We Need Pastor

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

                

We Need Pastor-Theologians

Garet Robinson

I was immensely distressed yesterday. I received a phone call from a dear brother whom I have known for six plus years now. We were roommates at Liberty University and I consider him one of my closest and best friends. We both are pursuing the equipping phase of our particular callings, though at different seminaries, and are constantly in touch.

Today he called me up and during the course of our conversation he told me that he no longer felt the leading by God to take biblical language classes (i.e., Greek and Hebrew) as a part of his Masters of Divinity degree since his particular seminary offers a degree track that will allow him to graduate without these languages. One of his reasons was that most “successful pastors” he knows don’t use the original languages at all. Then he asked me what I thought.

Now after I had counted to ten, I replied to his query. I began with the intention of taking a touchy subject matter and exhaustively replying to him and answering his question beyond the limits of what he expected. Then I decided to simply tell him I was disappointed in him. He asked me why I was disappointed in him. I replied that as a part of every pastor’s calling is the calling to be equipped to serve faithfully and fully for their local or even national congregation. A part of every pastor’s calling is to be equipped to be the best at shepherding the flock.

Now without getting into the details of why I believe all pastors need to be functional in the languages, I believe it is wholesale thievery to attend a seminary supported by giving Christians and leave without ever engaging the basics of what comprises our Bibles. (Of course I don’t for a second suggest that all theological inquiry should be done with the languages, nor do I suggest that by knowing the languages it will solve all your hermeneutical problems. The languages are the tools we have to work with.)

During our lengthy conversation, it occurred to me that he is simply repeating the line that is often given in our churches by many of our pulpiteers. We have detached the difficult, yet rewarding, study of the original languages from our “biblical sermons” in favor of some sweet sounding pop-culture psychology devoid of theological insight. We have preachers throughout this great land of ours who champion good thoughts and keen Christian insights that are in no way applicable to the texts they are working within. Most of our pulpiteers have lost the ability to expound faithfully from the infallible text we hold so dear, and instead rely on the words and thoughts of various fallible commentators and translation committee members to get their fodder.

A great pox of pseudo-biblical preaching has descended upon us based on the sacred cow of passé biblical authority. When our preachers go lax our congregants are spoon-fed soft mush instead of growing strong on the rich, lean theological insights readily available in our texts. Our churches have begun to settle for a yuppie cool, theological vacant, and intellectually lax pastorate who can drip sweet ear candy into their ears and let them leave the pews and padded-chairs without engaging their brains. The once thunderous chorus of theologically rich, biblically founded insights on life and Christianity have been replaced by the wimpy strains of pop-culturesque, theologically shallow quips of hypermodernism. We have gone from trumpeting the stanzas of premier pulpit exegesis to muttering the tunes of pompous topical sermon tripe.

Oh how our congregants will long for the days of old where the Bible was truly exposited and the rich depths of the faith mined by a capable preacher-theologian. Our churches deserve our best and greatest sacrifices for their edification. We fail them even before our ordinations by selling ourselves short of the calling to completeness which Christ commends us all towards.

We need a rebirth of the pastor-theologian.

We need an army of men occupying the pulpits and parishes of our land who can look deep and discover the treasure troves of spirituality lightly locked away behind the languages of the Word which we hold so dear. We need pastor-theologians who can easily speak to the sublime points of ecclesiology and Christology while still making the text applicable for the toddler bouncing on his knee. We need pastor-theologians who have the educational prowess to lead their people to such great heights that converts will come simply for the rewards available from growing in God. We need pastor-theologians equipped and ready to take our congregants to the next level and engage the rich heritage and great plethora of biblical resources that have never before been available to Christianity.

September 16, 2004

Garet Robinson is currently in his final semester at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary working on his Masters of Divinity degree (Advanced Track). He did his undergraduate work at Liberty University. He hopes to work in teaching, administration, and associate pastor roles within a local Southern Baptist church. He was saved at the age of six and was brought up in a wonderful Christian home. He may be contacted at his blog or at garetrobinson@gmail.com.

Back to daveblackonline

Continue Reading We Need Pastor

We Decry the Removal of the Ten Commandments

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

                

We Decry the Removal of the Ten Commandments, But Can We Even Name Them?

 David Alan Black

Are you infuriated yet? Have you had it up to here with political correctness in Alabama? Are you put out yet with those evangelical leaders who have failed to close ranks with Judge Moore? If not, it’s unlikely you’ll ever be motivated to do anything about the current constitutional and biblical crisis in America.

When Paul came to Athens (Acts 17) he was so upset by what he saw that he could not rest. The Scripture says, “It disturbed his spirit within him to see the city so full of idols.” He was stirred in his deepest being over a city so entirely dedicated to false worship.

Thankfully, more and more stout-hearted Americans are growing justifiably disturbed over the “monumental” debacle in Montgomery. Judge Moore is absolutely right for defying a federal court order for the sake of a more fundamental “Court Order”: obey God rather than man! The tragedy is that most supporters of the Ten Commandments couldn’t name them if their life depended on it!

Could any of my readers state the Sixth Commandment? Which commandment forbids greed? Which decries Sabbath breaking? If you could name even five of the Ten Commandments you would be far ahead of the crowd. And mosesAmericans are not the only ignorant church-goers. According to a Sunday Times of London poll of 200 randomly-selected Anglican clergy, a mere 34 percent surveyed could cite all of the Ten Commandments, and some could remember only two.

The tragic truth is this: functional biblical illiteracy plagues our churches today. It was not always so. Our Founding Fathers came from an era when literate men and women knew their Bibles. James Madison, the chief architect of the U.S. Constitution, could read the Scriptures for himself in both the original Hebrew and the original Greek. Thomas Jefferson devoted long hours of his retirement to compiling—in four languages!—the basic teachings of Jesus Christ. Other founders such as Benjamin Franklin and John Adams possessed a fundamental faith while decrying any form of established religion.

University of California historian Edwin Gaustad says of that period, “The Bible provided a common core of ethical teaching, of cosmic understanding, of historical unfolding, of metaphysical or theological underpinning.” Throughout the history of America, Christianity has been at the heart of the civilization it inspired. Even the atheist is still a prisoner of an ethic and a mentality that is deeply rooted in the Christian tradition—as is shown every time he writes a date on a check!

C. S. Lewis once said that there were only two kinds of people: those who say to God “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, “Very well, then, thy will be done.”

My friends, if a nation can’t even cite, let alone obey, the divine Commandments that are at its very foundation, whose fault it is for that nation’s demise?

September 1, 2003

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

Back to daveblackonline

Continue Reading We Decry the Removal of the Ten Commandments

We Are Not Lords

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

                

“We Are Not Lords of Our Possessions”

 David Alan Black  

Alan Knox, in an outstanding blog post calledThere was not a needy person among them, reminds us how important mutual care was in the early church. He writes:

When a new brother or sister was in need, someone took care of that need from their own property. When someone was hungry, that person was fed. When someone needed clothing or housing, that need was met. They considered their relationships with one another as more important than their own physical well-being or their material possessions.

Today, caring for those in need is left to government agencies or parachurch organizations. Christians tend to give a little money and consider the problem shifted to others. The American Dream has replaced the concern for other Christians who are in need.

If I understand Alan correctly, he is arguing that social activity (such as feeding the poor, housing the homeless, etc.) is a fruit of the Spirit. In other words, when a person is regenerated by way of the Great Commission (Matt 28:19-), then he or she will naturally want to implement the horizontal dimensions of the Great Commandment (Matt 22:37-39).

Surely this is a vital dimension of biblical Christianity. And the order, I believe, is significant. In some circles, “missions” is almost completely disassociated from evangelism. According to Weber and Welliver (Missions Handbook, 2007, p. 13), in the U.S. the increase in income from 2001 to 2005 for relief and development was 73.4 percent while for evangelism and discipleship it was only 2.7 percent. I have personally known some “mission” organizations in Ethiopia that engage in service to the community (building hospitals and schools, digging wells, etc.) without any mention of the Gospel. In my opinion, they have failed to keep the main thing the main thing. The supreme need of the nations is the saving grace of Jesus Christ.

But I need to add a careful rider here. Evangelism and social action are not opposed to each other. They are, as John Stott puts it, “two blades of a pair of scissors.” Because Becky and I believe this to be true, we have become involved in several efforts in Ethiopia to address the economic and health concerns of the people there. Perhaps the most visible expression of this concern is the Health Clinic we opened in Burji several years ago. (It has since been upgraded to a Health Center.) I need to emphasize, however, that the primary purpose of the Health Center is evangelism because we firmly believe that individual regeneration by the grace of God is, in the final analysis, the best solution to humanity’s individual and social problems. As Alan noted in his post, Christian social responsibility presupposes socially responsible Christians, and it is only through evangelism and discipleship that people can become committed to holistic missional work.

I remain deeply concerned about what I perceive to be a growing shift in emphasis today from proclaiming the kingdom of God to a purely economic and social gospel. This is like putting the cart before the horse. The Anabaptist Balthazar Hubmaier answered the charge that he required communal ownership of property by stating:

Concerning community of goods, I have always said that everyone should be concerned about the needs of others, so that the hungry might be fed, the thirsty given to drink, and the naked clothed. For we are not lords of our possessions, but stewards and distributors. There is certainly no one who says that another’s goods may be seized and made in common; rather, he would gladly give the coat in addition to the shirt.

The Anabaptists held that the church is a voluntary society comprised of Christians who are bound to each by the reality of the new birth. These “believers” live apart from the world but do not shun it. They do not accumulate wealth but are content with their basic necessities. They help each other faithfully, having everything in common out of sheer love for their neighbor. They live a lifestyle that matches their responsibility to a lost and drying world.

This too was apparently the blessed experience of the early church in Acts. Through their relationship to Jesus Christ, these believers became detached from their worship of earthly things. They experienced freedom from covetousness and greed and seemed to be able to escape the “spend-and-consume” merry-go-round that Satan is now using to hold our American families in bondage. But, thank God, escape is still possible today! When we learn to embrace the Jesus way of life, when we can plan habitually to go without things for Christ’s sake, then we have begun to live the life of “reasonable service” (Rom. 12:1-2) that is acceptable to God. Wherever you are, there are needy neighbors. And there is a cross for you to bear. God has a path of self-sacrifice for every one of us if we will but ask Him for the privilege of self-denial.

June 10, 2011

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

Back to daveblackonline

Continue Reading We Are Not Lords

The Watchdog

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

                

The Watchdog Is Alive and Well

 David Alan Black 

It was good to be back in Europe, if ever so briefly, last week. Of course, Bush & Co. remain scornful of any European government that responds positively to its own constituents (France, Germany, Spain, et. al.). Rumsfeld once condescendingly referred to these nations as “Old Europe.” New Europe consists of GOP pompom-wavers such as Britain and Poland. Personally, I prefer the Old to the New. The preemptive, unconstitutional war against Iraq that has drawn our military into an impossible guerilla war is nothing less than a betrayal of the Jeffersonian ideal of “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations.” Thankfully, the anti-American sentiment that is apparent in so many nations of Europe has not spilled over into Africa (as far as I can tell).

How things might have been different had Americans paid attention to their own Constitution on November 2. The home page of the Constitution Party website has this to say:

George Washington feared two threats to America above all others. First, the corrupting influence of political parties with their spirit of faction and selfishness; and second, the weakening of the influence of religious morality on public life. On both counts he was right – the Democrats and Republicans have betrayed us, and squandered the Founders legacy of liberty and justice. Countless government officials in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government take their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution with no understanding of the responsibilities that oath entails.

The platform of the Party goes on to stipulate:

The United States is properly a free and sovereign republic which should strive to live in peace with all nations, without interfering in their internal affairs, and without permitting their interference in ours. We are, therefore, unalterably opposed to entangling alliances – via treaties, or any other form of commitment – which compromise our national sovereignty, or commit us to intervention in foreign wars.

These are principles I can live with and uphold. And I am sure that they are also principles that our candidates, Michael Peroutka and Chuck Baldwin, will continue to work for tirelessly. Running for political office does not begin with filing with the election commission, despite what many people may think. People’s basic convictions are the bedrock upon which they will build their candidacy. For most politicians, the purpose of running for office is to win, pure and simple. Few will run for office due to a commitment to represent and implement the platform of the party they represent. Thankfully, Michael and Chuck are men of principle who ran for one reason – for the glory of King Jesus and the reestablishment of limited constitutional government under God.

The party that fails to win an election – and this includes the Constitution Party – does not escape responsibility in a Republic like the United States. It still has an important watchdog role to play. Let us, therefore, remain vigilant in this fight to return our great nation to her biblical and constitutional foundations. Let us continue to oppose undeclared wars that cost our nation thousands of lives. Let us continue to oppose the interventionist policy of both Democratic and Republican Parties. And let us continue to demand, with greater urgency than ever, that no United States troops will ever be employed on a foreign battlefield without a declaration of war by Congress, as required by the Constitution.

Michael Ledeen, the leading architect of American neocon military strategy, once said, “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business” (quoted in Jonah Goldberg, “Baghdad Delenda Est, Part Two: Get on with it,” National Review, 4/23/02).

I prefer the philosophy of the Constitution Party and Michael Peroutka:

America needs and deserves a President who will stand against the entrenched socialism, elitism and globalism which have a stranglehold on American political power. It is clear that both major parties are committed to the agenda of the New World Order and seek to enforce economic, military and social policies which are antithetical to the interests of our independent Republic. Michael Anthony Peroutka and the Constitution Party will fight to defend America against enemies domestic and foreign and return to a Republic of self-governing states whose laws are rooted in Biblical principles.

And you can bet on it: here is one party that intends to keep its word.

November 23, 2004

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

Back to daveblackonline

Continue Reading The Watchdog

Watch That

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

                

Watch That “I”!

 David Alan Black 

Some dear saints never do anything for God because they are perfectionists. They think they must fly before they can walk. This can happen in the homeschool and church renewal movements. Some of us are so taken up with the heavenlies that we are of no earthly good. We exalt the ideal church but never commit ourselves to a local congregation. We become critical and censorious of the imperfections of our brethren. We bask in contemplating the true church in its ideal state but refuse to work with ordinary Christians in all the problems of the average local fellowship.

It is a blessed thing to work for renewal in the home and church. But it also has its perils. Just as the good can become the enemy of the best, so the best can become the enemy of the good. I have strong convictions about what the family and the church ought to look like, but the cross spells death to self and to all the ambitions and desires and wisdom of the Old Adam. The middle letter in “sin” is “I,” and sin is nothing but I-trouble.

We live in a part of Virginia where nobody homeschools and where traditions often strangle our churches. Yet we love our local churches and they love us. Why? The difference between “united” and “untied” depends on where you put the “I.” It is the “I” that causes most church troubles.

Renewalists are sorely deceived if they think they can work for reform while thumbing their nose at their neighbors. Sometimes a Roman centurion or a Syrophoenician woman gets the blessing when the insiders miss it. Many of God’s choicest servants attend our most convention-bound churches or teach in our nastiest public schools. Mediocre men often sit in high seats while truly great Christians minister in Podunk.

Those who refuse to accept the status quo or conform to the low standards of contemporary Christianity have a tendency to see people as utterly good or bad. They have no tolerance for that great mass of humanity that does not stand out as either good or bad. They become impatient when they find so few who manage to attain the high mark they have set for their fellows. They settle into a smug posture of superiority.

Instead of being indulgent toward this prideful attitude, we need a holy abhorrence of it. We are all blind until God opens our eyes. But none is so blind as those who think they see everything perfectly. They are like the Pharisees who mistook religiousness for righteousness and proudly asserted, “Are we blind also?” (John 9:40).

This does not mean that we are to follow the crowd or live as though imperfection were the standard. God expects more from us. But He expects more from us because He is ready to work in us patiently both to will and do what He expects. Meanwhile, we must be patient with ourselves and with others.

Someone once said that a cross is an “I” crossed out. So is the Christian. Let us, then, consent to our identification with Christ in death, burial, and resurrection, so that in all we do we can say with Paul, “Not I, but Christ” (Gal. 2:20).

May 12, 2006

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

Back to daveblackonline

Continue Reading Watch That

Was Secession Treason

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

                

Was Secession Treason?

David Alan Black

America was founded on a revolution against England, yet many Americans now believe the myth that secession was treasonable. The Declaration of Independence was, in fact, a declaration of secession. Its final paragraph declares inarguably the ultimate sovereignty of each state:

[T]hat these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved of all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.

Following the Declaration of Independence, each colony established by law the legitimacy of its own sovereignty as a state. Each one drew up, voted upon, and then ratified its own state constitution, which declared and defined its sovereignty as a state. Realizing that they could not survive upon the world stage as thirteen individual sovereign nations, the states then joined together formally into a confederation of states, but only for the purposes of negotiating treaties, waging war, and regulating foreign commerce.

For those specific purposes the thirteen states adopted the Articles of Confederation in 1781, thus creating the United States of America. The Articles of Confederation spelled out clearly where the real power lay. Article II said, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.” The Article also prohibited the secession of any member state (“the union shall be perpetual,” Article XIII) unless all of the states agreed to dissolve the Articles.

Six years later, the Constitutional Convention was convened in Philadelphia, supposedly to overhaul the Articles. The delegates in Philadelphia decided to scrap the Articles and to propose to the states a different charter—the United States Constitution. Its purpose was to retain the sovereignty of the states but to delegate to the United States government a few more powers than the Articles had granted it. One major difference between the two charters was that the Constitution made no mention of “perpetual union,” and it did not contain any prohibition against the secession of states from the union. The point was raised in the convention: Should there be a “perpetual union” clause in the Constitution? The delegates voted it down, and the states were left free to secede under the Constitution, which remains the U. S. government charter today.

After the election of Thomas Jefferson, the Federalist Party in New England was so upset that for more than ten years they plotted to secede. The party actually held a secession convention in Hartford, Connecticut, in 1814. Although they ultimately decided not to leave the Union, nobody really questioned the fundamental right of secession. In fact, the leader of the whole movement, Massachusetts Senator Timothy Pickering, said that secession was the principle of the American Revolution. Even John Quincy Adams, who was a staunch unionist, said in an 1839 speech about secession that in “dissolving that which can no longer bind, we would have to leave the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the center.” Likewise, Alexander Hamilton said, “to coerce the states is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised.” These men, and many others, understood that there was a right of secession, and that the federal government would have no right to force anybody to remain in the Union.

Some people see the Confederates as traitors to their nation because many Confederate leaders swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States when joining the United States Army. However, at that time people were citizens of individual states that were members of the United States, so that when a state seceded, the citizens of that state were no longer affiliated with the national government. Remember, the Constitution did not create an all-powerful national democracy, but rather a confederation of sovereign states. The existence of the Electoral College, the Bill of Rights, and the United States Senate clearly shows this, and although it is frequently ignored, the 10th Amendment specifically states that the rights not given to the federal government are the rights of the states and of the people. But if states do not have the right to secede, they have no rights at all. Lincoln’s war destroyed the government of our founding fathers by the “might makes right” method, a method the Republicans used to quash Confederates and loyal Democrats alike.

After the war, Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederacy, was arrested and placed in prison prior to a trial. The trial was never held, because the chief justice of the Supreme Court, Mr. Salmon Portland Chase, informed President Andrew Johnson that if Davis were placed on trial for treason the United States would lose the case because nothing in the Constitution forbids secession. That is why no trial of Jefferson Davis was held, despite the fact that he wanted one. 

So was secession treason? The answer is clearly No.

June 30, 2003

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

Back to daveblackonline

Continue Reading Was Secession Treason

War Lessons from George B

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

                

War Lessons from George B. McClellan

 David Alan Black

I don’t have many “favorite” Union Generals from the War of 1861, but if I had to choose one individual who comes closest to my concept of an officer and a gentleman, he would have to be General George Brinton McClellan. Robert E. Lee himself expressed a high opinion of McClellan, and Lee rarely had anything very complimentary to say about Union generalship.

The coming war with Iraq will almost certainly involve fighting among civilian populations. Just war theory requires that American troops not only avoid targeting civilians but that they do all they can to avoid civilian casualties. Of course, in one sense the war has already begun. What is going on almost daily over Iraq has the elements of a sustained military operation. There are bombs, missiles, fighter jets, anti-aircraft fire, targets destroyed—and civilian casualties. But other than the Iraqis, virtually no one, including U.S. officials and the rest of the Arab world, is drawing much attention to it.

In the U.S. air war over Afghanistan, about 3,000 to 3,400 civilian deaths have already occurred. One legacy of the ten-year Afghan Civil War during the 1980s is that many military facilities came to be located in urban areas where the Soviet-backed government had placed them. The apparent willingness of the U.S. military to drop bombs upon heavily populated areas of Afghanistan gives one pause about what might happen in Iraq. A heavy bombing campaign must necessarily result in substantial numbers of civilian casualties simply by virtue of proximity to military targets. Factor into that human error and equipment malfunction, and the question becomes not whether there will be civilian casualties in an Iraqi war, but just how many casualties will occur.

If there is a precedent for the targeting of civilians, that precedent was set during the War for Southern Independence. As documented by Thomas DiLorenzo and others, between 1861 and 1865 Union commanders pillaged the South, abusing civilians in unspeakable ways, destroying railroads and factories, slaughtering livestock and decimating crops, and burning private homes, public buildings, schools, and libraries. As early as the first major battle of the war, the Battle of First Manassas (Bull Run) in July of 1861, federal soldiers were plundering and burning private homes in the northern Virginia countryside. Such behavior quickly became so pervasive that on June 20, 1862, one year into the war, General McClellan, commanding the Army of the Potomac, wrote Lincoln a letter imploring him to see to it that the war was conducted according to “the highest principles known to Christian civilization” and to avoid targeting the civilian population to the extent that that was possible. Lincoln replaced McClellan a few months later and ignored his letter. 

The Geneva Convention of 1863 condemned the bombardment of cities occupied by civilians, but Lincoln ignored all such restrictions. The bombardment of Atlanta destroyed ninety percent of the city, after which the remaining civilian residents were forced to depopulate the city just as winter was approaching and the Georgia countryside had been stripped of food by the federal army. In his memoirs, Sherman boasted that his army destroyed more than $100 million dollars in private property and carried home $20 million more during his famous “march to the sea.” After the Confederate army had evacuated the Shenandoah Valley in the fall of 1864, General Philip Sheridan’s troops essentially burned the entire valley to the ground. As Sheridan described it in a letter to Grant, in the first few days his soldiers “destroyed over 2200 barns… [and] over 70 mills [and] have driven in front of the army over 4000 head of stock, and have killed…not less than 3000 sheep…. Tomorrow I will continue the destruction.”

Reports detailing such carnage were sent to General Halleck in Washington. In a typical report issued on September 17, 1863, Sherman stated, “We will remove every obstacle—if need be, take every life, every acre of land, every particle of property, everything that to us seems proper.” When Robert E. Lee invaded Pennsylvania in 1863, many Southerners hoped that he would give the Yankees a taste of their own medicine. But Lee was a man of integrity. Not only did he prohibit “wanton injury to private property,” he also ordered his soldiers to pay for any supplies taken from civilians.

By 1864, the people of the North themselves had become greatly agitated on the question of the propriety of the war, its further prosecution, and the manner in which it was being conducted by the Lincoln administration. In the presidential contest of that year, Lincoln and Johnson were the candidates of the Republican or War Party, and McClellan and Pendleton were those of the Democratic or Peace Party. The convention that nominated McClellan and Pendleton met in Chicago on August 29, 1864, with Governor Horatio Seymour of New York as its chairman. This convention adopted a platform containing these remarkable words:

“That after four years of failure to restore the Union by the experiment of war, during which, under the pretence of a military necessity of a war power higher than the Constitution, the Constitution has been disregarded in every part. Justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand that immediate efforts be made for the cessation of hostilities, with the ultimate convention of all the States, that these may be restored on the basis of a federal union of all the States, that the direct interference of the military authorities in the recent elections was a shameful violation of the Constitution, and the repetition of such acts will be held as revolutionary, and resisted; that the aim and object of the Democratic party is to preserve the federal union and the rights of the States unimpaired, and that they consider the administrative usurpation of extraordinary and dangerous powers, not granted by the Constitution, as calculated to prevent a restoration of the Union; that the shameful disregard of the administration in its duty to our fellow citizens—prisoners of war—deserves the severest reprobation.”

At first it appeared that McClellan would defeat Lincoln, but Union victories in the field diminished the public’s war weariness. Winning in only three states, he resigned from the army on Election Day. Active in state politics, he served as New Jersey’s governor in the late 1870s and early 1880s. He died on October 29, 1885, at Orange, New Jersey, and is buried in Riverview Cemetery, Trenton.

Unlike our current leaders, I don’t think General McClellan would have employed such euphemisms as “collateral damage” to describe civilian casualties. In his book 1984, George Orwell described “doublethink” as the willingness “to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed.” Earlier, in an essay titled “Politics and the English Language,” Orwell said, “In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible.” Repression and atrocities “can indeed be defended,” Orwell added, “but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness.”

Our use of weapons of enormous destructive capability, including fuel air bombs, B-52 carpet bombing, BLU-82s, and CBU-87 cluster bombs (proven to be highly effective at killing and maiming civilians who happen to come upon the unexploded ‘bomblets’) reveals the emptiness in the claim that the U.S. has been trying to avoid Afghan civilian casualties. Even though civilian deaths have not been the deliberate goal of the bombing campaign as they were for the terrorists of 9/11, the end result has been the same.

The example of General McClellan continues to be unheard—and unheeded.

February 11, 2003

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

Back to daveblackonline

Continue Reading War Lessons from George B

War After Weary War

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

                

War After Weary War? 

 David Alan Black 

I often wonder why people get so perturbed over the much-deserved criticism the president is receiving from opponents of the Iraqi war. Even if people back the war effort, they should still be outraged by the fact that our troops lack sufficient body armor, that they were lied to about the length of their deployments, that they were unprepared for guerilla style combat in the war zone, etc.

Evangelical Christians who speak out against the war and who share a strong commitment to Jeffersonian republicanism need not hide their heads in shame. If an alleged war in the interest of “democracy” does not interest them, they are very much in step with Americans who through the years have opposed all imperialistic ambitions, whatever veneer of benevolence they may have been disguised with.

Even those Christians who support the war should still abhor war per se and at the very least refrain from glorifying it. The fact is that America has become a hotbed of military ardor and nationalist enthusiasm. The country seems to be rushing into a permanent state of military involvement in nations that pose no threat to our national security. Certainly this is not healthy for the country. For example, military sociologists are now predicting that the high level of demoralization among our troops deployed in Iraq will almost certainly lead to a rise in the number of soldiers deciding against reenlisting after their current tour of duty is over. The end result will likely be a fresh move toward a policy of compulsory military service in our nation, entailing increased interference of the state in individual and family life. War will follow wearily upon war, while at home the war bureaucracies will continue to multiply, contempt for civil liberties will continue to increase, and free speech will continue to be assailed.

The good news is this: just such a national situation may be the necessary precondition for a nation-wide spiritual revival. More than ever, the gospel of Jesus Christ will be seen for what it truly is—a blessed relief from mankind’s utterly sinful state of affairs, whether that state of affairs goes under the name of humanism, nationalism, or any other -ism.

For the time being, however, Wilsonian interventionism is likely to continue to be the name of the game. President Bush, unless defeated in the 2004 election, will go on promoting the New World Order. Our nation may indeed attain security, but if it does so it will be at the expense of the great principles of political liberty and economic freedom upon which it was founded.

October 21, 2003

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

Back to daveblackonline

Continue Reading War After Weary War

Want to Reform Your Youth Ministry

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

                

Want to Reform Your Youth Ministry? Reject Adolescence!

 David Alan Black 

To me it seems clear that our society is seriously malfunctioning in its role of preparing children for adulthood. The upheaval and disarray we are seeing in childrearing patterns are unprecedented in modern times.  —Vance Packard, Our Endangered Children

In his book, The Rise and Fall of the American Teenager, Thomas Hine provides a devastating exposé of American teenage culture. His principal thesis is that most of the traits that we have come to expect from teenagers—identity crises, rebellion, high-risk behavior, and self-defined rites of passage such as premarital sex and gang membership—may not be inevitable and would be avoidable if we treated teenagers not as a special subgroup but as “novice” adults. Teenagers, he asserts, must be treated and educated as the young adults they are and encouraged to participate more fully in our social, economic, and political life. If this happens, he says, we might find ourselves free of vulgar teenage antics and the self-destructive lifestyles we seem to tolerate so willingly. In particular, this would mean breaking up the artificially age-segregated environments of high school and giving teenagers real responsibilities and real jobs. At the same time, it would mean no longer excusing teenagers’ often silly and bizarre behavior with the worst sort of jargon about psychosocial development.

My own book, The Myth of Adolescence: Raising Responsible Children in an Irresponsible Society, makes many of the same points that Hine’s excellent study makes, though neither of us was aware of the other’s work while writing. Both books decry the “culture of irresponsibility” that we have tolerated for so long, and both of us argue for a return to the ideals of a previous generation of Americans, who allowed youth to be relatively independent and gave them a real role in life.

The enthusiastic response to The Myth of Adolescence since its publication has convinced me that many Americans are ready to question—if not jettison—the unjustified moratorium we have granted teenagers from moral responsibility. The book came out one week before the tragedy that took place in Littleton, Colorado. Immediately after the murders at Columbine High School, I gave radio interviews in such places as New York, Sacramento, Dallas, and Littleton itself. The consistent response of the radio audience was, “I’ve always felt that teenagers should be held responsible for their actions, and I’m so thankful to you for putting this into words.” In essence, my book verbalized what millions of Americans intuitively know is wrong with a large segment of American society—the absence of teenage responsibility.

Enter the “experts.” Rather than calling into question teenagers’ irresponsible and selfish behavior, they tell us that teens are supposed to go through an out-of-control time-out between childhood and adulthood. “Sowing wild oats” is perfectly normal, we are reminded. Chances are you have entertained such notions to explain away the strange behavior of a teenage son or daughter. But deep down inside there’s something tugging at you, urging you to say “No!” to all this irresponsibility. That “something” dare not be ignored. It may very well be the voice of God quietly yet forcefully reminding you of His plan for teenagers: “Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young. Instead, be an example for other believers in your speech, behavior, love, faith, and purity” (1 Tim 4:12).

Is that what we find in our nation today? Exemplary young people? Hardly. American teenagers are in trouble. And I’m talking about Christian teenagers. Frankly, I’m always surprised when I see a family with responsible, well-adjusted teenagers. I’ll tell you, that family is pulling off an amazing feat! But why should this be so? We have the power and presence of the living Lord available to us, the inner working of the Holy Spirit, plus the divinely-inspired handbook of instruction on the home and family. Could it be that we have ignored what he has to say to us?

Bookstores—non-Christian and Christian alike—have shelves bulging with books on adolescence. Most are written by qualified people, many of them Christians—good books by good authors who believe in the Good Book. But as I read them, I keep asking, “Where are the Scriptures that support your point?” Or, “That sounds good, but is that a biblical principle or a personal one?” Isn’t it time we dusted off God’s original blueprint for the family and the home? Our greatest need is to hear what He has to say to teenagers about His plan for them. After all, the family is His invention. It’s obvious that He understands it best, since He holds the patent on it. Because He is the Master Architect, we must seek His counsel first and foremost.

The first step is understanding the basics of Jesus’ human growth and development, his “life cycle,” if you will. The Scriptures relate three basic phases in Jesus’ life cycle: (1) birth to twelve years (Luke 2:41-52); (2) twelve until Jesus’ baptism at approximately age thirty (Luke 3:23); and (3) the period of Jesus’ public ministry culminating in His death, resurrection, and ascension. These phases may be pictured as follows:

  1. Childhood/Pre-Adulthood (ages 1-12)
  2. Emerging Adulthood (ages 12-30)
  3. Senior Adulthood (ages 30-death)

These phases correspond exactly to the persons John describes as “little children,” “young men,” and “fathers” in 1 John 2:12-14—a passage that uniquely captures the idea of the necessity of growth.

Notice that, biblically speaking, adulthood begins at puberty—not at 18, or 21, or 26 years of age. Indeed, for centuries the word “adult” meant “grown one” and referred to a person who had passed his or her growth spurt at the age of puberty (around twelve or thirteen years of age). In essence, an “adult” was a person who was able to have children. The problem is that modern society generally considers an “adult” to be a person who has “come of age” (this “age” of adulthood being variously defined), not necessarily a person who is sexually mature. This separation of the two meanings of “adult” has given us the modern concept of “adolescence.”

According to David Bakan (“Adolescence in America: From Idea to Social Fact,” Daedalus 100 [1971] 979-995), “The idea of adolescence as an intermediary period of life starting at puberty… is the product of modern times…. [It] developed in the latter half of the nineteenth century and the early twentieth century… to prolong the years of childhood.” Thus today, the term “adolescence” refers to the teen years, during which post-puberty teenagers are treated as children even though they are really “adults” in the original sense of the word.

Bakan identifies three developments in American society that made adolescence an officially recognized period. First, compulsory education laws were passed that removed the decision about whether a child should be educated away from parents. Education was mandated by law, and parents could be punished for keeping their children out of school. Modern laws mandating school attendance began in Germany in the seventeenth century, though the laws were seldom enforced since parents viewed those laws as the state trying to do what they should do. Gradually, laws were passed in the United States that required all children to go to school. In fact, the high school is a part of our society’s invention of adolescence. With these changes, young adults (“adolescents”) and not just children were forced to attend school.

Second, child labor laws were enacted that made it illegal to employ persons below certain ages. This served to lengthen the period of childhood since early teenagers, for example, could no longer work full time. The result was to make young people economically dependent. They were not allowed to work, so they did not have their own money to spend. However, for thousands of years it was not this way. Young people worked with their parents or beside a master as an apprentice until they could become independent. In nineteenth century Massachusetts, for example, young people over twelve were expected to at least partly support themselves.

Finally, a juvenile justice system was created to segregate younger lawbreakers from older ones. This produced a different system of record keeping, punishment, and probation for “juveniles.” Just as teenagers were no longer expected to be responsible to support themselves, so they were no longer held responsible for their criminal acts, despite the fact that for thousands of years the legal system treated teenagers as adults. In nineteenth century America a fifteen-year-old lawbreaker could be punished the same way as a thirty-five-year-old offender would be. Today, however, our laws have turned adults into children. As a result, young people can literally “get away with murder.”

The intrusion of legal adolescence into American society was fairly well established by the early part of the twentieth century and quickly began to influence how young people grew up. By the 1920s the marriage age, along with inauguration into the work force, was steadily moving upward. Young people were “protected” from environments that ‘forced’ maturity on them. Instead, they lived in a period of extended childhood. For the first time in history, young people were not allowed to make adult decisions at the age of puberty. Adolescence became a “psychological moratorium,” a delaying of adult commitments. As a result, permissiveness and playfulness were encouraged. There even developed organizations to turn youth from adults into children. With the invention of the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts, and boys’ and girls’ agricultural clubs, adults officially began calling people in their teens “boys” and “girls.”

What’s wrong with this concept, you ask? Simply this: the theory of adolescence undermines the Christian understanding of human nature. It underscores the modern disinclination to treat a person as responsible for his or her actions. When we assert the “fact” that teenagers are to act like irresponsible children rather than like responsible adults, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. And when school, church, and family treat 16-year-olds like young children, teenagers act in ways that justify that treatment.

What, then, do the Scriptures say about adolescence? The answer is: Absolutely nothing! In the Bible, people went directly from childhood to adulthood. Moses, for example, is never referred to as an adolescent. In Exodus 2 he is called a “child” in verse 10, and by verse 11 he had “grown up.” Here we might have expected to find a reference to a period between childhood and adulthood, but no such reference is to be found.

The same contrast between the “child” Moses and the “grown up” Moses is found in Hebrews 11:23-24: “By faith Moses was hidden by his parents for three months after he was born, because they saw that he was a beautiful child, and were not afraid of the king’s order. By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called a son of Pharaoh’s daughter.” Adolescence as a psychological moratorium from responsibility simply did not exist among the ancient Hebrews.

And what do we find in the New Testament? When the apostle Paul described his own development, he talked only about childhood and manhood: “When I was a child, I spoke like a child, thought like a child, and reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up my childish ways” (1 Cor 13:11). Notice that the major differences Paul mentions are in language, thinking, and reasoning. In these areas he went from being a child to being an adult, without an intervening period of “adolescence.” Moreover, when the apostle John described people at different stages of maturity, he talked about “little children,” “young men,” and “fathers” (1 John 2:12-14). The “young men” were not adolescents; they were young adults.

Finally, as we have seen, at the age of twelve, Jesus Himself began to make the transition into adult responsibility under the Law. While He was soon to be a teenager, He would never be an adolescent. Like any other 12-year-old in His culture, He would be a young man and treated as one by everyone in town.

Moses, Paul, John, and Jesus went directly from childhood to adulthood. They were teenagers, but they were never adolescents. Although the Bible talks about teenagers, it treats them like responsible human beings, not like children. Today, however, we have invented a period during which childhood and adulthood overlap. No longer is there a definitive transition between these stages of life.

Several books on childrearing I’ve read say, “You have to treat your teens as much like children as possible. Don’t confuse them by teaching how to be responsible young adults.” One Christian father, for example, has written (Larry Richards, “The Stages of Adolescence,” in Parents and Teenagers [Wheaton: Victor, 1984] 157):

Unfortunately, our culture forces teenagers’ development too rapidly…. With my own teens I felt that slowing down their adolescence was a positive thing and so I very consciously insulated my teens from the fast pace of growth that adolescent culture assumes. One way I did this was by not letting them get their driver’s licenses until they were out of high school.

Although I empathize with this parent’s struggle with “adolescent culture,” this seems to be an ill-advised means of handling the problem. A different approach is suggested by Ronald Kotesky (Understanding Adolescence [Wheaton: Victor, 1987] 20-21):

The basic thing you can do to help your adolescents now is to treat them as much like adults as possible…. Even if other people expect your teenagers to act irresponsibly, you can expect them to be responsible.

This is precisely the point of the biblical texts we looked at above: Parents are to expect the best from their teenagers. If we allow them to act like irresponsible children, they will. On the other hand, if we expect them to act like responsible young adults, as people did for thousands of years, they will.

Some parents may object, “Our children are only in their early teens. That’s too young to expect them to behave responsibly.” I disagree. On the one hand, it’s clear that our modern philosophy of treating teenagers like children is not working. On the other hand, if you do not expect responsible behavior from them now, when will you? When they go off to college? (If you do not help them develop self-discipline when they are still at home, they will not know how to study.) When they get married? (If you do not expect responsible behavior toward the opposite sex now, you will be making their adjustment to marriage in the future all that more difficult.) When they get a job? (Teenagers who have not learned how to work from their parents are frequently ill-prepared for the job market.)

I’m not saying that we should impose adulthood on our children before they are able to handle it. The basic gift of childhood is innocence and carefree play. There is something horribly wrong when young children are used by adults as status symbols, when they become the decision-makers in the home, when they become therapists to dysfunctional parents. Kids should be kids, and children should be allowed to play. But I’m not talking about your 13- or 14-year-old; I’m talking about pre-teens.

One thing is clear. According to the Bible, the teen era is not a “time-out” between childhood and adulthood. It is not primarily a time of horseplay, of parties, of sports, of games. It is not a period of temporary insanity. The Bible treats teens as responsible young adults, and so should we. Paul told Timothy, a young man, to “be an example for other believers in your speech, behavior, love, faith, and purity” (1 Tim 4:12). Though still young, Timothy was to speak, act, love, believe, and relate to the opposite sex in such a way that others would look at his life and want to be just like him.

If we are to understand how to deal with our youth, we must begin by taking seriously this matter of adolescence. If Christian parenting is to be biblical, false traditions and misconceptions that have obscured childrearing must be challenged and exposed in the pure light of God’s truth. Holy Scripture is the surest foundation and blueprint upon which to build parenting reform, renewal, and revitalization. Reformation of Christian parenting and youth ministry can only begin when the distorted structure of human tradition is dismantled and replaced by a return to biblical origins. Such a reformation is not only possible, but absolutely essential.

January 6, 2004

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

Back to daveblackonline

Continue Reading Want to Reform Your Youth Ministry

Voting as a Christian

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

                

Voting As a Christian

Jeff Adams

Politics is an ugly business. One of my brothers worked in Washington D.C. for several years for a U.S. Senator, and one of his conclusions was that compromise was the name of the game in politics. The history of the writing of our Articles of Confederation and the U.S. Constitution are proof that one sometimes must compromise to reach some level of consensus. However, my brother saw people not just compromising on goals, but on ethics, morals, and their integrity. 

Personally, I’m not opposed to compromise when certain issues are debated. On many issues, I can handle a true, live-and-let-live kind of tolerance (not the PC tolerance of conformity to zero values and relativism). However, as a Christian, how should I vote? 

Should I compromise my faith in whom I support for public office? I dare not! Mind you, I don’t think I’d necessarily be putting my soul at risk, but how could I vote in a manner that runs counter to my religious faith and consider myself to be serious about what I believe spiritually? Could I vote for someone who, while officially holding many of the social, economic and political views I hold, conducted themselves in a personal manner totally at odds with my beliefs? No. 

The reason is that the personal conduct of an individual will bleed over into their public conduct. They cannot separate the two, no matter what they say. I would think that the unethical and immoral personal life of Bill Clinton, and his conduct while in public office, would be proof enough for people. For those that “have a thing” for Clinton, just insert “Richard Nixon” in that last sentence. It works either way. 

We have elections coming up in this country. Where do the candidates stand? Do you really know, or are you going to act only on what you think you know about these people? Is party affiliation enough to know about them? Most politicians give minimal lip service to party platforms, and have their own agenda that may not resemble the party’s official stand at all. 

I would encourage all Christians to do their due diligence and find out where those that are asking for their vote really stand on issues that matter to you, whether they are running for mayor, the house or senate, or president. Look at their record. Look at their personal lives. See what they say about issues that are pertinent to you as a Christian, not as a conservative or liberal, or as a Westerner, Southerner, Left-Coaster, Mid-westerner, or Northerner. 

I’ve come to the conclusion that too often I have voted in the past in a manner that compromises my stand as a Christian. Going forward, I will do my homework and find out more about the candidates. I will vote for those that honor Christian principles (not just those that say they do). These are the principles that the founders depended on to keep a secular government in check. John Adams once said, “We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.” 

Put bluntly, I will follow the concepts of the founders and our forefathers concerning public office. It used to be that the states had laws requiring public officials to be members, in good standing, of a Christian church to hold office. The idea was that men of Christian character and morals would honor the rights of the people and respect the rule of law. That’s what we need today, and we don’t have it. 

One election we can all talk about, no matter where we live in this land, is the election of our president. Who will I vote for? I will vote for the Christian candidate that best represents the characteristics of a true believer. That is someone who shows character, integrity, and honor and is most likely to keep their word and act in a truly Christian manner in carrying out the duties of their office. 

I guarantee you it isn’t John Kerry. This is a man who only trots out his Catholic faith when it suits his purposes. He freely admits his faith does not influence his actions in office, which makes me question how serious can his faith be if it carries no influence with him. Seeking the annulment of his first marriage (having the Church act as if it never took place), after 18 years of marriage and two children, is a disgrace. (By the way, if the Roman Catholic Church now says his first marriage never took place, does that mean the Church views his children as bastards? What kind of man would do this to his children?) His continued support for positions on issues that run counter to his church’s position, such as abortion, is dishonorable and shows a lack of conviction for his claimed faith. 

The candidate of choice also isn’t George Bush. This is a man who has worn his Christianity on his sleeve, but has conducted himself in ways that literally put his soul in jeopardy. Bush has declared that Christians and Muslims worship the same God, even though this is clearly not true. He has compromised his faith by praying with Muslims. Do you really think he could have done so, invoking the name of Christ, without having those Muslims raise a ruckus? Since they didn’t, it is obvious he caved to praying to their god, not his. 

Bush and Kerry have both violated their oaths of office, repeatedly violating the Constitution with bills they have supported expanding government power into areas the Constitution reserves to the states. They have both supported the spending of billions of dollars of our money on issues and projects that are blatantly unconstitutional. They both openly accept avenues for legitimizing homosexuality in our society, something clearly rejected in the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments. These men have no honor, no integrity, and they use their faith as a cheap tool to pander to voters with. How could I vote for either of them? 

I have searched, and read, and done all I can to come up with the best person to vote for, from a Christian world-view. Michael A. PeroutkaI will vote, as is my right under the U.S. Constitution as a citizen. I will vote my conscience and principles as a Christian. I will not compromise my faith and boil things down to an “either or” decision that leaves me choosing between the lesser of two evils. When I vote, I will do my best to pick a Godly man who is most likely to honor his word, God’s laws and the rule of law as laid down in our constitution. The one I’ve found that fits the bill is Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party. 

I will vote as a Christian. And if all Christians would do their homework and vote as Christians, I believe we would see Michael Peroutka in the White House. To all Christians out there, are you voting out of fear for your perceived “lesser of two evils” between Bush and Kerry, or are you going to truly inspect the men who want the most powerful office in the world and vote as a Christian? It is your right, and you should consider it your duty to act accordingly. Our constitution declares freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. The Christian foundations of our culture were meant to, and should, influence whom we vote for and how elected officials conduct themselves in office. 

May 3, 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

Continue Reading Voting as a Christian