restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Building for the Future in India

Becky Lynn Black  

When I was working as a Certified Financial Planner, two truths were always placed before my clients.

#1.  “It isn’t what you make; it’s what you do with what you make.”  In other words, size of salary is not nearly as important as wisdom in use of the salary you have.

#2. “Wealth is not gained through working; it is gained through investing.”  In other words, don’t keep looking for a better job with a higher salary; instead, focus on siphoning off funds from your current salary into “wealth building” investments.

These same principles apply to work in the Kingdom.  Only those funds “sent ahead” in Kingdom work will meet us in Glory.

In Kingdom work we can focus on day-by-day needs, sending funds regularly for on-going needs.  Or we can do a sort-of “Kingdom wealth building” focus, so that the future needs are met through better stewardship of the salaries we have today.

In the short-term, regular funds are needed.  But the goal should be a financial base that allows self-supporting ministry, especially in areas where the people are poor and young in the faith.

Enter the work in India: a first-generation work where 80- of the people are below the poverty line.  How can we best help them?  Here are some ways:

Short-term Assistance

• Sponsor the monthly living costs for an evangelist and his family, at $75/month; 45 evangelists lack support.
• Sponsor a child in one of the Children’s Homes, at $35/month; 30 children lack support.

Medium-Range Assistance

• Supply transportation for rural evangelists, at $1600; 6 evangelists need these motorbikes.
• Build a temporary church meeting place, at $4,000; 4 congregations are waiting for a place to meet that is protected from the weather

Long-Range Assistance

• Build a permanent church meeting place, made with brick and cement, at $8,000; 3 congregations are waiting. (These buildings can be rented out during the week to community groups.)
• Establish a private school, which will generate income for all these needs.

Dave and I have sponsored an evangelist and a child for over a year.  But we have seen the wisdom of investing for the long-term in this work.  And we invite you to join us, prayerfully and financially.

Allow me to share more about this school. 

1. It is private; this means that tuition will be charged, unlike the “free” schools that are established in distant villages as an outreach.

2. The focus of the student body is the middle and upper-class (that 20- of the population above the poverty line); these classes prize education, and are willing to sacrifice anything for the education of their children.  Education is seen as the way up economically, and well-educated children means financial benefit/security for the parents.

3. The school will be Kindergarten through High School.

4. It will be advertised as a “Christian” school.  Prayer and Bible teaching will be a standard part of the curriculum.

5. When fully operational, it will allow a student body of 2,500 students!  These students will be almost exclusively Hindu and Muslim in religious background.  So this school will be an outreach for the Gospel in itself.  Imagine a ministry where 2,500 children and teens are influenced for Christ every day!

6. The school will greatly enhance the appreciation of the community for Peniel Gospel Team.  This, in turn, will open their hearts more to the Gospel message.

7. The school will generate income from within India, thereby easing the oversight and suspicion of the India government.

8. One-half of the estimated school income will be applied to the PGT ministries (evangelists, orphans, Bible School, etc.) and the other one-half will be applied to operating expenses (teacher salaries, utilities, etc.),

In dollars and cents, this means that for an investment of $383,000, this project will generate about $700,000/year after fully developed with a full enrollment, based upon today’s exchange rate.  That’s a pretty good rate of return, if you ask me!!

May I share my heart with you?  I’m asking the Lord to send at least $50,000 towards this project through us this year.  Already $5,000 is in hand, and another $10,000 is en route.

Will you join us in giving this long-range assistance to this work in India?  Please pray about it.

March 14, 2013

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Брак Великого Поручения

(A Great Commission Marriage)

 Дэвид Алан Блэк  

 David Alan Black 

Во многих статьях я уже подробно подчёркивал значение миссий как  стратегии, благодаря которой супружеская пара наиболее верно относится к Божьему миру. Я со временем прихожу к тому, что сущностью хорошего брака является не дружеское общение, хотя и это важный компонент. Не является он и любовью, если под любовью мы подразумеваем эмоциональную привязанность. Если в вашем браке присутствуют и дружеское общение, и любовь, это чудесно, но ни то ни другое не составляет сущности хорошего брака. Мне кажется, что нет большей ценности в браке, чем взаимоотношения, которые живут для чего-то большего, чем они сами. Я говорил об этом много в моем эссе Партнеры в Евангелии и уверен, что сегодня стоит об этом повторить.

Наше общество говорит нам, что брак является самоцелью, что супружеское счастье – это цель, которую необходимо достигать любой ценой, во что бы то ни стало. Я не против счастья в браке, но это не может быть вашей целью. Наш Творец – Бог неожиданных радостей, и мы часто оказываемся “настигнутыми радостью” в наших браках. Но я обнаружил, что радость всегда будет побочным продуктом в том случае, если Христос находится в наших жизнях и браках. По мере того, как Он все больше и больше становится центром наших взаимоотношений, Его “плод” все больше и больше становится нашим ежедневным опытом: любовь, радость, мир, долготерпение, благость, милосердие, вера, кротость и воздержание.

Брак, который я пытаюсь описать, это то, что говорит Иисус Навин: «А я и мой дом будем служить Господу». Вот в чём красота супружеской пары – вместе, рука об руку, жить для Христа в той степени, насколько возможно в этом падшем мире – и это изумительно. Я называю это Браком Великого Поручения. Он включает в себя «новые горизонты» и «новые двери», как описывал Льюис в своем эссе «Христианский брак»:

«В какой-то мере, я думаю, Христос имел в виду и это, когда сказал,  что

ничто  не  может  жить, пока не умрет. Не пытайтесь удерживать удовольствие,

питаемое возбуждением. Это было бы самой опасной ошибкой. Дайте  возбуждению пройти,  дайте  ему умереть, переживите это умирание и перейдите в следующий за ним период спокойной заинтересованности и счастья.  Сделайте  это,  и  вы увидите, что вы все время живете в мире новых восторгов и нового трепета. Но если  вы  попытаетесь  искусственно  включить  восторженное состояние в свое повседневное  “меню”,  то  обнаружите, как оно постепенно слабеет и все реже вас   посещает,   и   вот   уже   вы  доживаете  свою  жизнь  преждевременно состарившимся,  утратившим иллюзии человеком, которому все наскучило. Именно из-за  того,  что очень немногие люди это понимают, вы встречаете вокруг так много  людей среднего возраста, ворчащих, что юность прошла попусту. Нередко они сетуют на прошедшую юность в таком возрасте, когда перед ними еще должны открываться   новые   горизонты   со   всех   сторон».

Позвольте сразу сказать, что этот взгляд на брак мне кажется прочным библейским основанием. В христианском браке муж и жена призваны своим Творцом жить вместе в гармоничном единстве. Но это единство не ради самого единства. Заметьте, например, отец древней церкви Тертуллиан описывает христиан-супругов: «Они вместе молятся, вместе преклоняют колена, вместе постятся, взаимно одобряют и поддерживают друг друга… Если кто болен, его охотно навещают, а если кто нуждается, то ему помогают – дают милостыню без раздумий, жертвуют без колебаний, имеют ежедневное усердие без препятствий» (К жене 2.9). Тертуллиан не имеет в виду, что в христианском браке исчезают половые различия. Это было бы абсурдом. Его описание просто подчеркивает, что оба пола могут и должны быть вовлечены в совместную духовную деятельность, в которой каждая сторона вносит вклад своими собственными уникальными талантами и способностями. Они обогащают и дополняют друг друга. В результате возникает подлинное сотрудничество и единство, которое ставит  нужды и желания Бога выше, чем наши собственные. Таким образом, христианские пары не только ищут удовольствия друг в друге, они активно и с охотой стараются быть верными конечной цели – отражать Божью славу и благодать в мире вокруг них.

Я открыто признаю, что этот акцент на служении Христу в наших браках звучит странно в нашем самовлюблённом обществе. Одна из вещей, которая удивила меня, когда я начал изучать эту тему в Новом Завете, было то, что там так много говорилось о женщинах, участвующих в служении ранней церкви. Мы знаем, что жёны апостолов сопровождали своих мужей в их миссионерских служениях (1Кор.9:5). Комментируя этот стих, Климент Александрийский приходит к выводу, что жёны апостолов были «партнёрами по служению», т.е. соработниками своих мужей, поскольку они служили другим женщинам. Мы также знаем, что женщины в ранней церкви открывали двери своих домов для церковных собраний. (Интересно, что Писание приводит больше женских имён, в чьих домах собирались эти общины, чем мужских: см. Деян.12:12, 16:40; Рим.16:3-5; Кол.4:15). Более того, мы знаем, что Прискилла (Рим.16:3), а также и Еводия и Синтихия (Фил.4:2-3) были «соработницами» Павла. Последний дуэт пошёл очень далеко, чтобы разделить Павлову «борьбу ради Евангелия». Это, возможно, означает, что они подвергались тем же страданиям и сталкивались с таким же сопротивлением, с которыми сталкивался апостол Павел.

Затем наступает настоящий шок. Павел пишет, что Фива была «помощницей многих и мне самому» (Рим.16:2). Дуглас Му определяет греческое слово «помощник» (prostatis) как «тот, кто пришёл оказать помощь другим, особенно иностранцам, обеспечивая жильём и финансовой поддержкой, а также представляя их интересы перед местными властями». Му полагает, что Фива была «женщиной высокого социального положения и достаточно богатой; она посвятила свой статус, ресурсы и время на служение путешествующих Христиан, таких, как Павел, который нуждался в помощи и поддержке» (Romans,p.916). Когда я впервые прочитал это описание, я про себя подумал: «Он описывает мою жену!» Доход Бэкки от её работы в качестве медсестры почти полностью идёт на финансирование нашего труда в Эфиопии. Это похоже на то, как у Иисуса и апостолов были определённые женщины, которые «содействовали поддержкой из своих собственных средств» (Лк.8:3).

Мне кажется, что такие факты начинают указывать на функцию брака как служение другим. Бэкки и я рады быть командой (даже такой хрупкой и несовершенной) в работе, которую Господь определил нам. Вместе мы стараемся служить как в практическом служении по удовлетворению физических и материальных нужд людей, так и в служении Слова. Вместе мы вовлечены в работу по насаждению новых церквей. Вместе мы регулярно принимаем гостей у нас дома. Ключевым здесь является слово «вместе». Мы «соработники» у Христа – притом, что это совершенно не умаляет наших мужественности и женственности.

Какова же тогда моя роль в качестве главы в нашем браке? Иисус Сам отвечает на этот вопрос. Вслед за тем, как Иисус смирил Себя до момента смерти в Своём служении ради тех, кому Он был Господом, и муж должен поставить себя на место ниже той, которую он ведёт в служении, удовлетворяя её нужды. Теперь позвольте мне совершенно ясно заявить, что я не эгалитарист. Я верю, что между мужчиной и женщиной существует определённый порядок, который основан на рассказе о сотворении. Это, несомненно, то, чему учил Иисус. Но давайте пойдём дальше. Хотя в браке существует божественный порядок, брак также является союзом «сонаследников благодатной жизни» (1Пет.3:7). Говоря другими словами, подчинение никоим образом не исключает взаимности. Моя задача, как главы – быть ответственным за то, чтобы обеспечивать для Бэкки защиту и удовлетворять её физические и эмоциональные нужды. Но, вдобавок, я должен ей помочь определить её дары, способствовать развитию этих даров, а также обеспечить ей возможность служить другим. Итак, я утверждаю, что каждый из нас в своём браке может быть верным относительно наших гендерных ролей и по-прежнему двигаться по пути вместе как мужчина и женщина в полном единстве, служа другим. Именно это я имею в виду, когда спрашиваю: «Ваш брак уже умер?» Ибо только через умирание собственной жизни (а даже браки имеют собственную жизнь) мы познаём, что значит отражать глубокую онтологию совместной жизни для блага других. 

Позвольте мне повторить: Я не хочу ни на минуту предполагать, что в браке нет никакого наслаждения или удовольствия, или что влюблённость является неприемлемой или греховной. Всё, что я пытался показать – что любовь больше, чем просто чувства и что брак больше, чем возможность самореализации. Брак с «широкими горизонтами» существует для того, чтобы служить Иисусу. Это означает готовность открыть себя Духу Божьему и желание совершать служение, как в общественной, так и в личной жизни.

Отмечу, в заключение, что я однажды читал о церкви в Лондоне, у которой поперёк двери был баннер, на котором читалось «JESUS ONLY» (Только Иисус). А после урагана, повредившего баннер, читалось «…US ONLY» (Только США).

Каким письмом, отправленным в мир, является ваш брак?

Автор Дэвид Алан Блэк

Перевод Дмитрий и Анна Муркины

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

Back to daveblackonline

   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