because of that judgment. That, my friend, is discrimination.

[I'm not addressing the legal aspect of discrimination that is regulated by law of Supreme Court decisions which is a post for another day.] 

Racial and gender discrimination are the two classic examples. Others could be mentioned such as age, ethnic origin or even social and economic discrimination as well. [James mentions giving the preferred seat to one of wealth as opposed to the poor as a no-no.] But it is in the first two areas that such discrimination is blatantly unchristian and anti-scriptural to the core. Jesus certainly refuted and laid to rest ANY such discrimination as this in His life and ministry where men as well as women, bond as well as free followed and served with Him. It was even stated in Acts that the New Kingdom would find "Jews and Gentiles" and "sons and daughters" sharing equally in Kingdom stuff.

I'm thinking that when taking our relationship to Christ seriously, it's a given that to be discriminatory as to race, gender or even social status wouldn't be permitted. In other words, all those differences about which we tend to be so discriminatory in our culture just wouldn't matter when we properly understand the grace that brings us into the Kingdom.

Paul B.

MY TWO-CENTS ABOUT JESUS AND HIS SUBORDINATION TO THE FATHER ETERNALLY.

Warning...heavy reading. Not for children
or for those who have to read children's stories. It is
for those willing to put away childish things.

For the moment anyway. :)


Does 1 Corinthians 11:3 actually say and mean that Christ is eternally subordinate to God the Father as some people say it does because that's what "head" means? Is the Son's "will" to be obedient to the Father's "will" in eternity to come? Is the Eternal Father OVER the Eternal Son in eternity future in terms of authority? Some say yes, yes, and yes.

I'm not so sure about that. I believe to be textually true and correct about this verse [1 Corinth 11:3] you would have to see what the meaning of the word 'head' really was to that culture and that is a difficult thing to do. "Kephale" [head pronounced "kef-a-lay"] in 1 Cor. 11:3 and would have, I believe, been understood by them to be referring to the origins or source of something and not to authority at all. If I'm correct, then it does NOT mean what many in our present Christian culture might think at first glance.

You see there are some perfectly good words in Greek [kuriotes, exousia, epitage] for "authority" but '"kephale" isn't one of them. I've examined every verse where Paul is speaking of "authority" or "rule" and a word other than 'kephale' is used. Add to that the Middle Eastern thought in the biblical culture of putting someone under your FEET as being a symbol of being above another in value or position [Still present in the Middle East as shown by the shoe thrown at then President Bush several years ago on a Middle Eastern trip.] and you would have good reasons for believing the idea of "head" does NOT mean authority in 1 Corinth. 11:3 or other places in scripture. [For example Colossians 1:18. See verses 16-17 for context.] 

In fact, the 'head' in Greek culture was often times thought to be the source of life. Just as the loins were thought of as the seat of emotions [See Philippians 1:8]  and the heart was the center or essence of being. So what we have in this verse is a word used that might make perfect sense to those of us living in the American culture today who think of it as meaning "boss." But it just did not usually have that sense in that day at all.

This is NOT to say that in the incarnation moment there was not a submission in Jesus to the express "will" of the Father. He was desirous to and He did submit to the Father. But always remember that the word used is a Greek word "Hupo tasso" meaning one of equal value and voice, choosing [middle voice] to serve another. That was, after all, the express PURPOSE of the incarnation [to live with perfect obedience as man] which culminated in the Cross where He became our substitute as the sinless Lamb of God.

That idea of submission is not, however, the natural flow of this 1 Corinthian 11 passage at all. Source is the natural flow.

And, by the way, do you realize that no where in scripture is a husband told to lead his wife? [He is told to serve her.] The words lead, leader, servant-leader, spiritual leader are not in the text of the scripture at all. Paul doesn't use them. Peter doesn't use them. And most of all Jesus never does.

These words are only DERIVED  LOGICALLY from the word "head" used here and in Eph 5 translating it the way our culture means it today. So if Paul had a different intention or idea he wished to convey to that particular culture, we will really miss it thinking of "head" the way we do in our present culture.

But back to our word "kephale." My favorite illustration of the natural meaning of this word to that NT culture is, as many of you who have heard me teach know, that of a river. When we speak of the 'head' waters of a river, we mean its "source" with no idea of authority at all bearing in mind what they thought "head" meant. That's the intention of Paul here I believe.

So what is being said in 1 Corinth. 11:3 is that we have God's only begotten Son coming from God who is the "source" referring to the incarnation. This verse was never intended to be a statement of his ]Jesus] ontological [nature] or functional [role] subordination to God the Father in either eternity past OR future. It was only speaking incarnately as the Son takes on a human nature in which He ASSUMES a subordinate relationship to God the Father. So 1 Cor. 11:3 is referring to God [ The Father] who is the SOURCE of Jesus coming in human flesh to accomplish His purpose and not the One who is 'BOSS' over Jesus pre-incarnation or post-incarnation. That idea has to be read into the text.

Phil. 2.5-11 helps clarify this when it shows that the pre-existent Son of God had the condition and status of being equal to God. This means Jesus WAS God in pre-time eternity one in nature or essence or being with the Father who is God and the Spirit who is God. One God----not three gods with three wills or three minds but One God with one will or mind---- who is expressed in three unique persons. Relationally, I suppose you could say, as did Erick Sauer... "Father-is the Lover, Son-is the Beloved, Spirit-is the Spirit of love" because God IS love.

But God the Son CHOSE to not abide in that condition of equality, but rather humbled himself [REMEMBER..involving a choice, not an inherent condition or state of the divine Son] and took upon Himself human nature with a human body. This, while never less than God in His nature. He, thus, became the unique God-man and while living as man was submitted to God the Father as the Second Man or Last Adam.

Now the rest of the verse makes sense as this whole idea of 'kephale' in 1 Cor. 11:3 continues to substantiate the 'source' of the woman being the man and Christ being the 'source' of the man?

The man as"head" [Kephale-source] of the woman can certainly be seen by going back to the Genesis story in which the woman is literally brought out of man. [The rib thing.] But someone might ask "how does the 'man' have his source in Christ?" I'm glad you asked. I read one person who said it well when he said there are perhaps two possible answers to this. One is when we remember that Paul stated that Christ pre-existed and was involved in the creation of the first human-kind [Adam] in the beginning. Col. 1.16 is quite clear about that as is John 1.

But also, we should remember that Paul is the one who articulated the Adam Christology as it applied to Jesus and that he said in a biblical reality Jesus is to be seen as comparable to the historical Adam and who, as such, is the founder/source of a whole new kind of human beings [redeemed] made up of all those who are in Christ, both men and also women out of every nation, tribe, and race on earth. [Whew, long sentence read it again.]

Which one of these is correct? I lean toward the first but maybe both are true. Either one would cause the words in 1 Cor. 11:3 to make good sense. Verse 12 seems to pronounce a benediction on the source idea as well.

So I don't see how 1 Cor. 11.3 can be used as a proof at all for the idea that Christ is eternally subordinate to the Father. I don't see it as providing any proof for the idea that men are perpetually in authority over women either. That's not what kephale means in this verse from my understanding. I have the same view of the language when interpreting Ephesians 5 as well.

My conclusion then, is that in eternity there are not three gods with three different wills and minds but one God Who has one will and mind expressed in three persons of equal nature or essence. The incarnation had a different purpose to be sure. Beyond this I have little understanding of the Trinity which is FAR beyond understanding with our finite minds anyway. So much more could be said but I had promised to give my two-cents and I want to do just that and no more.

Paul B.

WWJD IN THE ELECTIONS OF 2016?

Remember the bracelet? WWJD? It caught on years back at least in the religious world. It sure sounds spiritual enough. [What Would Jesus Do?] It also seems true that concerning some [if not a lot] of the modern situations we face today the scriptures appear to be somewhat vague, if not silent, on giving specific directions as to what to do in those modern situations.

What has caught my attention, however is the use of the "WWJD" concept on  blogs in regards to our American geopolitical culture. It was reported on a blog I read sometime back that a certain girl had decided she is now a Democrat because [according to her] that political party [as opposed to the Republican party] gives more attention to helping her fellow man. She is a bible believing Christian who is quite intelligent as well as committed as she evidenced with an extended time working overseas with people in dire need of everything including the gospel. Her argument was WWJD?  He'd be more like the Democrats.

Her political change was challenged on that blog with the same argument that under-pined her decision. WWJD? They were, in effect, saying God is more like the Republicans. So both she and her opponents were sure each side was being true to WWJD!

So it got me to thinking, would Jesus vote Democratic or Republican? What Would Jesus Do?

That might be an enlightening thing to discover. In fact, a better approach might be to look at what Jesus DID do since He did not live in a vacuum those thirty-three years here on planet earth two thousand years ago, but in the context of a very political and vicious culture of His own time and place. What DID He do?

If He does become our guide for choices we make in facing a culture that is the antithesis of our gospel, as is every culture anywhere today since there is no favored nation status anywhere, we might be shocked at what His example really is. Remember, Rome was ruling, slavery was rampant, [Both race and gender] and the poor were repulsive to all. If ever there was a corrupt and degenerate society that needed altering His did. I ask again...what did He do?

When political parties were formed and attempted to change things did He join? When laws were passed that denied His own values what court did He file His grievance in? When a Mayor or Governor or leader was selected by whatever process might have been then, what were the guiding principles He used for His own choice or of a candidate? In fact, did He ever vote in any election at all? It surely would be helpful as a guide for us if we can find out as we are now facing a whole new cycle of political activity that is enough to make the very worst political junkie among us overdose. If we could see what it was that Jesus did when confronted with political processes in His day, then "What would Jesus do?" might take on new meaning.

The answer is so obvious. We don't know because He didn't make ANY known choices in a geopolitical sense EVER that is on record. If we were to do what we know Jesus would do by observing His example, we would do NOTHING! Zero! Zilch!

Now...does this mean we SHOULDN'T vote or participate? Does this mean we should do nothing during our election for President in 2016? Well..I would absolutely have to say it means I can't announce my choice as His choice and yours as not being His choice. I sure can't say you're sinning [missing the mark] if I don't know what the mark is because it isn't stated in scripture even in example. I can't say without some pause that I know categorically "WJWD."

What I can say is this. I believe I'm to use every principle that I've found in the New Covenant that pertains to life in general and relationships in particular and make use of those principles in coming to my choices. It does mean I'm not to forget to have confidence that the ultimate results of all issues are genuinely in His hands with purposes I may not know as of yet. It does mean I'm to submit to every ordinance of man, with rare exceptions, and even then ready to pay the price willingly for not doing so in those rare occasions. That's regardless of whomever is elected to lead this nation.

Does this mean it's better to not participate? That's not the point I'm making at all. The right or the wrong would not be in voting or not voting. The wrong would be to announce one vote as Christian and another as not. Someone has said it better than can I when he said, "Nowhere in the NT is there even a hint of a command for us to participate in the human political election processes, nor do we find it a forbidden activity either."

It is obvious to me that this quote isn't saying it's evil to vote or not to vote. What it's saying is each believer is free as a citizen of both countries [heaven and earth] to use his or her judgment in such matters as they live their lives under their particular form of national government, the Constitution of the USA for us, following their National and State elected leaders in some matters and under the guidance of the New Covenant principles for life and relationships in all matters.

It is also true that any vote a believer ever casts is to be done as an act of faith or it is sin. This is no matter what candidate one votes for. Romans 14 clearly points this out. So to vote for a person out of fear or anger or judgment [condemnation] or any other reason, except faith, puts us in jeopardy of missing God in it.

So, for whom am I voting in 2016? I don't know yet. But whatever my choice as a citizen of America, my confidence is not in that person or that party or those promises made.

What would Jesus do? He's already done the work of the Cross and has left us [believers] with that message which far transcends any geopolitical message or situation and is needed by every person of every nation and is to be our greatest concern and must never be mixed with or confused with any political party. Let me say it clearly for myself at least.

God isn't white or black! God isn't a Democrat, Republican or Independent!

God isn't even an American!

Paul B.