restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

George Bush on Sodomy

Patrick Johnston

(Note: The following essay has been excerpted from a longer article by Dr. Johnston entitled, “Why Christians Should Not Vote for George Bush.”)

Conservatives all over the nation are significantly frightened right now about the prospects of Federally mandated “gay marriages.”  The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled this summer that their state constitution does not forbid gays from getting married, and they gave the legislature six months to change the marriage laws to accommodate sodomites who want to marry.  If the legislature capitulates and grants homosexuals the right to marry, they will get married in Massachusetts and return to their home states to sue to have their marriages accepted.  Thanks to a popular interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, those suits may be successful and if they are, the social and financial benefits states grant to marriage will be minimized and the covenant of marriage in America will be crippled.  Under the present judicial tyranny that regularly defies the will of the people and spurns the Constitution, the fear of family advocacy groups is legitimate.

Similarly, conservatives fear the judicial activism that is forcing a new religion down our throats, namely, atheistic humanism.  We have Federal judges like U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson ruling that Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore has no right to acknowledge God on the job.  Conservatives are in an uproar about the judicial tyranny that would cause a democratically-elected, upright man such as Roy Moore, who was only following his state Constitution’s precedent in acknowledging God, to be evicted from the state bench. 

Where do these bench-legislating, cultural-marxist judges come from?

They come from Presidents like G.W. Bush!  And they are rubber-stamped to the bench by the so-called conservative Republicans in the Senate.  Let’s judge this President Bush by its fruit.   

In an interview with Diane Sawyer on gay unions, President Bush said, “The position of this administration is that whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they’re allowed to make, so long as it’s embraced by the state or at the state level.”[8]  In other words, if state Supreme Court judges want “civil unions” like the Vermont statute, that state should be allowed to have it.[9]  We should not be surprised by the judicial tyranny that threatens to force gay marriages, “gay civil unions,” and a new state religion, atheistic humanism, upon us – we have supported and voted for men such as President Bush who appointed these pro-abortion, pro-homosexual judicial activists.  The same family advocacy groups that condemn statements of President Bush like this that undermine traditional marriage supported him in 2000 and will probably support him in 2004.[10] 

President Bush has stated that he has no qualms about hiring homosexuals,[11] and he has proven it.  He has appointed open homosexuals to high government positions at a rate that makes Bill Clinton look like a homophobe![12]  In December of 1999, when President Bush was Governor of Texas, he appointed a supporter of the Houston Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus and also of Planned Parenthood, Martha Hill Jamison, to the 164th District Court in Houston.  Very early in his tenure as President, G.W. Bush appointed a pro-homosexual, pro-abortion candidate to the Federal bench.[13]    Early in 2000, President Bush attempted to purge the Republican platform of planks against homosexual marriage and homosexuals in the military.  On April 9, 2001, he appointed a renown homosexual activist Scott Evertz to the Office of National AIDS Policy, which was the first appointment of an open homosexual to this federal position.[14]  On June 18, 2002, he transferred Evertz to direct U.S. Policy on Global Fund for AIDS and appointed another homosexual activist to take over as new director of the Office of National AIDS Policy.[15]

On September 18, 2001, President Bush appointed a homosexual activist to be Ambassador to Romania at the protest of the Romanian government.  Furthermore, President Bush authorized a Clinton policy that allows an “unmarried partner” of a foreign aid worker to be given the same status as a married spouse.  So the ambassador’s homosexual lover accompanies him to official government functions, travels with and resides with him on the taxpayers’ tab.  On August 22, 2001, President Bush appointed an open homosexual to the U.S. Commission on Fine Arts.[16]  He presided over the appointment of another open homosexual to oversee the choice of civilian personnel at the Pentagon.[17]  The Bush administration posted a job for a “gay and lesbian program specialist” at the Department of Agriculture.  On November 1, 2001, President Bush appointed an open homosexual to the State Department as an arms control advisor, which was the first appointment of an openly gay person to a senior arms control post.  President Bush insisted that openly homosexual Congressman Jim Kolbe of Arizona be given a prominent speaking role at the Republican National Convention.[18],[19]  On January 25, 2002, President Bush appointed many openly gay Republicans to the President’s Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS.[20] 

[1] “Bush Reinstates Pro-Life Mexico City Policy,” Pro-Life Infonet, 1-22-01, http://www.texlife.org/docs/bushreinstates.html

[2] Richard Stevenson, “Bush Eases Ban on AIDS Money to Pro-Abortion Groups Abroad,” New York Times, 2-15-03, http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/15/

[3] Edwin Chen, “Bush alters stance on AIDS funding restrictions: Turnabout on policy affects overseas service agencies,” Los Angeles Times, 2-16-03, http://www.knoxnews.com/

[4] William Jasper, “The Global AIDS Con Game,” The New American, 6-2-03, http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2003/06-02-03/vo19no11_aids.htm

[5] J. Johnston, “The Partial Birth Abortion Ban is a Farce,” Ohio Constitution Party Website, http://www.ohiocp.org/pbabanfarce.php

[6] Jim Rudd, “Partial Birth Abortion Ban of No Effect,” Covenant News, 11-26-03, http://covenantnews.com/rudd031126.htm

[7] Joe Giganti, “Government Funding and Abortion Income Help Planned Parenthood Make a Killing, According to Organization’s Annual Report”, U.S. Newswire, http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=122-12172003

[8] “President Bush’s Interview with Diane Sawyer”, Log Cabin Republicans of Washington, 12-17-03, http://www.logcabinwa.com/archive/200312171214.shtml

[9] “CWA Warns: Presidential Embrace of Civil Unions Undermines Pro-Family Effort to Save Marriage,” Concerned Women for America – Media, 12-17-03, http://www.cwfa.org/articles/5010/MEDIA/family/index.htm

[10] Allie Martin, “Bush’s Comments Regarding Homosexual Leaders Rankle Pro-Family Leaders,” Agape Press, 12-18-03, http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/12/182003a.asp

[11] “Confronting the Pride Divide,” The Village Voice, 9-7-99.

[12] Susan Feeney, “Bush’s Openly Gay Appointments Bother Conservatives”, The Dallas Morning News, http://www.logcabinwa.com/archive/199910221235.shtml

[13] Republican National Coalition for Life, 4-24-00

[14] “President Bush Expands AIDS Policy Team,” Log Cabin Republicans, 7-18-02, http://www.lcr.org/press/20020718.asp, also http://www.lcr.org/timeline.asp

[15] “Post-Election 2000,” Log Cabin Republicans, http://www.lcr.org/timeline.asp

[16] “Post-Election 2000,” Log Cabin Republicans, http://www.lcr.org/timeline.asp

[17] “Post-Election 2000,” Log Cabin Republicans, http://www.lcr.org/timeline.asp

[18] “U.S. Rep Jim Kolbe to Address Republican National Convention,” PR Newswire, 8-1-00, http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m4PRN/2000_August_1/63805205/p1/article.jhtml

[19] “Bush Asks Homosexual Congressman to Speak,”World Net Daily, 8-1-00, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15435

[20] “President Bush Appoints New Members to HIV/AIDS Advisory Council,” Log Cabin Republicans, 1-25-02, http://www.logcabinwa.com/archive/200201251620.shtml

G.W. Bush hired running mate Dick Cheney’s openly gay daughter to be a consultant for him during his campaign.  “The governor believes Mr. Cheney has a wonderful family,” a Bush spokesman said. “Being gay or lesbian is not a liability in this campaign.  The governor embraces both of Mr. Cheney’s daughters and will invite them to campaign with him.”[1]  Dick Cheney openly promotes “same-sex unions.”[2]

On Dec. 21, 2001, President Bush and the Republican Congress passed historic legislation extending family health benefits to Washington, D.C., employee’s “partners” and also gave unfettered adoption rights to D.C. homosexual couples.  He refused to nullify a 1998 Clinton executive order prohibiting discrimination against sodomites in the federal workforce.  He signed a bill allowing death benefits to be paid to the “domestic partners” of firefighters and police officers who die in the line of duty.[3]  This was the first time that a federal death benefit was granted to same-sex couples.  He has increased funding for homosexual propaganda campaigns under the guise of health education programs.  He allowed the Office of Personnel Management, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Justice, to openly celebrate “gay pride.”[4]  On April 18, 2002, at the annual meeting of the Log Cabin Republicans, the White House hosted a first-ever policy briefing for gay Republicans, featuring senior administration advisors.[5]  On June 24, 2002, President Bush signed the Father Mychal Judge Act, in honor of the openly gay fire department chaplain who died at the World Trade Center on 9-11.  This act allows public safety officers killed in the line of duty to assign federal benefits to designated beneficiaries, including same-sex partners.[6]  It is the first such federal law which allows such benefits to be granted.

President Bush publicly praised the Metropolitan Community Church of Los Angeles on occasion of its 35th anniversary, a church that performs 6,000 “gay marriages” annually.[7]  In his letter of congratulations, President Bush said, “By encouraging the celebration of faith and sharing of God’s love and boundless mercy, churches like yours put hope in people’s hearts and a sense of purpose in their lives.  This milestone provides an opportunity to reflect on your years of service and to rejoice in God’s faithfulness to your congregation.”

George Bush joined a horde of homosexual activists in maligning and mischaracterizing a Christian man, Jerry Thacker, he had appointed to the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS.  Mr. Thacker’s wife acquired the disease from a blood transfusion during delivery, and when she and her infant son succumbed to the disease, Jerry Thacker, now HIV positive, devoted himself to ministering the transforming love of God to those dying of AIDS.  He offered forgiveness and redemption to homosexuals through the grace of Jesus Christ and reparative counseling.  Presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer said of Thacker, “The views that he holds are far, far removed from what the president believes.”[8]  Thacker withdrew from the appointment after President Bush and the sodomite smear machine began to denigrate and verbally assault him for his beliefs.

George Bush’s home church in Texas is Highland Park United Methodist Church in Dallas.[9]  This church welcomes impenitent homosexuals as members.  President Bush said he reads the Bible daily, but he confessed to The New York Times, “I don’t necessarily believe every single word is literally true.” About the evolution-creation debate, he said, “The verdict is still out on how God created the earth. I don’t use the Bible as necessarily a way to predict the findings of science.”  In other words, Darwinism may be true according to President Bush.  When the Bible and a scientific consensus are at odds, whom do you think that George Bush believes?

The church has largely neglected its Biblical duty to judge a tree by its fruit, to “judge righteous judgment.”[10]  George W. Bush’s is a counterfeit conservative.  If judicial activists pervert the covenant of marriage to accommodate the sodomites, it will be because of politicians like George Bush who appoint them.  The majority of the Supreme Court justices who handed legalized child-killing down to us, who outlawed Bible reading and prayer in schools, and who refused to hear Roy Moore’s appeal were appointed by Republican “Christians” who got in office with the support of the conservative Christians in America.  The blame for the assault on the traditional family and the preborn can be laid squarely at only dream of feet because of our negligence in preferring pragmatism over principle, political power over persecution, and religious pluralism over Christ.  The Supreme Court has forsaken God ultimately because the professing church has forsaken God.  Thousands of “the least of these” are murdered every day in America because the majority of professing Christians voted for it or failed to vote against it.  The only truly pro-life, pro-family, constitutional candidate for President who was on the ballot in 2000 was the Constitution Party’s candidate, but that vote would have required a faith that works. 

[1] DrudgeReport.com, 7-25-02

[2] “Freedom Means Freedom for Everybody,” Independent Gay Forum, 10-19-00, http://www.indegayforum.org/authors/miller/miller27.html

[3] Mike Allen, “Law Extends Benefits to Same Sex Couples,” Washington Post, 6-26-02, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A44912-02Jun25?language=printer

[4] “Bush Advances Gay Agenda,” Family Policy Network, http://www.familypolicy.net/features/bush-gays.shtml

[5] “Post-Election 2000,” Log Cabin Republicans, http://www.lcr.org/timeline.asp

[6] Richard Goldstein, “Bush’s Gay Gambit,” The Village Voice, 7-17-02, http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0229/goldstein.php,  also http://www.johncarroll.info/Heroes.html

[7] “Bush Cheers ‘Gay’ Church After ‘Marriage Week’,” World Net Daily, 11-12-03, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35539

[8] Robert Knight, “Anatomy of a Smear: How ‘Gay’ Activists, the Media and the White House Shredded Jerry Thacker,” Concerned Women for America, Culture and Family Institute, 2-6-03, http://www.cultureandfamily.org/articledisplay.asp?id=3266&department=CFI&categoryid=papers

[9] “Bush: Christianity Central to His Life”, Religion Today, 1-26-00

[10] John 7:24

April 23, 2004

Patrick Johnston is a family practice physician and founder of the Muskingum County Association of Pro-life Physicians. He is Vice Chairman of the Constitution Party of Ohio. He is committed to restoring Biblical law and constitutional government in America. He is also active in street ministry and is the author of many articles. He may be reached for comment here.

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

The Genesis of the Gospels

 David Alan Black

In a recent review of my book Why Four Gospels? for the website Review of Biblical Literature, Leo Percer of Baylor University shows considerable courage in giving credence to my view that our earliest Gospel was Matthew’s and not Mark’s, as is held by the majority of scholars today. I say “courageous” because anyone who offers even the slightest challenge to the modern consensus opinio risks being accused of the grossest obscurantism.

However, Percer creates a straw man in arguing that my view of the order of the Synoptic Gospels (which I posit as Matthew-Luke-Mark) ignores the historical evidence, which (in Percer’s view) is Matthew-Mark-Luke. This is not at all what I say, however. My view is that there are two apparently conflicting historical understandings of the order of the Synoptic Gospels, what I might call the Clementine view (named after the church father Clement of Alexandria who stated that the Gospels containing genealogies [viz. Matthew and Luke] came first); and the Augustinian view (which represents the canonical order found in most of our Bibles today).

As I note on page 43 of my book, it is possible for Mark to be regarded from two different aspects as both the second and the third—third in order of actual composition, but second in order of authority as the work of the apostle Peter. Thus the canonical order of Matthew-Mark-Luke places the works of apostles (Matthew and Mark = Peter) first. In this way, the Gospel of Mark functions as a “canonical bridge” as it were between the church’s earliest Gospel, that of Matthew (written primarily for Jewish Christians), and the next Gospel to be written, that of Luke (written largely for Gentile converts stemming from Paul’s missionary efforts in the larger Roman Empire).

Much the same phenomenon occurs with the position of the book of Acts, which is the second volume of Luke’s history of the church (Luke-Acts). Why did the church take Acts, which was written before John, and place it after that writing? The reason apparently lies in the desire of the early church to provide an explanation of how the church got from the ministry of Jesus (as portrayed in the Gospel accounts) to the organized ministration as seen in the epistles. Acts alone provides the bridge of understanding between these phases of the development of earliest Christianity.

All of this makes sense when one takes into account the historical situation. Upon the ascension of Christ, His apostles began to evangelize all the nations, to baptize them in the name of the Trinity, and to teach them (Matthew 28:18-). Among the practical necessities of their immediate situation after Pentecost, the apostles must have recognized the need for a written record of the fulfillment of Scripture that could serve as a witness in their place whenever they themselves could not do so personally. This would involve putting into writing the evidence of how in the person of Jesus of Nazareth the God of Israel had sent His Son as the long-awaited Messiah to redeem His people, bringing them into the kingdom of God, which by His life, death, and resurrection He was establishing on earth—a spiritual fellowship that, under a new leadership and offering a new sacrifice, would include all who repented and believed and received baptism into His name.

The Twelve chose Matthew to undertake this task. Thus Matthew, no doubt in close consultation with the other apostles, set down his witness to the life of Christ, limiting himself to the scope of one commercial-length scroll (10 meters). Due to the very real threat of persecution, the “Gospel according to Matthew” was completed before the apostles separated at the time of the persecution under King Herod Agrippa I and therefore was available to the apostle Paul on his very first missionary journey.   

Almost immediately, however, Paul encountered questions put to him by his converts that revealed problems peculiar to the Gentile environment to which Matthew’s Gospel account provided no explicit solutions. Between AD 58 and 60, when Paul and Luke found themselves at maritime Caesarea, Paul urged Luke to recover material that it had not been possible to incorporate in the scroll of Matthew and that would provide a fuller elucidation of Jesus’ teaching about the place of the Gentiles in the kingdom of God. This material was used by Luke to produce a “Gentile edition” of the Gospel.

Later still, in 61/62, Paul found himself in Rome, and it was during his detention there that he would have had the opportunity to ask Peter to check over Luke’s text in order to enable him to publish it for use in the Gentile churches. (Remember that Luke himself was not an apostle.) The church historian Eusebius (EH 6.14.5-7) tells us that Peter’s response came in a series of messages given before a Roman audience comprised of high military officials. These messages were recorded by Mark, who was Peter’s secretary, and issued by him in written form to members of the audience at their request. These talks subsequently came to be referred to as “the Gospel according to Mark.” There is, I submit, sufficient circumstantial evidence for accepting Mark as the literal transcript of a shorthand record made while Peter was actually delivering his talks. Subsequently, Peter permitted Mark to make the transcript available to all who asked for it. The fact that Mark never set out to write a Gospel may explain why his work was hardly ever quoted by Christian writers during the next three hundred years.

April 13, 2003

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

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

General Lee’s Favorite Books

 David Alan Black

In this electronic age, it may well be that a good library is the last thing expected of a person. For years the doomsayers have been prophesying the demise of the book as a learning tool. Let the prognosticators say what they will, but I don’t think the book is a dinosaur any more than I think writers are going to stop writing. It is ironic that at the height of the computer’s popularity, more people than ever are buying and reading books. With all of its flaws and shortcomings, the codex is here to stay.

One of my favorite Americans—if not my very favorite—was Robert Edward Lee of Virginia, my adopted home. He was a great general, college administrator, father, and husband. But greatest of all, he was a humble follower of Christ and a devoted Christian. And it cannot be doubted that one of the most conspicuous aspects of his Christianity was his absorption with what we might call the literature of God. Nor can it be doubted that of all the massive literature Lee read, three books in particular had the most impact on him. In order of priority they were the Holy Bible (the King James Version, of course), the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer, and the Church Hymnal.

Lee preferred the Bible to any other book. In a letter to Markie, the young cousin of his wife Mary, he said there was enough in it “to satisfy the most ardent thirst for knowledge; to open the way to true wisdom; and to teach the only road to salvation and eternal happiness.” Lee’s pocket Bible was his constant companion in times of peace and war. It had accompanied him since he was a lieutenant colonel in the United States Army and was on his bedstand during his final illness in Lexington. Its pages were worn out from constant reading, its passages underlined for emphasis. Perhaps more than any other book he loved the Old Testament Book of Job, which he quoted often. As for the Psalms, his favorites were the 23rd, the 91st, and the 120th, the latter of which is quoted here.

Psalm 120, A Prayer for Deliverance from Slanderers

A Song of Ascents.

 1  In my distress I cry to the LORD,
         that he may answer me:
 2  “Deliver me, O LORD,
         from lying lips,
         from a deceitful tongue.”

 3  What shall be given to you?
         And what more shall be done to you,
         you deceitful tongue?
 4  A warrior’s sharp arrows,
         with glowing coals of the broom tree!

 5  Woe is me, that I am an alien in Meshech,
         that I must live among the tents of Kedar.
 6  Too long have I had my dwelling
         among those who hate peace.
 7  I am for peace;
         but when I speak,
         they are for war.

Lee once remarked that the Scriptures were “sufficient to satisfy all human desires.” One day several English ladies sent him a copy of the Bible as a gift. In his letter of thanks Lee called it “a book in comparison with which all others in my eyes are of minor importance; and which in my perplexities and distresses has never failed to give me light and strength.” During the war he promoted Bible distribution among the troops in order to extend “the inestimable knowledge of the priceless truths of the Bible,” and after the war he accepted the presidency of the Rockbridge Bible Society in a continued effort to spread God’s Word. The Bible was nothing less than his textbook for daily living and the principal means for shaping his beliefs.

Next to the Bible, Lee’s most treasured possession was the Book of Common Prayer—the official Church of England prayer book and one of the major works of literature. It contained a lectionary to aid in systematic reading of the Bible, Epistle and Gospel selections for each day of the week, and the Psalms so arranged that they could be read in their entirety every thirty days. Appended to it were The Articles of Religion, The Catechism, and the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. It also contained suitable prayers for both private and public use—a prayer “In Time of War and Tumult,” one “For Peace and Deliverance from Our Enemies,” another “For a Sick Person,” even one “For Fair Weather.” One can only imagine their constant use by the general. Lee began each day with private devotions, and when the family gathered there were readings from the Bible and the prayer book. He constantly sought strength and wisdom from a Source much higher than himself.

Finally, Lee was attracted to the great hymns of the faith. Corporate worship both sustained and comforted him during the long days of war. One historian has noted that while others were singing the words lustily during corporate worship, Lee would pray them. His favorite hymns included “O For a Closer Walk with God,” “All Hail the Power of Jesus’ Name,” and “Rejoice, Rejoice, Believers,” but “How Firm a Foundation” unquestionably headed the list. The congregation at Saint Paul’s Church in Richmond made it a habit of singing it whenever Lee was present, and it was sung at his funeral in the Washington College Chapel in Lexington. I can never read the words of this magnificent hymn without thinking of Lee:

How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord,
Is laid for your faith in His excellent Word!
What more can He say than to you He hath said,
You, who unto Jesus for refuge have fled?

In every condition, in sickness, in health;
In poverty’s vale, or abounding in wealth;
At home and abroad, on the land, on the sea,
As thy days may demand, shall thy strength ever be.

Fear not, I am with thee, O be not dismayed,
For I am thy God and will still give thee aid;
I’ll strengthen and help thee, and cause thee to stand
Upheld by My righteous, omnipotent hand.

When through the deep waters I call thee to go,
The rivers of woe shall not thee overflow;
For I will be with thee, thy troubles to bless,
And sanctify to thee thy deepest distress.

When through fiery trials thy pathways shall lie,
My grace, all sufficient, shall be thy supply;
The flame shall not hurt thee; I only design
Thy dross to consume, and thy gold to refine.

Even down to old age all My people shall prove
My sovereign, eternal, unchangeable love;
And when hoary hairs shall their temples adorn,
Like lambs they shall still in My bosom be borne.

The soul that on Jesus has leaned for repose,
I will not, I will not desert to its foes;
That soul, though all hell should endeavor to shake,
I’ll never, no never, no never forsake.

For me, Lee’s life is a constant reminder and challenge that God’s work must always be done by God’s people in God’s way. It is not by might nor by power but by His Spirit. We American Christians easily succumb to the deception that we can do the work of God with the same energy by which we operate our civic clubs and community programs. God’s work takes another kind of power. Fancy recipes and delectable tidbits from man abound, but only the Bread of Life can satisfy the need. That is the lesson of General Lee.

What made Lee different from most of us was that he was saturated with biblical truth and expressed his faith in God through constant prayer. To be sure, he was a man intensely human, frail and fallible, but he lived in the presence of the Lord. He attempted great things for God and expected great things from God. He had made a total committal of all he was and had and was looking unto Jesus for everything. He did not merely believe the bank was trustworthy, he made the deposit. He did not consent to the dependability of the bridge, he crossed over. He did not merely assent to the sturdiness of the foundation, he built his life upon it.

Today we need more men like General Lee who are not only depositories of grace and truth but also dispensers, householders, stewards of the manifold grace of God. We must keep the deposit, yea, we must invest it to the glory of God.

June 13, 2003

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

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Gamblers for Christ

 David Alan Black  

We could use a lot of plain old fashioned unselfishness in the world today. That’s the lesson of the book of Philippians, which I have been teaching this semester and studying in my personal devotions. Alas, too many of God’s people go in for faith and knowledge but never learn how to be kind or giving. Anybody can gripe (Phil. 2:14). Only a truly great soul can love others selflessly.

How subtle are the devices by which Satan raises doubts as to what God has commanded us to do – to take the Gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15). He would have us doubt the Word of God and fear men. “Don’t go to the Muslims! Don’t you realize you could lose your life?” Let us not be ignorant of Satan’s lies. He would have the church conform to the age and be squeezed into its mold.

Thankfully, there are men and women who are not moved by deceit, men like Epaphroditus who risked his life in the cause of the Gospel (Phil. 2:25-30). He was a humble, selfless, compassion-filled servant of God who was living out his salvation with humility and without concern for his personal safety. Through him the Philippians had sent Paul a gift, and in Rome he had become very dear to the apostle. Paul tells the Philippians to honor him because he had come close to death. He “risked his life,” says Paul, using a verb that means “to play the gambler.” Later the same term was used to describe a group of Christians who willingly and unflinchingly exposed themselves to danger in order to proclaim the Gospel. Calling themselves the Parabolani (the “Gamblers”), they visited the prisoners, the sick, and the infectious, jeopardizing their lives in doing so. One time, in AD 252, a plague broke out in Carthage and the bishop took a group of Parabolani and buried the dead, thus saving the city.

Epaphroditus was such a man of courage. He was willing to put his life on the line for others. Charles Hood, a Southern Baptist missionary to Colombia, was another. When he was gunned down and killed in April, 1998, the president of the International Mission Board wrote: “There’s no place in the world where the safety of a missionary can be guaranteed. But missionaries follow the call of God wherever it leads, even into dangerous places, because they value making Christ known and bringing the lost to salvation.” What examples! What courage! What commitment! Once you fall in love with Jesus, you will do everything in your power to introduce others to him.

My friend, loyalty to God is not always rewarded by a bigger church and a larger salary. The apostle John was faithful yet he was banished to a lonely island. A man loves himself properly only when he sees himself as God sees him – a lost sinner – and then, trusting Christ, sees himself as not his own but bought with a price and the personal property of the one he serves. When, like Epaphroditus and Charles Hood, we give our own selves to the Lord, we become free by becoming His captives.

Are you a gambler for Christ? Are you willing to risk it all? Love so amazing, so divine, demands my soul, my life, my all.

Today we need more Epaphrodituses to call Christians out of their Laodicean lukewarmness and to gamble everything for Christ.

September 21, 2006

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

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

The Future of the Church

 David Alan Black 

No one can ignore the disturbing parallels between the Third Reich and modern America. The dominant political ideology in the United States today is a neurotic nationalism driven by nationalistic messianism. Just as Hitler called on the Germans to fulfill “the mission appointed for them by the Creator of the Universe,” so our present national government sees America as the “wonder-working” power of God, created to impose democracy upon Arab and Islamic nations that have never known democracy. All the mistakes of Britain’s empire-lust are being repeated by our elites, from the hubris of power to the alienation of allies to the waging of wars where no vital U.S. interests are at stake.

In this situation only a small minority of evangelical Christians are prepared to speak and act out their dissent, and they do so in the face of increasing hostility and occasional repression from the state. Perhaps we could say that evangelicals fall into three categories today: a minority who seek to be faithful to the Word of God and are working against the stream of unethical and unconstitutional government policies; a silent majority condoning these policies or refusing to recognize political sin; and finally those who distort the Word of God and turn the Gospel into a theological appendage to the government’s nationalist ideology.

It is in this context of phlegmatic churches, intensifying intimidation, and the repression of Christian dissent that reformers are struggling to sharpen their analysis and to increase their tenuous leverage on the historical situation. This they try to do by working and writing against the sharply increasing politicization of the evangelical church. It seems obvious that this strategy will involve an escalating confrontation between at least some Christians and the state and, in the longer run, perhaps a major church-state confrontation. Such a confrontation would, I believe, be healthy for the church and might yet save the country from the retributive Justice that would inevitably follow should the statism of evangelicalism continue.

One organization that is working to restore America to her biblical and constitutional foundations is the Constitution Party (CP), whose leaders are meeting this weekend in Nashville. While the major evangelical denominations are hardly vigorous in their support for the CP and only belatedly are starting to fight their own internal battles over politics, the CP faithfully carries on the struggle, knowing it can expect little support from either the evangelicals in the current government in Washington or from local or state politicians.

Some have recently complained about the apparent inability of the CP to move believers to new frontiers of commitment. There is a real danger, they suggest, that its influence will be like King Log – one big splash, then a few ripples, and finally a tranquil pond once more. It is a paper tiger, they say – a domestic tabby. As we saw in the last election, however, the situation is not quite so bleak. The CP presidential/vice-presidential ticket received 30 – more votes than it did in 2000, and new initiatives are underway to boost its morale. In addition to establishing a viable political alternative to the compromised Republican Party, the intention of the CP is to work with biblically- and constitutionally-minded people at the grass roots level in every state to extend its vision of “God, Family, Republic.” As more and more Christians come to recognize statism for what it is and are willing to judge political sin to be a denial of the one Word of God, the church will be more capable to fulfill its responsibility to be an institution that offers the only hope for societal transformation. Younger believers in particular will become more conscious of the failings of government do-goodism and will reject their elders’ all too obvious unwillingness to confront the state on matters of public policy. New generations of students will also discover their own past and recognize themselves as heirs to a long tradition of protest against tyranny that dates back to the Revolutionary War.

Tragically, we can no longer expect the church hierarchies to provide the lead in confronting government; they are far too busy protecting their own interests. Even if biblical principles inform their consciences, making them increasingly uneasy about our warfare/welfare society, the vast majority will continue to be less than zealous to engage in confrontation or to exert pressure to change.

Humanly speaking, the future of the church and indeed of the country depends on the emergence of a new generation of evangelicals who will fearlessly exert constructive pressure on Christians within government and help them recognize that their neo-imperial policies are an egregious breach of faith. God willing, it is this coming generation of conservatives, as unfulfilled with the status quo as we were when we were young, who will return the church to the roots of its Christian role in relation to government – especially that of its prophetic witness.

December 7, 2004

David Alan Black is the editor of www.daveblackonline.com. He is the author of Why I Stopped Listening to Rush and numerous other books.

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

The Future of Southern Baptist Missions

 David Alan Black  

This summer I attended the SBC convention in Orlando. How was it?  Expensive. The seminary very graciously put me up in the Hilton. Not cheap. However, I noticed a nearby Days Inn whose rooms went for half the price. That’s where I spent my second night. Felt good to be able to save the school some money. Besides, little David had something Goliath lacked: An internet terminal in the lobby where guests could check their email. Gotta have that! I met lots of people, both colleagues and students (former and prospective). Jason Hall did an absolutely phenomenal job of setting up and managing the SEBTS booth. David Allen sauntered by one day, as did many other good friends.

Multiply these encounters a hundredfold and you’ll understand why these conferences are so much fun. I don’t know how many messengers attended this year’s meeting but the place was packed solid. The SEBTS luncheon on Wednesday, at which both Danny Akin and Johnny Hunt spoke, was fantastic. I came away from the convention with a new realization that a Great Commission resurgence will not begin at the denominational level. It will end there. A Great Commission commitment must begin in our homes and marriages, and then in our local churches, each one of them. This is clearly the pattern of the book of Acts. The church at Antioch, the world’s first missional church, is proof of that. As I came to this realization, I was filled with excitement. Clearly missions is now possible on a scale as never before. I’m not talking about professional missionaries only. The work of the Great Commission will certainly include them. But the work is much broader than that. The playing field has been leveled as never before. It is level in the sense that everyone can now be a player, and in venues once thought impossible. Just do a Google. I did so the other day and found an interesting site, in Iraq of all places. A new American University has just opened there and is willing to pay you to be a fulltime missionary to Iraq — as long as you are willing to teach business or English. Here education, as it so often has done in the past, is leading the way in breaking down walls and knitting the world together. The dynamic behind this globalization in education is practically begging us North Americans to capitalize on it. (I am tempted to grab a quick degree in ESL and apply for the job myself.)

Let’s say you want to do missionary work in China. Did you know that secular Chinese universities are hiring Americans to teach courses in biblical studies? A couple of years ago I got an email from an American scholar who was taking a sabbatical in China and teaching at Shanghai University. He wrote to tell me he was using my beginning Greek grammar in one of his courses. I was flabbergasted. Here was an American evangelical teaching both Greek and New Testament Introduction in a Chinese university, at the expense of the Chinese. In Dalian — China’s silicon valley — there are 22 universities and colleges with over 200,000 students. Most of these ambitious young people are eager to study English. The era of top-down missions — where all missionaries are professionally trained — is rapidly vanishing. Something infinitely more satisfying is arising alongside the traditional model. The faster the transition, the greater the potential for involving larger and larger numbers of “laypeople” (you and me) in the cause of the Great Commission. This flattening of world missions has the potential to unlock pent-up energies for hundreds of thousands of North Americans, Southern Baptists included.

It is impossible to exaggerate how important this development is. Couple this with developments in communications and transportation and the world has become not only flatter but a lot smaller. Becky’s missionary parents traveled to Ethiopia for the first time in 1954. Their trip by freighter took 6 weeks. Today we can fly from Washington DC to Addis Ababa in a mere 19 hours. Moreover, wherever you’re going, there’s probably a job skill God can use. Working in a secular job while actually being a fulltime missionary may sound rather routine and dull. But these jobs often pay well, and you have a natural venue for establishing relationships with a view toward sharing the Good News. In addition, biblical education is possible as never before. It’s is no longer campus-centered, and you can easily educate yourself — even in Greek and Hebrew — online. When Bill Gates co-founded Microsoft, his goal was to provide every individual “IAYF” — information at your fingertips. His success is obvious.

The global information revolution has impacted missions. The world is now connected, and it seems that nothing will stop the digital representation of practically everything. Back when my in-laws were working in Ethiopia, this infrastructure was missing. Now everyone is online — writing, blogging, tweeting. (Personally, I believe HTML is the greatest invention of the twentieth century, since it has allowed average people like me to author web pages with ease.) We have reached a point in missions that almost any of us can become personally involved, whether it’s by going or informing or teaching via one’s website. The great thing about modern missions, as I heard over and over again at the convention, is that anyone and everyone can be involved. Indeed, everyone ought to be involved. Even a Facebook page or a Twitter account can become a powerful evangelistic tool in this day of social networking. In other words, once the idea that every Christian is a fulltime missionary is accepted, the work of missions will advance with much less hierarchy — and much less wasted money. In time, I think we will see a new equilibrium emerge in which professionally-trained missionaries will work side-by-side with an army of volunteers in a low-friction environment that enhances cooperation.

For me, working in Ethiopia is a dream come true. When Becky and I went to Ethiopia in 2004 our sole purpose was to see the places in her childhood that shaped her. Today we make two trips a year. There are many professional missionaries working in Ethiopia, but Becky and I have still found plenty of room to maneuver in places where most foreign missionaries would never think of going. As with blogging, where an army of citizen journalists has matched the official media outlets in the information gathering and disseminating routine, today there is an army of citizen missionaries harnessing the power of the Spirit and channeling it into significant ministries. And as never before, these ministries can stay connected. It is impossible to gauge the impact of the internet on the SBC, but when you hear Johnny Hunt say that he read hundreds of tweets during the Orlando convention it is clear that the social media are successfully monitoring the news. My generation had to adapt to the internet, but the current generation is growing up online. (I once read that one third of grade school students have their own email addresses.) The bottom line of what I am saying: It’s time for us to wake up to the fact that there is a fundamental shift talking place in the way many of our churches are thinking about missions. We face the potential of tapping into the energy and abilities of five times as many people as before. As missions becomes flattened, local churches will realize they can plant other churches or send out missionaries themselves. The missions “connection” will move from vicarious support of foreign missionaries via missions giving to raising up local personnel and sending them forth. “Let’s get the job done!” is a rallying cry I’m hearing from more and more Southern Baptists. And the students I’m seeing these days in seminary are like Swiss Army Knives — sharp and adaptable. This is what happens when the missionary enterprise is no longer outsourced. Collaborative innovation flourishes — and the result is expanded involvement on all levels in the Great Commission.

The point I took away from Orlando was a simple reminder: We are all fellow missionaries. The Body of Christ is moving into a world where less and less of the work of global evangelization is being outsourced. When we develop a missional mindset, we get rid of the notion that missions is only for others. We are moving into a world where more and more of us will do the work of an evangelist. In the meantime, missionary communications are being revolutionized. During the Orlando convention I kept up with a friend’s mission trip to Greece via his tweets and twitpics. (I imagine he was keeping up with the convention as well.) In short, my two days in Orlando showed me that there is potential for our priorities to get completely reshuffled — with an accompanying awareness that missions is ultimately the responsibility of local churches — yours and mine. As I said earlier, a Great Commission resurgence will not not happen in the convention without it happening in my own life. Let’s face it: We can say we are “Great Commission Christians” until we are blue in the face. Meanwhile, the world is going to hell. Recently the BP chairman apologized for the oil spill and added: “We made it clear to the president that words are not enough. We should be judged by our actions.” Southern Baptists need to hear that loud and clear. More and more of us are asking which of our values are worth preserving and which should disappear. I hope that all of this gets sorted out at the denomination level (and I predict that it will). But even if it doesn’t, there is nothing to keep me and my local church from doing all we can to help advance God’s kingdom on earth, both through our support of the CP and through our personal involvement.

September 10, 2010

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

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

From Serve Us to Service

 David Alan Black 

The Body of Christ is a wonderful thing. It is where Jesus dwells. It is where He continues to do what He began in the Gospels (Acts 1:1). Still today, Jesus is at work in and through His Body.

Few New Testament writings describe this Body as completely as does Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. There Paul shows how the Body of Christ is based on, and flows out of, the unity and diversity of the Triune God. In 1 Cor. 12:4-6 Paul says that the Spirit grants to all the members of the Body spiritual gifts (charismata). The Son, on the other hand, assigns ministries (diakonoi) to every gifted member. These are opportunities to exercise one’s spiritual gifts in ways that edify other believers. Note that God does not give us gifts so that we might simply boast or brag of them. God desires us to serve and to use those gifts as the Lord Jesus directs us and in the place of His appointment. Finally, Paul says that God Himself grants us the energemata – the power – to use our spiritual gifts in an effective way.

We must never forget this. All those who are born of the Spirit of God are members of Christ’s Body on this earth. In each one of us the Spirit has come to dwell. To each one of us He has given a gift, which Paul calls a “manifestation of the Spirit” (v. 7). This truth is foundational to all we do as the people of God. For if we neglect Paul’s teaching on gifts, the church becomes just another organization. Everything is done to operate and build the organization, and all our energy is poured into that. But we must never think of the church as a human organization that operates programs on behalf of its membership. The biblical church functions when its members are using their infinite variety of abilities and aptitudes for mutual edification.

This is the divine blueprint for the church, and many believers today are rediscovering it. When I wrote my essay The FDR-ing of the Church, I had this group of people in mind. They are Americans (and others) who have come to realize that just as economic freedom is an essential requisite for political freedom, so spiritual freedom is a requisite for the Body of Christ to operate according to God’s design. The “fecundity of freedom” that made America the greatest nation in history in the nineteenth century succeeded for one main reason. It enabled people to cooperate with each other without coercion or central direction. By dispersing power, the free market provided an offset to political power. Undoubtedly, the main source of the economic revolution was private initiative operating in a free market open to all. People received little help from the government, but they also experienced little interference from the government. The narrowly limited government of the nineteenth century had little concentrated power that endangered the ordinary man.

All of this changed with the Great Depression. The depression was widely interpreted as a failure of free market capitalism. That myth led to a new vision of America. Emphasis on personal responsibility was replaced by emphasis on the person as a pawn controlled by forces beyond his control. Government increasingly undertook the task of taking from some to give to others in the name of security and equality. One government policy after another was established to regulate our pursuits. I believe these developments were produced with good intentions, but the results have been disastrous. Even the strongest supporters of the welfare state agree that the results have been disappointing. Americans no longer have a “can do” mentality. The human freedom proclaimed so eloquently in the Declaration of Independence is today a bare shell of what it once was. And today, as we clamor for the government to “serve us,” a new class of “civil servants” spends larger and larger fractions of our income supposedly on our behalf.

Fortunately, the tide is turning. In America there is a growing recognition of the dangers of big government. This shift in thinking is being reflected not only in the political sphere, but also in the religious one. There is a budding Christian subculture that is beginning to take Paul’s teaching on spiritual gifts seriously. For them, the work of the church is not something to be done by hired professionals. It is more than running meetings and perhaps doing a little missionary outreach. It is more than teaching Sunday School and heading up committees. The church is a Body in which the Spirit of God has distributed gifts to every member.

This is an amazing truth. It means that there are no insignificant members in the Body of Christ. It is not just those who lead our “worship services” that have gifts. Each believer has the ability to do something to encourage, strengthen, and help other Christians. You are only fooling yourself if you think that because you cannot preach or teach or lead you are not a member of the Body.

When you see the church as Paul sees it, you will stop thinking that only the teachers or leaders are important. You will see that the Triune God has designed the Body with beautiful balance. No one person has all the gifts. No one person can do it all. This is the message of Paul; this is the message of the New Testament.

Have you moved from “serve us” to “service” yet?

November 24, 2005

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

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

From “Granny Lee” to the Greatest General Ever

 David Alan Black

A heavy mist hung over the battlefield on the morning of July 2, 1862. At first it was impossible for General Robert E. Lee to tell whether the enemy still held Malvern Hill or had retired. As it grew lighter, however, it became evident that the Federals had disappeared. The Union army under George McClellan was retreating down the River Road in the greatest demoralization. The Army of Northern Virginia, at the close of the Malvern Hill action, had gained a historic victory.

The whole plan of Federal operations in Virginia had been completely disrupted after its success seemed inevitable. On June 26, the Union army of 105,000 soldiers had been ready to sweep over Richmond. Yet after the Seven Days fighting Lee could report to Confederate President Jefferson Davis, “The siege of Richmond was raised, and the object of the campaign, which had been prosecuted after months of preparation at an enormous expenditure of men and money, completely frustrated.” The Richmond Dispatch wrote, “The operations of General Lee were certainly those of a master. No captain that ever lived could have planned or executed a better plan…. Its success places its author among the highest military names.”

Lee’s victory in the Seven Days fighting elevated him from the dubious status of “Granny Lee” and the “King of Spades” to the most revered military leader in history. A career that had begun in relative obscurity and even defeat in the western Virginia campaign had been completely transformed. In defending Richmond, Lee had been given a well-neigh impossible assignment. Public confidences in his qualities as a commander were at an all-time low. When he was called upon to replace a wounded General Johnston, Lee commented in a letter to his daughter-in-law, “I wish the mantel had fallen upon an abler man.” Most of Johnston’s lieutenants resented the selection of a “staff officer” to lead them. Yet God had blessed Lee’s generalship, and the Confederate soldiers knew that they had a leader they could resolutely count on. Theodore Roosevelt, of New York, truthfully wrote, “The world has never seen better soldiers than those who followed Lee, and their leader will undoubtedly rank as, without any exception, the very greatest of all great captains that the English speaking peoples have brought forth.”

In Exodus 3:1 we read, “Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb.” Moses, the once mighty prince in Egypt, was now tending sheep on the backside of the desert for his father-in-law. The one who had been trained in all the ways of Egyptian plutocracy had now become something that was loathed by the very people he lived among—Moses was a shepherd! He was destined to lead the nation of Israel out of captivity, but the timing was in God’s hands, not his own. His first forty years were spent in Egypt in Pharaoh’s court. For the next forty years he was an obscure shepherd in the land of Midian. During his final forty years he was leading the people of Israel from Egypt to the Promised Land!

There are many examples in the Bible whom God gives us who have weathered long periods of obscurity and whose usefulness in the Kingdom of God seemed over. But the truth is that God had good things in mind for them even before they were created.  As Ephesians 2:10 explains, “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.” God always moves us into His position at the right time. But often we must first go through a wilderness experience before we can be useful. He prepares His chosen people by trials. The greater the trial, the more God is working to produce a greater effectiveness in ministry. Paul experienced years of obscurity, but out of that obscurity came a great apostle. He had become a man truly emptied of himself who had not a wit of confidence that he could perform anything.

What was true for Paul and Moses needs to be true for us. Are we willing to accept the humiliation of failure, allowed by God Himself, despite our best intentions? It is only out of the debris of that failure, and the mortification of pride that accompanies it, that a man can be formed whom God can use. There is something about failure, especially when it is born out of the best intentions to serve God, that produces a depth of work in the human soul like nothing else.

The lesson of General Lee is that no man is more qualified than the one who believes in his deepest heart that he is without qualification. The whole preliminary work of God is to disqualify us before we can be qualified. How many of us are itching to go out and make our mark for God? Let us remember that God did not think it wasteful to give Moses forty years of waiting in the wilderness until he was completely emptied out—and then He called him!

June 25, 2003

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

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Freely Give

 David Alan Black  

I’m not one of those who thinks that God’s work is limited by money issues. If He wants you to travel to some far distant place in His name, He’ll take care of your expenses.

When Becky and I went to Switzerland in 1980 to begin my doctoral studies at the University of Basel, God miraculously provided all we needed – both of us worked hard and saved! You see, it’s just as much a miracle of God that He granted us jobs and the strength to work as if He had plunked down a million dollars on our doorstep.

Every year many hundreds of missionaries travel abroad on their own dime. The ball is in our court. It really comes down to this: What are our financial priorities?

Let’s have a look at this more closely. What I am saying is that there is no reason why we can’t be self-supporting to a very large degree in the service of the Lord. Far from hoarding our funds to spend on passing desires and pleasures, let’s seek to invest our resources in the kingdom of God, which is eternal. Nobody will ever believe we have new life in Christ unless they see a new lifestyle. Our goal should be a Christ-centered life. Let nobody persuade you that you are lord of your time, talents, and money. Jesus is! And as the Holy Spirit helps us, we can work out our allegiances to the Master in the complexities of modern life.

Such, then, is the liberating power of the Gospel. God has freed us from our slavery to ourselves and replaced it with a genuine desire to please Christ and to serve others in His name. The only proper attitude, then, is to ask: “What will please Him? What will bring Him the most glory? What will advance His kingdom?” And one of the clearest yardsticks to know whether we are pleasing to the Lord is our attitude toward our possessions.

Freely we have received. Freely we give. This is the Christian life in a nutshell. After all, that’s what Jesus did, isn’t it?

October 18, 2009

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

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

The Folly of Modern Science

Matthew R. Gamel

 “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth His handiwork,” exclaimed the psalmist in Psalm 19. I was pondering this last night as I stumbled on a page maintained by NASA and managed to find the following image (which is updated in real-time):

This is an image of the sun viewed through a special apparatus. I urge you to stop for a few minutes and ponder the greatness of God and His infinite wisdom. I am not sure about you, but I believe that this image exemplifies our Creator and His handiwork. To seriously consider the magnitude of creation ought to prompt one to worship; in fact, it ought to overload your senses because to fully ponder God’s greatness as a fallen being is impossible and I know that in my life, I often overlook the mighty hand of our Lord. As the hymn-writer put it,

Lord, how Thy wonders are displayed where-e’re I turn my eye: if I survey the ground I tread or gaze upon the sky.

It is utterly mind-boggling when I contemplate that the Creator of the universe spoke this into existence. Consider even the simplest organism such as a prokaryotic cell – the complexity at such a microscopic level is absolutely awe-inspiring.

The Big Bang Theory: Proof the Humanists May Have Actually Evolved from the Ape

As most of you are probably aware, most of the folks that study these images would probably tell you that this universe magically came into existence billions of years ago via the highly scientific process of nothing. It just happened. In the beginning there was dirt. Actually, there was a very dense amount of dirt, the size of an infinitesimal point and that very dense amount of dirt was spinning, in a vacuum, and somehow enough energy magically appeared from nowhere and that small, infinitesimal grain of dirt exploded giving birth to the universe. Thus, in layman’s terms, says the so-called “Big Bang Theory.” In fact, one of the “open” questions in science is from where did the infinitesimal dot come? Thankfully, we have brilliant men like Alan Guth to answer this question for us. He wrote, in Scientific American that

… the observable universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal region. It’s then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing.

Folks, is it just me or is this absolutely unbelievable? A five-year-old child would be able to tell you that this is absolutely stupid and irrational (in fact, I believe that a five year old child could teach a few things to these “know-it-alls” in our universities). To put things in perspective, my “theory” of how the universe came into existence is rather simplistic, as many would suggest. I simply believe that a self-existing eternal being not constrained by space nor time created space, time, and matter thus engendering the physical laws that have been studied for centuries. Many professors reject such a theory because, as some contend, it is too simplistic.

On the other hand, the humanists basically believe that an infinitesimal spinning dot blew up somehow but can’t explain the numerous contradictions with basic Newtonian mechanics and the laws of thermodynamic that arise from such a theory. So, they brush these contradictions aside as being “open” questions that have not yet been answered (i.e. they never will be answered). In fact, they can’t even explain the origin of the spinning grain of dirt so they hypothesize that it came from nowhere. Their view is so convoluted and nebulous that it is often times near impossible to understand what any given person means when they discuss this issue, not to mention that their views contradict much of classical physics.

This is just the beginning – we have not even begun to discuss chemical evolution and other forms of evolution but there is no need to. Chemical evolution and macroevolution, for instance, are natural corollaries of Big Bang; they are certainly as silly and ludicrous, if not more, than the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory is merely a form of cosmic evolution as biological evolution merely postulates that life, as opposed to the universe, spontaneously appeared from nothing. And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what you are paying to have your children taught by the Empire in the government “schools” (especially the universities; see my last article for a rant about what your kids are learning there). Incidentally, the term “universe” comes from the Latin word universum whose prefix, unus means “single” or “one” and postfix versus is the past participle form of the term vertere meaning “to turn” which is where we get our term “verse” from (i.e. a poetic line, stanza, hymn). Hence the term implies creation of that which it describes.

What is Science?

Most of my colleagues in the mathematics department are humanists and subscribe to the theory that I have just described. It never ceases to amaze me to observe the great lengths that individuals will take so that they might escape moral consequence. To do this, they come up with this pathetic, inadequate, irrational, illogical heap of nonsense, call it science, and then teach it in the government “schools” as if it were fact. We must understand that the origin of the universe is not a scientific question. Those that vigorously hail the scientific method implicitly deny every bit of it when they acknowledge the “Big Bang” theory. The “Big Bang” theory is not testable, repeatable, and observable in any lab.

Perhaps I will concede from my position when a scientist is able to successfully create another universe in the lab (which would, incidentally, destroy my faith because while my faith is placed in that which is unseen, faith is not necessarily blind). Until then, I will never seriously consider giving any bit of legitimacy to this “theory.” This is precisely why they need the excuse of “billions of years” – so that they can reply, using what I like to call the anti-scientific method that they can’t test it because of the amount of time it would take. Well, then, its not science because you have just admitted that you cannot apply the scientific method to your theory. These are the primary characteristics that define science. Yet, too many people have subscribed to this sorry line of reasoning. If I wrote my mathematics dissertation using this type of reasoning, I’d be labeled a “fruitcake” and kicked out of the program.

Modern Science as Political Propaganda

There has been a turning point in the history of science from whence science no longer seeks rational answers to observable phenomenon but rather seeks philosophical answers to questions that cannot be answered by repetitious experimentation. I believe that this stems from the period of history known as the Enlightenment (or, as Dr. Hill of the League calls it, the “Endarkenment”). Much of modern science is nothing more than mere speculation and propaganda to push a political agenda. Scientists today operate from a fundamental humanist worldview, and as such, their conclusions will be consistent with this worldview whether or not they are logically or scientifically valid.

They begin, as a mathematician would begin, with an axiom, which is essentially a statement that is accepted without formal proof and a statement from which all other statements may be logically derived from. Thus, to the modern scientist, every conclusion to be drawn is based not upon an experimental set of laws, such as Newton’s laws or the laws of thermodynamics, but rather the philosophical law that there is no God. This must be distinguished from a scientific law. For a scientific law is formulated by experimentation coupled with a set of axioms. To equate the scientific procedures used to deduce the “Big Bang” theory with those used to deduce, say, the theory of electrodynamics is to compare that which cannot be compared.

For example, experimentation has clearly shown that the magnitude of the force between two point charges is inversely proportional to their distance squared (this should be review to you homsechoolers out there. If experimentation ever invalidated such a claim, the mathematical theory would have to be re-examined and hence any of the mathematics dependent upon such a claim would also have to be re-examined. From this, we observe why most scientists will not concede from their “Big Bang” theory; because it is highly unlikely that anyone in this world (apart from the regenerating power of the Spirit) will ever be able to convince them that their initial premise that there is no God is false.

Another good example of a false scientific theory is the theory of “global warming.” A few decades ago, the latest scientific fad was “global cooling” and every major publication theorized that we would be in the midst of an ice age by now. And yes, this is a fad; how many times have you heard radical environmentalists use the terms “global warming” when attempting to justify their communo-eco-fascist legislation? Actually, sometimes I wish it were true; it is quite hot and humid in east Texas. Yet, it has never occurred to any of these “intellectuals” that perhaps the earth goes through phases of being warm and then cool again. There is data to suggest this. And, no one has speculated that the sun *gasp* (of all things) might have something to do with this phenomenon.

On second thought, perhaps I am not giving our government propagandists who call themselves scientists enough credit. It is conceivable that these people know full and well that their theories are lousy and belong in the garbage. Many good meaning Christians dismiss evolutionists and scientists as having good intentions but are simply in the dark. While this is true, and while I believe that there are many that truly do have a desire for truth, I believe that the elite or the academic “intelligentsia” (i.e. the Berkeley, Yale, Harvard types) know precisely what they are doing and know full well that these theories are full of “c” concatenated with “rap.”

I call them government propagandists because that’s what they are. Their research is usually financed by the Empire (i.e. NSF, NIH, EPA, etc) and, in turn, used by the Empire to justify and legitimize dangerous entanglements such as Agenda 21 and other horrid pieces of legislation that trample on private property rights, gun rights, and even legitimize abortion and homosexual rights. This is another reason why equating psychology with science is dangerous; because the Empire will fund so called psychological experiments and use the “results” to tear children from their parents and force psycho-drugs down their throats to keep them dependent and compliant.

Unfortunately, there is no true interest in academia with intellectual debate and discourse concerning these humanistic theories. In fact, there is no true interest in diversity of thought in our public universities at all. I have read stories of scientists that lost their jobs because their research would, if published, poke sufficiently large holes in this vacuous theory. In fact many times, it was not the intention of the researcher to actually attempt to refute Big Bang – it was merely the natural outcome of their research. Only diversity of Marxist thought (or something similar) is tolerated at our universities. They are meant to be safe-havens for these types. I mean, where else can one find a male feminist, a gay fascist, and a black communist but at our public universities? See, they are all for diversity.

Essentially, the point I am attempting to make is that modern science is intentionally philosophical in nature. It purposefully attempts to address things that it cannot so that it can be used as a tool to push a political agenda. The Yankee compulsory education has been rather effective in creating social change because now, our young people are convinced that there is a difference between religion and science and have been taught that science is always superior. Now, when I use the term “science,” I am not referring to anything that is testable and repeatable in the lab because all of these things are consistent with the Word of God. I am referring to these theories that are lacking in substance that present the illusion of being scientific. We have trained a bunch of good humanists and have destroyed most traditional worldviews in our young people. When one contends that man’s reasoning is superior to Scripture, one is essentially stating that they are a humanist (if not, then whatever position it is, it certainly is not Christian). Thus, anything that is presented with the label of being “scientific” must be accepted over anything else. When we have acceptance of evolution, Big Bang, global warming, etc we will be more apt to accept government control of private property and the coming police state. We will be more apt to beg and cry that the United Nations protect us from ourselves in the name of earth worship and radical environmentalism.

Trading Scripture for Modern Science

What pains my heart is the fact that many Christians have accepted this idea that these false scientific theories must conform the Scriptures for one to believe them. Essentially, deciding whether or not to believe the Scriptures with or without mans wisdom boils down to the following question: where does truth ultimately originate? Does it come from God Himself or does it come from man. If it comes from man, then indeed truth changes, nothing is fixed, and science is the closest thing we have to decipher the meaning of life. That which is observable has never contradicted the Word of God. In fact, in most instances, it readily supports the claims of the Scriptures. Yet our society along with the Empire has purposefully confused the meaning of science and its realm and scope. Too many Christians have bought into these lies and it’s about time that we start teaching our children to beware of these individuals. Peter said the following, which I believe could be applied to the current situation here:

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the Word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water perished:

Friends, there are many scoffers out there that desire to destroy families and their faith and lead multitudes astray. Unfortunately, it looks like they have managed to deceive a good number of unsuspecting individuals. As Peter said in his first epistle “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary, the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.” Dear brethren, we must always be intellectually on-guard because it is too easy to be led astray in this media driven, propaganda ridden, and deceitful age. Those that scoff at our Lord are quite clever and have mastered the art of manipulation.

It has been said time and time again but we should begin to act: we must take our children out of the public schools, first and foremost, as this is one of the roots of the problem. I believe that the so-called “conservatives” of the mainstream religious right are fighting a battle they will never win; we will never reform our schools because in the eyes of Big Brother, the schools don’t need any reforming. In fact, to the Empire, the schools must be secular shrines that engineer good, compliant, little humanists. I don’t mean to sound pessimistic but we must understand that public education is always used as a tool for social engineering and hence we must reject it; the educational philosophy of our schools is based on the philosophy of John Dewey. It should not be surprising that our schools are hostile towards anyone that has a traditional worldview. It is imperative that we understand this.

To put things in perspective, when the communists shoved their ideology down the throats of the Russians, public schools were essential. In fact, the first thing the children learned was not how to be a good communist; it was evolution so that any other views that the people had would be destroyed and replaced with an exalted view of man. We can only expect the situation to become worse as more and more propaganda and political rhetoric is disseminated through the government “schools.” We must remember that the Empire controls them along with its globalist conglomerates and now, in part, by the UN thanks Bush as he pushed us back into UNESCO. If we don’t teach our children, our enemies will gladly do so. Public education is the enemy of anyone who loves God, liberty, and family. I will close with the words of the Apostle Paul:

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

October 12, 2004

Matt Gamel is 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