restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Chicken Love

 David Alan Black

Seems we’ve got oodles of chicks hatching out these days, and seven hens are still sitting. Of all our farm animals, I suppose chickens are our favorite. I think our Lord may have also had a special fondness for these two-legged animals. In Luke 13:34 and Matthew 23:37, the chicken is His choice to represent His great love for the people of Jerusalem. “How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing,” Jesus cries out in anguish over a people who, much like His people today, don’t always readily accept God’s protective care.

When I approach a sitting hen and her chicks, she often gathers them under her wings. If I get too close she can become quite vocal. I don’t speak “chicken,” but no one will convince me that the mother hen isn’t saying, “Stay back, buddy. You can’t have MY babies!” A mother hen will do everything in her power to protect her biddies. It’s her instinct. Call it chicken love if you will, but the hen is hardwired to protect them.

The image of a hen protecting her chicks appears several times in the Hebrew Scriptures (see Deut. 32:11; Ruth 2:12; Psalms 17:8, 36:7, 91:4; and Isaiah 31:5). Jesus, of course, knew these Scriptures well from an early age. So it shouldn’t surprise us that He would interpret His destiny and that of the Jerusalemites within the image of a mother hen with her chicks. Jesus lamented over Jerusalem because He knew what was going to happen there. His love for the very people who would betray Him was so great that He was willing to offer Himself as their protection. By comparing Himself to a mother hen, Jesus must have known how desperately a hen desires to protect and gather the children she has nurtured into life. 

Before Jesus’ time, hens symbolized procreation and maternal care, while chicks represented new life. In ancient Greece, the rooster was a symbol of the god Apollo, and his crow was considered a greeting to the sun. The First Century A.D. Roman historian Plutarch wrote praisingly of the hen in De amore parentis (On the Love of Parents):

What of the hens whom we observe each day at home, with what care and assiduity they govern and guard their chicks? Some let down their wings for the chicks to come under; others arch their backs for them to climb upon; there is no part of their bodies with which they do not wish to cherish their chicks if they can, nor do they do this without a joy and alacrity which they seem to exhibit by the sound of their voices.

During the Middle Ages, roosters came to symbolize resurrection and appeared in weather vanes on church steeples. The Victorians endowed hens with the attributes of domestic happiness. Hens were the dutiful wives of the male bird, and both birds served their human master by giving him eggs, and ultimately their lives, in exchange for his care.

Today, the hen has been downgraded from being a mother to being an egg-laying machine. Roosters have been banished to breeder houses. The majority of modern hens and roosters exist only as breeders of animals who are slaughtered by the millions without ever having known the comfort of a mother’s wing or a rooster’s crow. For most Americans, chickens are nothing but meat, pornographically dismembered into legs, thighs, and breasts.

Not so on our farm. I can’t wait to greet Blackie and Brownie and Whitie and Chatter Box and Little Feather (who loves to fly up and roost on my arm) and all the rest of our grown-up hens and roosters. Entering the hen house I will loiter quietly near the mother hens, whose delicate eyes are glazed over with maternal bliss. I’m careful not to disturb their pacific and protective labor. The “peep peep” of several dozen chicks is the only sound to be heard—unless one gets too close to a sitting mama.

Yes, we enjoy our horses, our goats, our cows, but the chickens are probably our favorite animals to watch. I enjoy them for what they are—God’s wondrous creations—and, when I reflect on their character, my thoughts often go back to that old hymn by William Cushing and Ira Sankey:

Under His wings I am safely abiding.
Tho’ the night deepens and tempests are wild,
Still I can trust him; I know he will keep me.
He has redeemed me and I am His Child.
Under His wings, under his wings, who from his love can sever?
Under his wings my soul shall abide, Safely abide forever.

May 27, 2004

David Alan Black is the editor of www.daveblackonline.com. His latest book, Why I Stopped Listening to Rush: Confessions of a Recovering Neocon, will be released in June.

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Europe Crosses the Rubicon

 David Alan Black

As our national nightmare in Iraq continues, we dare not forget what was behind the terrible 9/11 attacks—the stationing of U.S. troops on Islamic holy lands in Saudi Arabia, the brutal 12-year embargo against Iraq that contributed to the deaths of literally hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi children, and our government’s financial and military support of Israel’s foreign policy.

Meanwhile, two weeks after the Madrid terrorist attacks, Europeans are assessing their own version of 9/11. What is now being called “3/11” has done nothing to decrease their anxiety about the Bush administration’s handling of international terrorism. In fact, a new consensus has now emerged among the majority of Europeans: The attack on Iraq was the wrong war, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons. Europe has crossed the Rubicon.

The Bush administration has defended its wartime policy by stating it has spent a billion dollars searching for WMD in Iraq, weapons deemed numerous and dangerous enough to justify attacking a country that had never threatened America. Europeans aren’t buying it, however. They see through the slippery logic too easily. The administration began by claiming that Saddam Hussein definitely had weapons in known locations. Then it claimed that Saddam had programs to develop weapons. Next it claimed that Saddam had plans to develop programs to develop weapons. Next it claimed that Saddam had ambitions to develop programs to develop weapons. Finally it claimed that Iraq had scientists capable of making weapons. According to this logic, one wonders why our government hasn’t bombed North Korea yet. Led by one of the world’s worst dictators and possessing some of the world’s nastiest weapons, North Korea could wipe out our forces in South Korea before we even mobilized our troops for attack. It has biological and chemical warheads, and maybe nuclear ones. And its missiles can hit any U.S. base in Asia.

Now, in a strange turn of events, the Gulf Daily News, citing an exclusive report in its sister paper Akhbar Al Khaleej, reported yesterday that parts of missiles, chemical and germ warfare agents, and nuclear weapons are being shipped into Iraq, and that the shipments are being brought in by U.S. forces. Quoting Iraqi Transportation Ministry sources, the report said U.S. forces offloaded this equipment from cargo ships at the port of Umm Qasr during Ashoora. It claimed that riots in the area, coupled with major explosions that killed and injured a large number of Iraqis, had enabled the parts to be offloaded while the attention of the Iraqi people was elsewhere. The report also said that some of the parts were made in the U.S. during the 1980s and 1990s for weapons that had been bought by Saddam Hussein—weapons the U.N. inspectors earlier reported as having been destroyed.

Whatever one makes of this report, it will undoubtedly make Europeans all the more skittish about U.S. foreign policy, especially in light of the Bush administration’s reluctance to open its files and let the public learn exactly what the U.S. government knew — and when it knew it — about the existence of WMD in Iraq prior to the war. Why should anyone believe the exaggerations and deceptions of those who led America into a war that now threatens the nation’s economic survival through the uncontrolled federal spending needed to support it?

If terrorism is indeed rooted in hatred for America’s “freedom and values,” as the Bush administration claims, isn’t it time to stand up for those values? More importantly, if American foreign policy is morally bankrupt, as more and more Americans are beginning to realize, wouldn’t it make sense for Bush to throw out the neocons who led us down this slippery slope in the first place?

Americans might well learn a lesson from our friends in Europe.

March 22, 2004

David Alan Black is the editor of www.daveblackonline.com. His latest book, Why I Stopped Listening to Rush: Confessions of a Recovering Neocon, will be released this year.

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Christ or Caesar?

 David Alan Black

God has given us His word, not so much to tell how we should live, but to show us what His character is. Christianity should give us a fullness of life in which the whole person conforms to the will and character of God.

Once we have stepped from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light, we realize that it is God’s law that gives us our standard. Our standard is no longer found in worldly principles or even churchly legalisms. The biblical teaching of morality is to be our only standard. We are to fly no other flag than the flag of the kingdom of heaven. We are to minister to Christ where He most suffers in society. This includes not only ministering to the poor and needy but also to a church that has become increasingly corrupted by the prevailing social and political systems.

Government will be quick to point out to pastors and others who minister in Christ’s name that they must keep themselves out of “politics” and confine themselves to their “proper” task of preaching the Gospel. This raises the question: What is the Gospel? Surely it is the message of salvation through Jesus Christ. But it is more than that. It is the proclamation of the kingdom of Christ and His lordship. Salvation is for the whole person. It is meant for his whole human existence. It is not meant for his “soul” only. It affects, in addition to the spiritual sphere, the political, social, and economic spheres also.

Reformed Christians throughout the centuries have always professed with conviction that the lordship of Christ applies to all walks of life. The Lord Jesus Himself rules over all spheres of life, and the church and the Christian must look to Him for His sovereignty and respect in all these places. Thus, when the Word of God demands it, the church must fulfill its prophetic function with regard to the state in spite of popular opinion.

It surprises me that some Christians should think this prophetic function of the church is un-patriotic. It is my conviction that, for a Christian, obedience to the state or to any human authority is always linked to obedience to God. That is, obedience to human institutions is always relative. Human institutions can never have the same authority as God, and human law must always be subordinate to the revealed Word of God.

Any government, therefore, that expects blind, unconditional obedience is a tyrannical government. The believer in Jesus Christ has not only the right, but also the duty, to be more obedient to God and His law than to the government, should this government deviate from God’s law.

That the Word of God is no longer the uncompromising standard is readily apparent today. Note this statement from the Falwell Confidential of August 27, 2004:

Most religious conservatives would agree with me that, as long as the Republican leadership remains chiefly pro-family, pro-life and pro-traditional marriage, we will continue to favor the party.  At this time, the Republican platform, while not perfect, reflects respect for unborn life and traditional marriage – key issues for evangelicals.

I’ve often said that I wouldn’t have voted for my own mother if she were an abortion-rights candidate.  But in the complex game of politics, we must work with people who have conflicting viewpoints on momentous issues in order to secure the greater good for the nation.  While we must never compromise our Bible-based values in our churches, most conservative people of faith realize that we must work with a sense of cooperation in the political realm.

At this moment in time, I would say that conservative people of faith are as energized behind President Bush as we have been behind any president in history.  President Bush – like Ronald Reagan – has won our hearts because of his moral clarity, his unswerving integrity and his desire to intrepidly defend our nation against militant terrorists who seek to destroy us.

Mr. Falwell says that we must never compromise, yet compromise is exactly what he is calling for. Politics is not a “game,” and one cannot be “chiefly” pro-life – one either is or isn’t. Over the past three years many Christians have reluctantly yet rightfully condemned Mr. Bush’s policies as sinful and wrong. They are sinful because they conflict with the Word of God. They are wrong because they are unjust. And they utterly fail to expose and rebuke the idolized nature of the state.

Rather than compromising with those who held to “conflicting viewpoints,” Daniel refused to obey the king’s law when he refused to bow down before the graven image of Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 3:17-18). He regarded the king’s law as being incompatible with God’s.

Today the answer of Daniel and of the apostles and of God’s faithful remnant throughout the ages still resounds like a bell in the church of Jesus Christ: “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

As for me and my house, we will serve Christ, not Caesar, whatever the cost.

August 28, 2004

David Alan Black is the editor of www.daveblackonline.com. His latest book is Why I Stopped Listening to Rush: Confessions of a Recovering Neocon.

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Church Leadership According to Philippians 1:1 (Chinese)

 David Alan Black  

教會的領袖

根據腓立比書1：1的教會領袖觀

                             保羅說：「聖經都是聖靈所默示的」(提後3:16)。「默示」這字非常重要。神學家稱這是“按字默示觀”(verbal-plenary inspiration)。或者我們應該說：「每個字，所有的句子，所有的經文，都是神所默示的。」實在的，更進一步的說，不只是每一個字是神所默示的，並且所有的詞態、語態、語氣、人稱、數、性別、格、文法、字秩、詞秩、短語、結構等等，都是神所默示的。更進一步，聖經不只是「默示」，保羅在同一段經文中指明聖經的話是有益的。換句話說，聖經的每一處或每一句話的益處不只是話語吧了，更是改變人的工具。

當我們打開腓立比書一章一節，看見保羅是向腓立比在基督里的聖徒及教會的監督們問安。在新約，有兩個字是互相通用的：“長者”(presbyteros, presbuterov)一般指「長老」，而“主教”(episkopos, ejpiskopov)一般指「監督」(或「主教」)。初早期教會一般有多位「長老」或「監督」。這是因為一個領袖常被看為是高人一等，但是聖經卻強調只有基督應該被高舉，因為只有衪是「教會的頭」(西1:15-;太23:8-12)。所以保羅沒有向腓立比教會的一位牧者或一位監督問安，而是監督們(眾數)。雖然我們現在的教會只有一位牧者，但這不是新約的原意。保羅向腓立比教會的聖徒問安，從來沒有說這些聖徒說在監督或牧者“之下”(希臘文 uJpo)，而是“與他們同在的”(希臘文 sun)聖徒。這不是無意之間表達的觀念，而是聖經的教導：人人皆祭司。不是說有一些是高人一等的牧者，而其他人只是站在一旁或旁觀者。雖然有些牧者為教會事工忙碌或他們是領工資的，但是所有的信徒都參與事奉。英國基督教會的莫特爾(Alec Motyer, 在《給腓立比的信息》這本書中，頁33)這樣說：「在一間教會中有一群信徒(聖徒)和領袖(監督及執事)。領袖不是被放在信徒之上，而是從信徒當中出來。信徒不是在“下面”而是與監督們“同在”。莫特爾繼續說：在聖經中，牧者的出現是因為信徒和事工的需要而出現，而牧者也因著各種需要而自然地出現在教會中。因此新約從來不提任何人需要成為神和教會的中間人。

   這里莫特爾是談論新約中人人皆祭司的神學，是聖經對教會領袖觀重要的教導。

另外，「執事」或「監督」在希臘文聖經中並沒有使用「定冠詞」(definite article)去形容。這是極有意義的。在希臘文，使用定冠詞是要指定一樣非常重要的東西，而沒有使用定冠詞去形容一個名詞的含意是指一般性質的東西。明顯的，保羅這樣使用希臘文是要看重每一個信徒的事奉，而不是某些領袖或職位。保羅其他書信也出現同樣的寫法(參：帖前5:12-13;林前12:28-31;羅12:6-8)。這讓我們清楚看見每一間教會都在使徒的權威之下，而每間教會的管理也由她們的領袖去服侍和看顧。這樣的看見是極重要的。你今天去到許多基督教的教會，你通常會見到一個“牧者－平信徒”的架構，而通常教會是在一個擁有許多權柄的領袖之下活動。或者你會發現這些領袖分畫成牧師、長老、執事，或甚至有管理的長老及教導的長老，而這些管理的長老只會在教會中發號施令卻很少參與牧養的工作。這這不是聖經的教導。或者有一些經文讓我們看見有一位長老成為眾領袖的帶領者，但從來沒有指出只有一位牧者在帶領教會。這位牧者必須向眾領袖負責及交代，而不是在他們之上，像丟特腓一樣(約翰三書9-11)。因此教會不是由一個人帶領，全由他來牧養而其他信徒只是站在一旁觀看他工作。相信是因為一個人的能力有限，因此新約表達領袖這觀念所使用的字詞是眾數及平起平坐的，不會讓人看見一個階層的模式。當然，有某個人因為比較有經驗和智慧，成為眾領袖中的領導者，但所有領袖都是平起平坐的，也互相負責。

另外，在崇拜中，也不會看見領袖是“控制”者。真正的，是一群信徒在參與，這是使徒教會一個明顯的記號(見：羅12:4-8;林前14:26; 弗4:11-16; 5:19; 歌3:16;來10:24-25; 彼前4:10-11)，不管這些教會在哪里(見：林前4:16-17; 11:16; 14:33)。新約的教導指出在聚會中信徒要發揮他們的恩賜及鼓勵信徒相愛和互相幫助。絕對沒有把分成兩個階層：牧者和信徒。會眾的領袖也沒有自己冠上某個榮譽的職位把自己和信徒分開。史特勞(Alexander Strauch)寫的《聖經中的長老》(Biblical Eldership, 頁259)正確的指出：在初期教會中有先知、教師、使徒、牧師、傳福音的、領袖、長老及執事，但是這些稱呼並不是一種官方式的稱呼。例如，信徒都是聖徒，但並沒有一個稱為「聖徒約翰」。所有信徒皆祭司，但並沒有一個稱為「祭司腓力」。一些被稱為長老，但沒有直接稱為「長老保羅」的。一些被稱為牧師，但沒有稱為「牧師雅各」的。一些是當執事的，但沒有被稱為「執事佊得」的。一些是作使徒的，但沒有被稱為「使徒安得烈」的。新約信徒領受敬重或稱呼土要是通過他們的服侍，而不是因為某些職位的稱號/稱呼(徒15:26;羅16:1, 2, 4, 12; 林前8:18;林後 8:18; 腓2:29, 30; 歌1:7; 4:12, 13; 帖前5:12;提前 3:1)。初期教會信徒之間以名字稱呼其他人：提摩太、保羅、提多等等。有時也以個人的屬靈性格或事奉稱呼別人：司提反，一位有信心和聖靈充滿的人(徒 6:5)；巴拿巴，一個善良並滿有聖靈能力及信人的人(徒 11:24)；腓力，一位佈道者(徒 21:8)；百基拉及工居拉，我在耶穌基督里的同工(羅 16:3)；馬利亞，主里勞苦的(羅 16:6)等等。今天教會領袖之間各種含階級觀念的稱呼是新約或初期教會中找不到的。

根據以上的討論，現今許多教會的領袖觀需要改革。傳統的牧養提倡一種個人主義，由一個牧者全權管理。但是，新約讓我們看見是一群領袖(或長老)在牧養教會。一些長老或者比較有恩賜而帶領更多工作，但從來沒有告訴我們要把教會領袖分成不同的階級，或擁有不同高低身份的名稱。

現今教會中許多的領袖觀念並不是聖經所教導的。新約的教會並沒有像今天的教會，令人感受到兩個階級。根據聖經，信徒是神的子民，也藉著不同的恩賜一起參與牧養的工作。這是保羅在腓立比書一章一節的教導。莫特爾在他的書中(頁40)清楚的指出這一點。

這樣的領袖要如何執行呢？領袖和帶領有何關係呢？有一個字說明這一點：「聖徒」及監督和執事，保羅這樣形容。許多強勢的領袖選擇“出人頭地”地帶領，而認為其他人只需要一味跟從他；但是謙卑的領袖低調地工作，常常懼怕信徒提他的名字把他高舉。真正的牧養是團隊式的牧養，就是聖徒和監督及執事在一起事奉。

這種領袖觀有許多不同的意義。它表明領袖和信徒有同一的經歷：他們都是以主基督寶血潔淨的罪人，並且完全是憑著神的慈悲不分彼此的人。把靈里的合一放在首位。這說明領袖先是信徒的一員，然後才成為牧者。這些領袖真正在一間教會中面對過各種的困難，而不是從外面或上面“飛”進來的。這種領袖是由神興起的。這種領袖是信徒所認識的，而不是強勢地擠進來的。這種領袖像其他信徒一樣同樣佔有一個投票權，或願意隨時被取代，而不是為了榮譽的職位而來。這種領袖把基督群眾的需要放在第一位，願意為其他肢體犧牲，像主基督一樣。這種領袖是一個願意服侍眾聖徒的人。

August 15, 2008

David Alan Black is the editor of www.daveblackonline.com.

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Financial Support for Evangelists

Becky Lynn Black  

From time to time someone will ask us about taking on the monthly support of an evangelist in Ethiopia. They want to “sponsor” an evangelist financially. Many organizations follow this route in funding the needs of their work, but we have chosen a different route. Let me explain our reasoning.

Our primary rule in working with the Lord’s church in Ethiopia is this: first, do no harm. This is applied to many aspects of the work, but especially in the area of finances. The Evil One loves to twist and harm, despite our best intentions. So financial assistance begs an extra measure of wisdom. 

·        We must not interfere with the role of the church elders as having primary responsibility for the evangelists. It is not helpful for us to interject our support directly to the evangelists. All assistance is given in consultation and with the full blessing of the church elders. No “sponsorship” discussions are held with individual evangelists; all is done through the elders in respect of their primary responsibility before the Lord for the welfare of the evangelists. Additionally, no funds go directly from us to individual evangelists; all monies are funneled through the church administration.

·        We must work cooperatively with the elders in such a way that we do not promote dependency upon us. On both sides of the Atlantic Ocean, our dependency must be upon the Lord Jesus. He is the Good Shepherd. He is the Lord of the Church. He is the Savior who has pledged Himself to the Church’s provision and protection. So our dependency must always be upon the Lord Jesus through prayer and obedience. It is possible to give so much financial assistance that spiritual harm occurs.

·       Individual sponsorship can deteriorate into a sort of “wooing” to the American possibilities. The Evil One tempts the sponsored person to entertain thoughts of coming to America, of being sponsored to a big education, of gaining additional material blessings above and beyond a basic salary. “America” means “rich” in most parts of the world. And to have personal contact with an American means “I can get rich from this American” to many people. The Evil One is tricky. Even the most spiritually-minded person can become trapped in materialism. (If you don’t believe this, just look at those sitting in the pews next to you on Sunday!) We do not want to create an atmosphere of relationship that is primarily financial in basis; it is better to base relationship fundamentally upon the spiritual unity we have in the Blood of Christ. By continually reaffirming this spiritual relationship we help to close the door to this temptation.

·       Personal financial sponsorships can create a “haves” and “have-nots” divide among the evangelists. The Evil One loves to divide and conquer. He loves to create division. He does this with philosophies, with education, with background cultures…..and with sponsorships. There is a very real sense of “security” and “belonging” and “affirmation” that comes with sponsorship. Hence, there is competition for sponsorships. But what happens when there are not enough sponsors for everyone? Then some are left out in the cold; their sense of isolation is very real.  And if a sponsor drops their support, the sponsored one is left feeling very vulnerable and exposed. Trust has been broken, and the spiritual damage is deep.

·        Sponsorships are temporary at best, creating havoc in the financial operations of the Ethiopian church. Sometimes through no fault of their own, sponsors stop their commitment after just a few months. They usually stop without advance warning and without explanation or apology. If the Ethiopian elders are relying upon a pledge of sponsorship, and make financial decisions accordingly, what can they do when that income falls short. Unlike American churches, these churches do not have financial reserves in the bank. It is hand-to-mouth in church operations as much as family operations. Rather than making pledges of sponsorship, it is better to make financial gifts based upon what is in hand that the Lord has already sent. This creates a more healthy and stable cash flow situation and does not place an evangelist family at risk.

These are some of the tidbits of wisdom God has given us through the years of working in one of the poorest nations on earth. And here’s how we help the evangelists, while safe-guarding them from these dangers.

1. All assistance is given through the Operation Ethiopia fund, directly to the Ethiopian church administration. Team members who desire to give a love gift to someone while on site in Ethiopia must limit their gift to 170 birr ($10). Anything larger must be given from “the fund,” without reference to individual donors.

2. We emphasize personal PRAYER adoptions over financial sponsorships. There is much more power in prayer than in dollars. So let us act accordingly. And in the matter of prayer, it is always an encouragement to know of specific individuals praying. (SeeAdopting an Evangelist and His Family.)

3. When people send funds to us, they may designate their gifts.  Bibles, Clinic, Rural Bible Training, and Evangelist Aid are some main designations. Within the Evangelist Aid category, we pool the money from all sources and then spend it according to specific needs. Specific needs might be medical assistance, salary supplement, or evangelist housing. Examples of our meeting these needs (by the grace of God through His people) abound on the website. The elders of the Burji and Alaba churches communicate with us about specific needs, and then the Spirit guides us in the specific application of the designated gifts. Without a doubt, the designated funds for evangelist aid has not been sufficient to the need; we have regularly supplemented with undesignated funds. 

So, what is the current financial situation among the Ethiopian evangelists in Alaba and Burji?  In a word: terrible! Why? Inflation! Let me give you some specifics.

Most evangelists are paid a salary of about 700 birr ($41) per month to support a whole family.  In Burji, the evangelists have their family farm which helps to supply their food needs, but in Alaba they have no farms.  The cost of tef grain (the main staple for their bread) has more than doubled in the past year. Sugar, oil, tea, coffee have also sky-rocketed. Most evangelist families in Alaba can only afford Misser or Shiro Wot….this is a sort of lentil porridge. Breakfast, lunch, and supper is the same thing…lentil porridge with tef bread. Week after week, it is the same. Meat is an extravagance reserved for holidays.

Let’s talk about clothing. The price of a pair of simple, cheap shoes is now 500 birr…that’s up from 200 birr 6 months ago. A man’s shirt costs 300 birr. Let’s put this into our economy. If a family in America has an income of $3,000/month, that means a pair of shoes would cost $2,100! It would take two-thirds of the monthly salary to buy a pair of shoes! And it would cost about $1,200 to buy a man’s shirt….about 40- of the monthly salary. Amazing, but real. Here in America, where our inflation rate is a low 3-, we have no concept of what it means to live under inflation of 100-0-/year.

So we are currently doing a clothes-and-shoes drive for the Ethiopian evangelists and their families. No high heels. No women’s pants. But otherwise, we can accept all sizes, colors and shapes 🙂   And we are asking the Lord to send us $7,000 for 2 evangelist homes and funds to distribute as a salary supplement when the Team goes in July. Do you have shoes in your closet?  Do you have funds to spare so that the evangelist’s children can eat? Will you help to pay the medical expenses for those suffering from malaria and other diseases?

Contact us at dblack@sebts.edu for questions. Our address is 2691 White House Rd., Nelson, VA 24580. Donations must be received by May 30, 2012, in order to process and get packed. 

Thank you!

March 5, 2012

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Faith and Politics

Jeff Adams

In watching politicians over the years, one thing I’ve noticed is how almost all of them wear their religion on their sleeves.  Mind you, this is more blatant in my region (the South), and with presidential candidates.  This year’s Presidential contest between John Kerry and George Bush is proving most interesting where religion is concerned.

John Kerry has openly proclaimed his Catholicism (even though he holds a number of views that run counter to the Catholic Church).  What’s interesting here is that while declaring himself a “good, devoted Catholic,” he’s also declared that he won’t let his faith influence his actions in office.  I can’t understand this.  It can’t be much of a faith if you can easily set it aside when making decisions.  Kerry says “faith,” but what he means is “religion.”  There is a difference.

“Religion,” as I see it, implies the trappings of a liturgy, and how one externally expresses or practices their faith.  “Faith,” is the actual beliefs, commitment to those beliefs, and internalization of those beliefs one has.  In claiming to be a Catholic, by extension, one would assume Kerry is claiming to be a Christian.  A Christian is someone who is a follower of Jesus, the Christ, the Savior.  Being a Christian is to declare you believe Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, you are accepting the gift of Grace (Christ dying on the cross for your sins), and you have a personal relationship with the Son of God.  Forget “religion,” as that’s just an outward expression, and the “material” aspects of worship.  I’m talking about a real faith, digging into scripture, praying devotedly, and choosing God’s Holy Word to be your guidebook for living, allowing Christ to live through you via the Holy Spirit.

If John Kerry really had “faith,” than he could not set it aside when acting in his capacity as an elected public official.  If he truly has “faith” in Christ, then it would influence his every decision, and his desire to live a Christ-like life wouldn’t allow him to support many of the things he does, such as abortion.  At the heart of it, John Kerry is like most politicians that tout their religion.  Kerry gives a token nod to religion, and has no real faith in the centerpiece (Christ) of that religion.  Not unlike Clinton touting his Southern Baptist background and toting his Bible to church on Sundays, all the while anticipating when he could get back to the oval office and break out a new box of cigars to play with.

Mind you, it isn’t Kerry alone.  It appears as if the vast majority of politicians today are equally guilty of this hypocrisy.  Even George Bush is not exempt.  Back in July of this year Meryl Streep made a pathetic attempt to use scripture to attack Bush, trying to show he wasn’t following the teachings of Christ.  This mostly only showed her gross ignorance of the Bible.  The “turning the other cheek” bit Streep tried to use against Bush was weak simply because that directive is about someone coming at you personally.  Bush is fully justified in using force to defend those he has been put in authority over as president (the problem lies in the fact that Iraq isn’t a country that has attacked us, and a preemptive strike is hardly something I’d call a Christian act, as it doesn’t coincide with the Just War Theory or Biblical doctrine, much less being a constitutionally legal act).

No, Bush is not guilty of failing to follow Christ’s directive on turning the other cheek.  Bush is guilty of convincing himself (or allowing his handlers to convince him) that he is some kind of “righteous hand of God” carrying out God’s will in destroying other countries while assaulting our liberties (our God-given rights as declared in the Declaration of Independence) at home and advancing the nanny state.  True faith in Christ might lead Bush to implore his fellow Americans to act in true charity towards one another, but it wouldn’t manifest itself in the form of new government agencies to monitor us, or more of our money forced from us (via taxes) and handed over to “faith-based charities.” I’ve never read in the Bible where it says for followers of Christ to trust government to care for our needs.  We should turn to one another, and give willingly as we are each able to and as we feel called to do.  God loves a cheerful giver and it’s hard to be cheerful when the state coerces you to “give” money they claim will be used to help your fellow man.  And we all know how inefficient the feds are at handling money.

I find Bush and Kerry, as well as most of the political establishment, to be merely talking religion, not true faith.  Their fruits largely come in the form of enlargement of the state and repression of our God-given rights.  Somehow I cannot see this being an act of faith on their part.  Not if they are followers of Christ.  In the Bible, Matthew 7:15-23 sums up how Christians should look at those standing for election to public office (even though this part of scripture is not specifically directed at politicians).  The key phrase in that piece of scripture is “by their fruit you will know them.”

Based on this section of scripture, I “know” George Bush and John Kerry.  Their declarations of their faith ring hollow to anyone with ears that listen, and eyes that see.  Unfortunately, most Christians today have allowed themselves to be duped by the elitist ignoramuses that dominate elected office, and will vote for one of these two “pretenders.”

October 8, 2004

Mr. Jeff Adams is the State Director of Education for the Texas chapter of the League of the South. He currently works as an industrial engineer in Houston, Texas. He may be reached for comment here.

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

The Dark Continent

 David Alan Black

This week, as the Baptist World Alliance (BWA) meets in Rio de Janeiro, I can’t help but be reminded of the need for missionaries worldwide, but especially in today’s “Spiritual Dark Continent,” the continent of Europe. Denton Lotz, Secretary General of the BWA, is one man who is aware of the needs in post-Christian Europe.

In his seminal essay entitled, “Implications of the Paradigm Shifts in Mission for a New Understanding of the Challenge of Mission for Baptists in the 21st Century” (posted at the BWA website), Lotz describes the dire need for evangelization in the countries of the world, including the European nations. Citing an essay by Peter Hünermann, the Catholic Professor of Dogmatics at Tübingen University in Germany, Lotz notes that the Christian church in Europe is in a process of dissolution, and that the current crisis of the European church is linked to the crisis of the confrontation of European society by modernity, in which the basic characteristics of society are in discontinuity with the institutional structure of the church. For example, Lotz reports that although 45 million of the 57 million French are baptized Catholics, 47- of the French population consider themselves either a-religious or atheistic. In Germany, 70- of East Germans are without any religion whatsoever. In cities such as Berlin and Frankfurt, 20 to 30- of school age children are Muslims, numbering 3.3 million in the whole of Germany.

Lotz also notes that in Britain, the home of the modern missionary movement , the figures are astonishingly similar. It is estimated that out of a total population of 50 million people only around 900,000 attend an Anglican Church on any given Sunday morning. Recently British Cardinal O’Connor caused a flap when he stated that the influence of Christianity in Britain has “almost been vanquished.” One scholar has even gone so far as to quip that “The religion of the English is that there is no God, and it is wise to pray to him from time to time.”

According to reports by Greater Europe Mission, an agency with which my wife and I had the privilege of working in Germany in the late-70s, evangelical Christians comprise less than 1- of the population in 15 of the 29 countries where GEM is involved in ministry. The churches in Africa and Asia—continents traditionally associated with foreign missionaries—are growing rapidly while Europe is the only continent where the church is declining. Again, take France as an example, a country with a long and rich history. Even the Catholic Church sees membership and attendance dropping as the French population has adopted an attitude that views Christianity as “weak.”  Less than 12- of the population attends church regularly. When you compare that to Kenya, where regular church attendance is 89-, it becomes clear that post-Christian Europe needs missionaries at least as much as Africa.

Europe has historically been a leader in foreign missions. The modern missionary movement began in Europe. For centuries thousands of missionaries have been sent out from Western Europe to the mission fields of the world. The earliest post-Reformation missionaries were Europeans. Taking the Gospel to the lost is a rich part of European Christian heritage. Today, thousands of European missionaries serve faithfully in over 200 countries of the world. The European church was largely instrumental in introducing modernization in Africa. David Livingstone’s ambition for Central Africa was “Commerce, Civilization, and Christianity.” These three “Cs” were to be achieved primarily through the medium of education, which often took place in the mission stations. They proved to be the first point of contact between African people and Western civilization and its espousal of modernity. The majority of black Africans who received primary education before 1945 did so in mission schools run by missionaries.

Now it seems that we have come full circle. In the UK today there are 1500 missionaries from 50 countries. The largest Baptist Church in Britain is an African Baptist Church in London made up mainly of Ghanaians and Nigerians! More and more sending agencies from North America are targeting Europe as a viable and legitimate mission field.

William Carey, the Baptist shoemaker who is considered the father of modern missions, once asked, “Where are the Baptists?” Denton Lotz believes he has the answer:

Have we become so self-satisfied with some success that we have failed to see where the Spirit is leading us into the future? Have our national churches, both at home and abroad, become so used to the status quo, so satisfied with playing church, that the Spirit has left us? I do not believe so! I believe our Baptist people are ready for new servant leadership, for a new in-breaking of the Holy Spirit, for another opportunity to serve Christ wherever he is leading us! May God grant us the courage to move outside of the confining boxes of our comfortable thoughts and cultural prejudices to the new thing that God is doing in the world!

May that be the desire of believers worldwide!

July 7, 2003

David Alan Black is the editor of www.daveblackonline.com.

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

O, Ethiopia!

 David Alan Black 

Sometimes I shudder to think how many thousands of miles this old carcass of mine has been carted about the world for various reasons. Yet reflecting on my eight and a half weeks in Ethiopia I want to jump and shout aloud in gratitude to God at having been allowed to live in this fallen world, sharing with its creatures the gift of life:

• To see my home and family again – a nest snuggly perched in the forests of Virginia, and all its creatures that make it such an infinitely beautiful place to live.
• To recall the lasting and satisfying joy one knows when he has spent his energies in a worthy cause and has escaped, if only temporarily, the dark dungeon of the ego.
• To be endlessly preoccupied again with thoughts of students and lectures and courses and exams and term papers and preaching and farm work.
• To marvel at the almost mystical importance one attaches to community, church, and family.
• To realize that no one truly believes in the supreme value of the gospel if he sacrifices neither time nor money for it.
• And, above all, to remember my precious Ethiopian friends, alive with the freshness and power of the Spirit.

O, Ethiopia – full of fathomless mystery!

• The beggars, whining and cringing, holding up their deformities for inspection.
• The merchants, hundreds of them on every corner, lost in their commodities.
• The totally unsuitable and farcically inefficient Western-style system of education (O, the pride of hood and gown!).
• The unforgettable smell of spices, dung, and a thousand smoking fires; the shouts of the taxi drivers; the little shops catering to every need, real or imagined; the stares of the curious; the shabby, Soviet-style apartments.

Ethiopia – always busy, always breathless, always smiling. Ethiopia the chrysalis – will the butterfly ever emerge?

My readers will perhaps forgive me if for the next few weeks I am preoccupied with trying to describe an indescribable journey to the land of burnt faces (such is the meaning of the Greek word “Ethiopia”). Not that America – yes, my America, whose only truth is slogans, whose only duty is conformity, whose only morality is power – will escape our pen completely; our cultural and spiritual emptiness is too evident for that. The world system is a sham – whether we are talking about the indulgent West or the impoverished East – and I refuse to give it my heart any longer. I am on my way to a Palace; and I desire to take as many souls with me as possible.

In 1948 Charles Sheldon published a little novel called In His Steps. It was the story of an American town named Raymond that was transformed by the application of a simple question to every issue, however complex. The question was, “What would Jesus do?” The message spread throughout the town, and a new ethos of piety and morality replaced the self-centered style of the old Raymond. The book ends with a dream of what happened in Raymond going on to transform America and the world.

During those glorious, exasperating, bone-tiring days in Ethiopia the Lord Jesus kept impressing this truth upon me. I found myself asking over and over again, in every situation, good or bad, happy or sad, “What would Jesus do – or say – or think?” Life for me has boiled down to that one simple question. “How do other people look through Christ-inspired eyes?”

As a pilgrim and stranger in this fallen world, I long for the day when every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Until that day He has commissioned us with the task of proclaiming Him to the world as Lord and Savior. For some of us that involves going across the globe. For others it means going across the street. The “where” matters not.

God bless each and every one of you, and thank you praying for me during my absence.

July 30, 2005

David Alan Black is the editor of www.daveblackonline.com. If you would like to know more about becoming a follower of King Jesus, please feel free to write Dave.

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

A Treatise on American Cultural Socialism

Part 1: Introduction and Philosophy

Matthew R. Gamel 

I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. –Roger Baldwin, cofounder of the ACLU

Do steer away from making it look like a Socialist enterprise…We want also to look like patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of this country, and to show that we are really the folks that really stand for the spirit of our institutions.  –Roger Baldwin

Tyranny manifests itself when the citizens fear the government; liberty manifests itself when the government fears the citizens. –Unknown

Tolerance and diversity have become the political battle cry of the cultural left and a plethora of so called “human rights” or “civil liberties” organizations. Liberty as our Founders defined it has ceased to exist and in its place we insert terms such as “human right” or “civil liberty.” Rights no longer come from our Creator God as the majority of our founders believed, but instead are arbitrarily issued by the government – this fits their socialist and communist ideologies well for if rights come by the government, rights are created and equally nullified by the government. The idea that rights come from the government is fueled by copious amounts of propaganda and terminology that have been thrown around by groups such as the ACLU. The term “civil right” tends to imply civil government concerning the origin of such a right; likewise, “human right” tends to imply some humanistic civil doctrine that enables its mere existence.

Today, it is not infrequent to here folks ramble about their constitutional “rights”; this term has been thrown around and has been abused and marred like no other. I marvel at the ignorance of a majority of these folks as most of these people fail to see that rights that are intended to be guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution have become watered down, if not outright usurped or taken away by the government. As a result of the gradual loss of freedom, which is now monumental if one considers the “freedom” that exists now and the freedom that our founders referred to, in conjunction with the unwillingness of many to exercise self restraint, American culture has approached a giant proverbial fork in the course of its history; one road that leads to liberty and one road that leads to ultimate destruction.

At this particular point in time, my optimism has managed to grow dim and weary concerning the road in which our nation will take. Perhaps many will simply reply that I am a political pessimist, and under the given circumstances, I believe that such is a correct statement. But I also believe that I am being a realist as well. This essay is merely the first of many, by which I attempt to describe the menace and problem of socialism here in America. I am primarily interested in looking at socialism from a cultural point of view as opposed to an economic point of view simply because I believe that the economic view often times follows from the cultural point of view. Within the context of these essays I would like to accomplish two things. First, I would like to discuss the philosophy behind the modern diversity movement and how it is being used as a propaganda tool to coerce a “new morality” as Robert Bork once put it. Such a morality is necessary if cultural socialism, economic socialism and, ultimately, communism are to be achieved. Second, I would like to examine three interdependent problems that hinder social change from proceeding that way that our Founders intended.

A Philosophical Look at Tolerance and Diversity

To begin with, allow me to define what is meant when the terms diversity or diversity movement are used. I am referring to a collection of philosophical ideals that seeks to combine a plethora of traditional and non-traditional views in addition to many other attributes or “identities” concerning individuals into an amalgamation of ideas and views, often times concerning specific views therein. This is a fairly general definition but is easy to see how diversity, as we see it manifested on our college campuses and around the nation, satisfies such requirements. Diversity requires the “celebration” of a plethora of cultures, religious views, backgrounds, lifestyles and so forth. Observe the following: first, the new diversity movement does not consider any particular idea to be better or more correct than any of the others. However, this leads to fallacy simply because the idea that any particular idea is not better than any of the others in itself is a superior idea that dare not be trampled on. Thus, the new diversity movement is inherently relativistic whenever applied to inferior ideas (i.e. ideas that make up a “diverse” environment). Second, the new diversity movement combines several disjoint areas, as implied (sometimes referred to as dimensions); among those of interest to us are “sexual orientation”, religion, culture, and so on. I should note that race, ethnicity, and gender are often included in the above list but am omitting those because these are not the central characteristics of diversity that I shall be discussing. Moreover, characteristics such as race or ethnicity are often thrown into the mix so that accusations against those who reject the more heinous aspects of diversity may be easily made – they provide an easy route to reconcile racism with those who have virtue and shun the general concept of modern lifestyle diversity. Third, perhaps one of the more important characteristics is to note that many of these ideas contained within the taxonomy of diversity often contradict one another. Proponents of the new diversity movement believe that nobody should ever have any type of dogmatic belief, save the more general concept of diversity. In fact, to these people, diversity is their dogma and its principles are zealously and religiously defended. One could possibly argue that more inferior ideas within the scope of diversity serve only as a means to further the more general concept of diversity as a movement in itself, rather than the specific ideas contained. A natural corollary to the given axiomatic formations of the modern diversity movement is that any type of philosophy that directly challenges the philosophy upheld by diversity proponents should be rejected, if not repressed and silenced. Hence the new diversity movement only tolerates rhetoric and philosophies that do not directly challenge or criticize their philosophy in any way.

If we consider the philosophy behind “diversity” and “tolerance”, we see that these ideologies prove to be useful when one is attempting to coerce a new morality that is opposed to more traditional forms. There are two primary advantages concerning why cultural socialists use diversity and tolerance as propaganda tools to push morality. First, and this is important, included with the notions of “diversity” and “tolerance” is the guise that nobody desires to shove morality down anybody else. Upon closer examination of the diversity movement as a whole, we find that nothing could be farther from the truth. Some of the most cruel, totalitarian governments have flourished under the guise of this false premise. Secondly, cultural socialists use “diversity” and “tolerance” because the fundamental maxims of the movement contain some truth to them. For example, the diversity movement teaches that we should not judge a person based on the color of their skin. Now, this is obviously something that most rational people are apt to accept. However, when we apply the fundamental principle behind such a statement to different religions, lifestyles, and other behavioral aspects of a person’s life, we see that we now have a non-trivial problem on our hands. Moreover, most people fail to see what is it that makes judging someone based solely on the color of their skin and judging someone because of a lifestyle that they choose to engage in so fundamentally different. Has anyone taken the time to wonder why it is that “scientists”, psychologists, and sociologists are attempting to discover a “gay” gene and often times offer faux results when their attempts fail? The problem in this case, is not science nor is it a physical condition; the problem is the spiritual condition of man – in a word, sin.

It might also be helpful to consider the issue of pluralism because most diversity proponents love to throw out the argument that our society is pluralistic. However, I do not believe that pluralism can truly exist; at least not without the death of liberty and the habitual repression of those who oppose the diversity movement. Pluralism, as it is understood by most “civil liberties” organizations may be defined as follows: a type of social structure or society whereby various ideologies, lifestyles, cultures, religions, etc reside one by one in close contact with one another. This should explain why diversity is the only plausible dogma for its proponents; most ideas contained in this societal “mix” are often diametrically opposed to one another and are frequently established in uneasy coexistence. Because “civil liberties” organizations desire the creation of rights for each and every individual to engage in whatever “personal” matters they wish (while, ironically, systematically repressing rights guaranteed by the Constitution), the diversity movement then became a useful tool as they seek to coerce morality and repress the more traditional repertoires of morality. The reason I submit that this type of pluralism cannot truly exist is because there are only two types of citizens in America: those who accept the diversity movement and those who reject it. Pluralism exists in the minds of the cultural left and moderate socialists because to them, diversity is a superior mode of thought and all ideas contained therein are inferior. Thus, the issue does not really concern the application and spread of individual ideas that make up the diversity movement. Rather, the issue is more correctly about the fundamental premise concerning the diversity movement as being a superior dogma. And so, there are two types of individuals; those who are willing to compromise their own beliefs for the sake of diversity and those who are not.

A Note Concerning the Economic Theory

Many who consider socialism often times think of economic socialistic doctrine rather then this newer cultural socialistic idea. Although it is not my intention to discuss the economic aspects of socialism in great detail, I shall submit to you that the traditional economic doctrine often times follows from the more general cultural socialism because social equality almost always implies economic equality in the minds of a liberal. Yet, the marks of a free society should indicate that economic equality is far beyond reach. Some will be successful businessmen and some will not. We should at least note that the path to worldly success if often times hindered by a persons indolence and desire for the government to provide his/her needs. Basically, economic socialists and communists see a poor class and desire everyone to be lowered to that level because there exists a small class of folks who aren’t as fortunate. This is absurd! Besides this, poverty in America is quite different than poverty in some third world country. Yet, I have seen more Christians engage in charitable giving than I have seen any amount of socialists and liberals combined. They desire to show the world how compassionate they are by having the government pay for social programs. What I find ironic is that even though we are taxed to death by the government, most Christians still set aside money to give to the less fortunate. The solution is not more taxes or government ownership of business and property.

Businesses today have been so regulated to the point that they have absolutely no freedom to hire or refuse service to whomever they desire (in fact, they can’t even make a product without the government dictating specifications). This type of regulation may be traced back to the diversity movement. In fact, things have become so absurd that a businessman dare not criticize the homosexual movement for fear of being blacklisted. Simply put, businesses should have the freedom to make their products as they see fit and to hire whom they want to hire. This may not seem fair but these situations become incredibly nebulous when we attempt to hire without regard to personal and moral conduct. For example, should a church that subscribes to orthodox doctrine have the freedom to refuse to hire an unrepentant homosexual? Certainly! Should a family business have a right to refuse to hire a cross-dresser or sodomite because of the impact it might have on their children? Absolutely! To make any other reply to such questions is to seek some form of socialism, whereby the government regulates business. These claims are absolutely ridiculous yet we are beginning to see the fruits of such thought in today’s world. In fact, Marxist theory dictates the intermediary stage that describes a proletarian revolution from the capitalist to communist stage is indeed socialistic. Yet, the proletarian in the case of cultural diversity is not simply a member of the working class; he/she is a member of a diverse subgroup that represents some proportion of the total makeup of a society.

Anyway, the point is simply this: given the premise that all religions, lifestyles, perversities, cultures, etc are equal, it seems to me that the economic theories of socialism tend to follow. Thus cultural socialism is broader and typically tends to harbor some modern ideology as opposed to the traditional economic theory. The traditional economic theory seeks only economic equality and strict government statism while the cultural theory seeks equality on every personal front thus facilitating the need for economic equality. The diversity movement requires socialistic autonomy on all fronts in order to flourish, or even exist at that matter. It must exist at the cultural level and, at some point, the economic levels.

Conclusion of Part 1

We have simply taken the time here to define what is meant and to discuss some implications of the general idea of socialism in America. In the next few parts, I shall begin to describe the reasons concerning the existence of a society that begs the government for handouts and a complete eradication of a fixed traditional moral worldview. As implied by this discussion, these people do desire a form of morality; its just a radically different form of morality that I believe is completely inferior and inadequate to preserve liberty and freedom.

After reading much of what Dave Black has written, I too share his desire for the church or anyone with ears to hear to awake from their sleep and stand firm. If we do not, our nation will surely fall and will be swiftly judged by our God. May the Lord grant us ears to hear and eyes to see.

“The foolishness of man perverts his way: and his heart fretteth against the Lord.” Proverbs 19:3

March 31, 2004

Matt Gamel is a graduate student at Texas A&M and eventually desires to go to seminary to study to be a biblical scholar. He may be reached for comment here.

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Church Leadership According to Philippians 1:1 (Korean)

 David Alan Black  

빌립보서 1장의 교회 리더십 

사도바울은 “모든 성경은 하나님의 감동으로 된 것이다”라고 디모데후서 3장 16절에서 말하고

있는데, 여기서 “모든”이라는 단어가 매우 중요합니다. 신학자들은 이것을 가리켜 “무조건적인

축자 영감”이라고 설명을 합니다.아마 우리도 이 말씀을 가지고 단순히 “모든 말씀들이 모든

곳에서 하나님에 의해서 감동된 것이다”라고 말을 할 수가 있을 것입니다. 사실, 우리는

여기서 더 나아가야 합니다. 이것은 모든 말씀이 하나님의 감동으로 된 것뿐만 아니라

이 말씀 속에 들어있는 모든 시제, 태,서법, 인칭, 수,성, 격 등 모든 문법의 요소들도

하나님의 감동으로 된 것이라고 설명할 수 있어야 할 것입니다.게다가 바울은 성경이

하나님의 감동으로 쓰여진 것뿐만 아니라 유용하고 유익하다고 같은 구절에서 설명하고

있습니다. 즉, 성경은 단순히 정보로써 주어진 것이 아니라 모든 말씀의 구절들이 모든

곳에서 우리들을 변화시키는 데 쓰여질 수 있다는 의미입니다.      

빌립보서 1장1절을 보면 사도바울이 이렇게 인사하고 있는 것을 확인할 수 있습니다. “그리스도

예수 안에서 빌립보에 사는 모든 성도와 또는 감독들과 집사들에게 편지 하노니”특별히, 이

구절에서 두 개의 헬라어 단어가 교회 지도자들을 묘사하는 데 교차적으로 사용되어졌습니다.

좀더 구체적으로 말씀드리면, Presbuteros 라는 단어는 일반적으로 장로들을 가르치는데

사용되어지고, Episkopos는 감독을 지칭하는데 사용 되어집니다. 신약시대의 초대교회에서는 다수

의 장로들이나 감독들이 있었습니다. 만약에 단 한 사람의 지도자에 의해서 행해지는 리더십은

그 한 사람을 집중해서 모든 것이 행해지게 될 터이고,이러는 가운데 회중은 이 한 사람을

칭송하는 방향으로 이끌어지게 될 것입니다.반면에 성경은 분명히 가르치기를 오직 예수 그리스도만 칭송을 받아야 할 것이며,교회의 머리가 되시는 분은 오직 예수 그리스도 한 분 밖에 될 수 없다고 가르칩니다(골 1:15-, 마 23:8-12). 따라서,사도바울은 빌립보 교회를 향해서 인사를 할 때에도 단 한 사람의 목사나 감독에게 인사를 한 것이 아니라 감독들에게 인사를 하고 있는 것입니다. 비록 우리가 현재 출석하고 있는 교회에서 한 명의 목사가 있다 하더라도 이것은 신약성경이 가르치고 있는 것이 분명히 아닙니다.

또한 사도바울이 빌립보에 있는 성도들을 묘사할 때에도 그들이 지도자들 “아래에”(헬라어 전치사의 hupo) 있는 사람들이 아니라 감독들과 집사들과 “함께” (헬라어의 sun)있는 사람들로 표현하고 있습니다. 이것은 분명 우연이 아닙니다. 성경적인 가르침으로 볼 때 모든 성도들은 사역자입니다.

즉, 교회 내에서 다른 성도들을 지시 감독하는 아무런 지위가 있을 수 없는 것입니다. 비록 몇 명의 사역자들은 더욱더 많은 시간과 헌신을 그들의 사역에 집중하여서 교회로부터 재정지원을 받지만 근본적으로 모든 성도들은 사역 안에 있는 사람들입니다. 영국 그리스도 교회의 Alec Motyer는 다음과 같이 그의 책 “빌립보서의 메시지(The Message of Philippians)”에서 말하고 있습니다: “지역교회에서 친교(모든 성도들)와 리더십(감독들과 집사들)이 공존하고 있었다. 그러나,여기에서 리더십은 친교와 별개 된 것이 아니라 이에 대해서 더욱더 확대된 개념이었다.즉, 모든 성도들은 감독 아래에 있는 사람들이 아니라 감독들과 함께 있었던 사람들이었다” Motyer는 또한 덧붙여서 말하기를 “이러한 사례가 성경에서 항상 보여지고 있으며, 이러한 사역의 모습들은 교회의 필요와 상관없이 그들이 생각하는 교회 자체로써 그들이 삶의 모습으로 행해졌던 것이었다. 따라서,이러한 것에 비춰볼 때 신약교회에서는 하나님과 교회사이의 중재자에 대한 어떠한 명시도 없었다”(p35) Motyer는 덧붙여서 설명하기를 신약교회의 교리 중에서 모든 성도가 제사장이라는 가르침은 교회가 추구해야 할 이상적인 성경적인 모습이었다라는 설명하고 있습니다.

또 한가지 중요하게 살펴 보아야 할 것이 있는데,그것은 “감독들”이나“집사들”이라는 단어들이 헬라어의 관사와 함께 쓰여지지 않았다는 것입니다. 이것은 매우 중요합니다.헬라어에서 관사를 사용할 때 이는 그 단어에 대한 특별한 정체성을 지적할 때 쓰여집니다.반면에 이 관사가 사용되지 않으면 이는 그 단어에 대한 성격이나 특성을 강조하게 됩니다.분명히 사도바울은 이러한 문법적인 구조를 가지고 그들의 자격이나 지위를 설명하는데 사용한 것이 아니라 이들 개개인들의 사역을 강조하는데 사용한 것입니다. 이러한 문법적인 구조를 가지고 이에 대한 설명을 뒷받침 해 줄 수 있는 것은 다른 여러 바울의 서신들을 통해서도 볼 수 있습니다. (살전 5:12-13, 고전 12:28-31, 롬 12:6-8). 이를 통해서 우리가 분명히 알 수 있는 사실은 사도적 권위 아래 있었던 지역교회들은 각각의 교회가 그 자체의 회중을 섬기는 사람들에 의해서 리더십이 행해졌다는 사실입니다.

이것을 통해서 암시하는 것은 매우 크다고 보여집니다. 만약에 당신이 오늘날의 어느 교회를

가게 되든지 당신은 성직자와 평신도의 구분이 명확하게 구분된 것을 볼 수 있을 것이며,

교회가 한 사람의 목회자에 의해서 목양되는 것을 종종 발견하실 수 있을 것입니다.

아니면, 당신은 이러한 교회의 리더십이 목사들,장로들, 집사들 아니면 시무장로들과

가르치는 장로들로 구성되어 있으며, 시무장로들의 역할은 좀더 행정적인 분야에 가까워서

목회의 분야에서도 역할을 감당하는 것을 볼 수 있을 것입니다.애석하게도 이러한 모든

것들은 성서적인 모델이 아닙니다. 신약의 몇몇 구절들은 장로들이 교회의 지도자의 역할을

감당하는 것처럼 보여주는 것들이 있지만 어느 곳에서도 이들이 목사의 역할을 감당한다고

설명하고 있지는 않습니다. 이러한 장로들은 항상 다른 장로들과 연합하여서 사역을 진행하며

요한 삼서에 나와있는 디오드레베 처럼 상하구조적인 성격을 가지고 있지 않습니다.따라서,

교회는 단 한 사람의 목사에 의해서 모든 사역이 진행되고, 성도들은 그냥 이러한 사역들을

지켜만 보면서 이루어 지는 곳이 아닙니다. 한 사람이 교회사역을 이끌 수가 없기 때문에 신약의

교회구조는 다양한 사람들이 동등하게 사역을 하였던 것입니다. 이러한 면에서 신약의 교회 구조

내에서 어떠한 상하구조적인 면을 볼 수가 없는 것입니다. 물론, 어떤 특정한 사람들은 그들의

지혜와 경험을 토대로 이들 안에서 지도자의 역할을 감당한 것이 보여지지만 일반적으로 이들은

모두가 동등하며 서로를 돕는 관계에 있었습니다.

또한 교회의 예배에서도 지도자들이 모든 것을 진행하지 않고, 모든 회중들의 다양한 참여가

있었습니다.(롬 12:4-8,고전 14:26, 엡 4:11-16, 5:19,골 3:16, 히 10:24-25,벧전 4:10-11)

아울러서, 이러한 모습이 당시 지역을 초월한 모든 사도교회의 모습이었습니다. (고전 4:16-17,

11:16, 14:33). 신약성경은 모든 성도들의 모임이 그들이 가지고 있는 성령의 은사들과 다른 사람

들의 필요를 채워주며 사랑해주는 모임이 되어야 한다고 가르치고 있습니다.이러한 모임들에

목회자와 평신도라는 특별한 구분은 전혀 없었습니다. 아울러서,이 회중들의 지도자들은 자신들

을 명예스러운 지위를 통해서 남은 성도들과 구분 지으려 하지 않았습니다. “Biblical Eldership”

이라는 책을 쓴 Alexander Strauch는 다음과 같이 말합니다(p. 259):

초대교회 내에서도 예언자들, 교사들,사도들, 목사들, 전도자들, 지도자들, 장로들과 집사들이

있었다. 하지만, 이러한 이들의 명칭은 공식적인 지위를 가리키는 것이 아니었다. 예를 들어서,

모든 기독교인들은 신도들이었으나 “성자 요한”은 그 중에 없었다. 그들 모두가 제사장들이었으

나 “제사장 빌립”은 그들 중에 없었다. 이 중에서는 장로들이 있었으나, “장로 바울”이 이들 중에

없었다. 이들 중에는 목사들이 있었으나, “목사 야고보”는 이들 중에 없었다. 이들 중에 집사들이

있었지만 “집사 베드로”는 이들 중에 없었다. 이들 중에는 사도들이 있었지만 이들 중에 “사도

안드레”는 없었다. 초대교회 성도들은 그들의 지위를 통해서 명예를 얻으려 하지 않고, 오히려

이러한 그들의 명칭은 그들의 섬김과 사역을 위한 것이었다. (행 15:26, 롬 16:1,2,4 12:1 고후 8:18

빌 2:29,30 골 1:7; 4:12, 13살전 5:12; 딤전 3:1).초대교회 성도들은 서로에 대해서 언급할 때

개인적인 이름을 사용하거나 (디모데,바울, 디도) 개개인의 영적인 성품과 사역에 대해서 언급을

해 주었다: “믿음과 성령이 충만한 스데반…”(행 6:5), “바나바는 착한 사람이요 성령과 믿음이 충만

한 자라…”(행 11:24), “…복음 전도자 빌립…”(행 21:8), “예수 그리스도 안에서 나의 동역자된

브리스길라와 아굴라…”(롬 16:3), “너를 위해서 열심히 사역한 마리아…”(롬 16:6)…

이러한 것에 비추어 볼 때 오늘 날의 교회 내에서의 지위와 명칭들은 사도들과 초대교회 성도들

이 사용했었던 것에 견주어 볼 때 많은 것이 왜곡되어있는 것이다.

위의 내용들을 종합해 보았을 때, 오늘날 교회내의 리더십에 대해서 많은 변화가 필요한 것이

사실입니다. 전통적인 목회구조는 계속해서 한 명의 목사에 집중되어 있는 비성서적인 모델의

모습입니다. 반대로,신약성서는 다수의 장로로 불려지는 사람들에 의해서 교회가 이루어졌던 것

을 볼 수가 있습니다. 물론,어떤 장로들은 다른 특별한 은사를 받아서 특정한 목회적인 일들을

감당했을지 몰라도 교회 지도자들이 어떠한 명예와 지위로 분리되어서 교회의 사역을 감당했었

던 것은 분명히 아닌 것입니다.

전통적인 관점에서의 “목사”에 대한 개념은 분명히 비성서적으로 보여집니다. 다시 말하지만,

신약성경에서는 오늘 날과 같이 두 부류의 크리스챤 그룹을 얘기하지 않습니다(성직자와 성도들).

성경에 의하면, 모든 기독교인들은 하나님의 사람들로써 모든 사역에 범위에 있어서 그들의

영적인 은사들을 자연스럽게 드러내어서 아름답게 사역을 행할 수 있도록 설명을 합니다.이러한

가르침이 바로 빌립보서 1장 1절에서 언급하고 있는 사도바울의 가르침인 것입니다. 아울러서,

위에서 언급되었던 Alec Motyer도 이에 대해서 잘 설명해 주고 있는데, 그는 다음과 같이

설명을 합니다(p. 40):

어떤 리더쉽이 초대교회에서 행해졌습니까? 지도자와 교회 구성원들의 관계는 과연

어떠했습니까? 저는 함께(with)라는 단어가 바로 이에 대한 해답을 제시한다고 생각합니다.

그래서, 바울은 빌립보서 1장 1절에서 “성도들과 감독들과 집사들”이라고 명시를 하고 있습니다.

좀더 구체적으로 설명을 드리면, 선천적으로 뛰어난 지도자는 모든 사람들이 쉽게 따라올 수

있도록 좋은 방향을 제시해 주지만 이와 반대로 부족한 지도자는 그가 가지고 있는 모든

것으로 하려고 하기 때문에 항상 어려움이 뒤따르기 마련입니다.이러한 이유로 더욱더 많은

사역의 요구가 있고 많은 훈련이 뒤따르지만 그 이후에 보다 더 큰 보상이 뒤따르는 것은

바로 성도들과 감독들, 그리고 집사들이 함께 어우러져서 동등하게 사역을 감당할 때 인

것입니다.  

이와 같은 리더십은 많은 양상을 가지고 있습니다. 지도자와 구성원들은 서로 같은 기독교인으로

의 경험을 나누게 됩니다. 즉,모두가 다 같은 주님의 귀한 대속의 피로 인해서 구원받은

죄인이었으며 항상 하나님의 은혜에 의지해서 살아가야 하는 사람들인 것입니다.또한 이러한

가운데 이들 모두는 평안의 줄과 성령 안에서 하나가 되는 것을 체험하게 됩니다.바로

이러한 가운데 리더들은 자신들을 교회의 하나의 구성원 중에 한 명으로 보고 자신들이 해야

할 일은 이들을 돕는 사람들로써 사역을 하는 자로 인식하게 될 것입니다.이와 같은

생각으로 그들은 모든 상황을 그리스도의 몸으로써 사역을 감당하게 되는 것입니다.

이 이상의 아무런 외부적인 요인들이 그들의 상황들을 달리 생각하게 할 수 없는 것입니다.

이러한 사역은 항상 성령께서 교회를 향하신 계획을 이루시기 위해서 끊임없이 인내하는 것을

포함할 것입니다. 아울러서,교회의 지도자들은 자신의 생각과 편견으로 성도들을 이끄는 것이

아니라 항상 깨끗하고 열린 관계 안에서 교회 구성원들을 그들의 명백한 정직성으로 이끌게

되는 것입니다. 또한 이러한 리더십은 모두가 함께하는 리더십으로써 모두가 참여하는 것을

위해서 다른 여러 가지 자신들이 이상적으로 생각하는 사항들을 포기할 수도 있는 것입니다.

아울러서, 이러한 리더십에서는 모든 사람들의 이익,성공, 그리고 명성들 앞에서 그리스도의

몸으로써의 가치를 먼저 생각하고 모두가 동등하게 그리스도와 그의 복음을 위해서 헌신하는

것을 수반합니다. 바로 이러한 리더십이 성도들 가운데에서 이들을 섬기는 사람들이 행해야

할 진정한 리더십의 모습인 것입니다.   

 March 14, 2008

David Alan Black is the editor of www.daveblackonline.com.

Back to daveblackonline