restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Ultimate Freedom

Kristen Frith

One of the things I treasure most about the Christian life is the opportunity to repent, change, and move on from a transgression. Part of the pain of my past was having to wallow in what I’d done – how I’d sinned against God – with nothing to do about it (or even a clear recognition of what the problem really was). I just had grief, bitterness, and raw pain rising inside of me due to my own sins, with no idea what to do. I wanted to fix everything, but how?

When I ran to Christ, there was a clear sense inside me that I was soiled. I remember at the time knowing that Jesus was what I needed – that none of the other “answers” that had presented themselves in the form of other religions would cut it. I knew it. I needed Someone to pay a debt I couldn’t begin to repay.

I needed to change my legal status before God. I didn’t exactly think in those terms at the time: I just knew I had to cling to Jesus, right now. I was messed up and unholy, an undeserving creature that had spat in His face. I had nothing to offer Him, but I wanted Him. Without the blood of Jesus, which was offered as the sacrifice for my sins, I didn’t have the power to legally change anything about my state before the Lord.

But Jesus had the power, because He had sacrificed Himself and is at God’s right hand! Isn’t it amazing that He would speak up for us, just because we ask Him to? He is always interceding for us. That means that when we mess up, He is there as an advocate:

Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself. For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever (Hebrews 7:25-28).

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments (1 John 2:1-3).

That makes me really glad, because did I mention that I am a screw-up?

And Jesus solved my problem about what to do when I sin (as you saw in 1 John above). Not only have my past sins been cleansed totally, but when I sin now, I know what to do about it – and it’s all about what He’s already done about it! There is repentance available to me: real change. That’s what I didn’t have before; there was no way to change. There was just human will, human resolution, and human failure, time after time.

But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God (Hebrews 9:11-14).

How much more will the blood of Christ purify my conscience from dead works to serve the living God! Not only has God provided the way out of sin and condemnation, but He has freed me so that I can serve Him. The ultimate freedom is beautiful, joyful servanthood.

Only my God could come up with that!

February 25, 2005

Mrs. Kristen Frith, who lives in California with her husband, edits Walking Circumspectly, a weblog on current events, culture, society, and the human condition from a Biblical perspective.

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Two Sides of the Same Coin

Pieter Friedrich

The first presidential debate was also my first time hearing John Kerry speak. For all my interest in politics, I’d never actually heard the man, and had drawn all my information about his personal political platform from Kerry quotes published by online newspapers.  

After hearing Kerry, I can attest that he’s a very good public speaker. Indeed, his public speaking skills are vastly superior to those of the incumbent. The senator knows exactly what he wants to say and then says it confidently without stumbling over rudimentary grammar. On the other hand, Bush says things like “we’re’ve been effective,” while every other word out of his mouth is “umm.”

To tell the truth, I was more impressed with Kerry in many ways.

Kerry quite reasonably pointed out the incongruence inherent in Bush denying nuclear weapons to Iran, North Korea, and Iraq while spending “hundreds of millions of dollars to research bunker-busting nuclear weapons.” After all, the United States is the only nation on earth which has ever used nuclear weapons in warfare (and on civilians, no less), and yet we insist we’re the only ones who can be trusted with them.

The senator quoted the former President Bush, who said that if we were to take Baghdad “our troops would be occupiers in a bitterly hostile land.” Bush is quick to deny the truth of his father’s statement in the face of plain evidence (1) to the contrary, but Kerry gets at least one thing right by pin-pointing the gross failure of this war.

In unintentional support of the claims of failure and blatant contradiction of himself, Bush further undermined his initial justification for the war by saying that Saddam “had the capability of making weapons and he would have made weapons.” Never mind that in the days leading up to the war he said “we know that [Saddam] has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents” (2) and that such chemicals probably included “500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.” (3) Talk about flip-flopping!

Occasionally, I even felt like cheering for Kerry. One such time was when he pointed out that “Saddam Hussein didn’t attack us. Osama Bin Laden attacked us.” While by his illogical reasoning the war in Iraq would be justified if Hussein did have WMD but had not attacked us, Kerry is certainly on to something. Although many war-hawks have tried to link al-Qaeda and Hussein, all they’ve managed to do is create ghostly and often fictional ties which Secretary of State Powell denies constitute “smoking gun, concrete evidence.” (4) Bush has wasted a major part of his presidency chasing down the Hussein rabbit trail while allowing the perpetrator of the greatest single modern-day tragedy on American soil to escape scot-free.

Also, Bush said that “the best indication about when we can bring our troops home” is when we “see the [Iraqi military] perform and…the Iraqis step up and take responsibility.” What he (and, incidentally, Kerry) failed to mention is that U.S. trained and funded Iraqi security guards often lack equipment as basic as firearms (5), many of the new Iraqi police are turning against the U.S. troops who trained them (6), and back in April half the troops in the U.S. trained Iraqi Army refused to fight because they’d be fighting their own people (7). With such troops, the likelihood that the Iraqi military will “step up and take responsibility” to protect Iraq anytime soon is slim to non-existent.

One time when I felt like booing John Kerry was when both candidates revealed their globalist attitudes. Suggesting that the U.S. should police humanity, Bush said we have a duty to “rid the world of weapons of mass destruction.” A little later in the debate, Kerry maintained that “it’s the moral responsibility for us and the world” to never allow another genocide such as that in Rwanda.

Ultimately, there wasn’t a huge difference between the two candidates. Both would have invaded Iraq, both believe our nation should police the world, and both affirm pre hoc justice by endorsing preemptive war.

If the only choice for president was between Bush and Kerry, and Kerry was pro-life, I might well vote for the latter. He seems to have a good head on his shoulders, his foreign policy is flawed yet moderately anti-interventionist, and his fiscal plans, while tending slightly more toward largesse than those of Bush, would inevitably be blocked by a GOP-controlled Congress. Bush and Kerry are two sides of the same coin, but Kerry’s the shinier side.

But my choice is not between Bush and Kerry. There is a tertium quid who is anti-war, anti-globalism, and would withdraw the troops from the morass in Iraq upon achieving office. Furthermore, he’s pro-life, opposed to sodomarriage and special rights for sodomites, and favors keeping the governmental wallet close to hand and out of sight.

That third choice is, of course, Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party.

References
1. See the September 23rd and 30th, 2004 weblog entries at PieterFriedrich.com.
2. Bush, President George W. 2002. “President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat.” WhiteHouse.gov, October 7.
3. Bush, President George W. 2003. “State of the Union Address.” WhiteHouse.gov, January 28.
4. Powell, Secretary of State Colin. 2004. “No Proof Links Iraq, al-Quaida, Powell Says.” MSNBC News, January 8.
5. Badkhen, Anna. 2003. “U.S. Trained Iraqi Guards Lack Guns.” The San Francisco Chronicle, September 23.
6. McElroy, Damien. 2004. “New Iraqi Police Fight US troops Who Trained Them.” The Weekly Telegraph, June 27.
7. Glantz, Aaron. 2004. “U.S. Facing Opponents It Trained.” Inter Press Service News Agency, April 26.

October 5, 2004

Pieter Friedrich lives in a small town in the California Sierra Foothills. He is an amateur political analyst, a writer, a classical liberal, a juris naturalist, a paleo-conservative, a strict constitutionalist, and, foremost, a Christian. He may be reached for comment here.

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

The Two Party System Is Weighed in the Balances and Found Wanting

David Alan Black

“Thou art weighed in the balances and art found wanting.” Daniel 5:27

Americans want change, not to more liberalism, but to common-sense politics. The tragedy is that our two party system only encourages the status quo. George Wallace once said there wasn’t a “dime’s worth of difference” between the two major parties. More recently, Pat Buchanan called them the “two wings of the same bird of prey.”

Meanwhile our ruling elites are working feverishly to eradicate all traces of the Constitution in this country. Read the Constitution and then ask yourself this question: Does any Democrat in government makes the slightest attempt to fulfill his oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” or “bear true faith and allegiance to the same”? The same can be asked about practically every Republican as well.

Democrats oppose any diversion of money from Social Security. Likewise, Republicans are tentative about advancing the idea of private investment while the stock market is so erratic. In the end, both support Social Security taxes. There’s only one problem—Social Security is unconstitutional.

Both parties want prescription drug coverage for the elderly, filling a hole in Medicare. The only debate is over how to do it—whether through Medicare itself, or by a private company—and how comprehensive the benefits should be. A plan passed by the Republican-controlled House would spend $320 billion to set up a privately administered insurance system. Again, there’s a “minor” problem. Where does it say in the Constitution that Uncle Sam should use taxpayers’ money to pay for your prescription drugs?

Friends, the way out of the dilemma is easy. Just reverse the equation. If neither the Democrat Party nor the Republican Party is willing to throw off the shackles of the socialist welfare state, then a third party must do the job, one that will promote basic constitutional tenets based on certain foundational beliefs about government:

• the belief that our Founding Fathers designed our system of government in the form of a constitutionally limited republic with maximum freedom intended for the people and minimum government control or interference into our personal lives and business affairs.
• the belief that government at all levels was originally intended to be controlled by the people, that the Constitution explicitly restricts the power of the federal government, and that the Bill of Rights guarantees that the government may not infringe on our God-given unalienable rights.
• the belief that power belongs to the states, to local governments, and especially in the hands of “We the People.”
• the belief that it’s time to end all unconstitutional federal involvement in states issues such as crime, health, education, welfare, and the environment, including social programs such as Social Security and Medicare.
• the belief that all treaties and international agreements not in agreement with the federal government’s constitutionally mandated task of protecting the rights of the people should be repealed.
• the belief that the United States should disassociate itself from the UN and that the federal government should refrain from meddling in the business and squabbles of foreign nations unless there is an imminent threat to the people of the United States.

You might be thinking, “All well and good, but the two party system is unassailable, isn’t it?” King Belshazzar may have felt safe and secure behind the mighty ramparts of Babylon, but when the moving finger began writing he was thrown into a panic. Its message was loud and clear: “Thou art weighed in the balances and art found wanting.”  I say let the Daschles and Liebermanns, the Bushes and Cheneys rest in false security behind walls they think cannot be broken. They are in for a rude awakening. How quickly the mighty of this world crumble though immured in their bastilles when the Divine finger starts writing!

It was Michael Parenti who said, “The worst forms of tyranny, or certainly the most successful ones, are not those we rail against but those that so insinuate themselves into the imagery of our consciousness, and the fabric of our lives, as not to be perceived as tyranny.” He was right. A two party system that undermines the U.S. Constitution is nothing less than tyrannical!

When the thirteen colonies came together in 1787 they created the federal government as their agent—not the other way around. It’s going to take some brave Americans to send that message to Congress—and some unconventional methods, like saying “No” to the two party system. If together we rise with conviction and with the weight of history behind us, then, with God’s help, I believe we can succeed.

August 5, 2003

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

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Two Cheers for Alabama!

 David Alan Black 

Now that the people of Alabama have spoken, I’m wondering if anybody besides Gov. Riley has gotten the message: “Don’t you Republicans try to raise taxes, at least not as undiplomatically as Gov. Bob tried.” Especially if you use the “It’s-your-Christian-obligation” argument.

Politicians in Alabama are now facing the unthinkable: reducing the state’s budget and cutting services. But if history holds any lessons, this head-in-the-sand approach is doomed to failure also. The reason is simple: government is not the solution to the fiscal woes in Alabama; it is the problem.

Yes, people are fed up with the way politicians in Montgomery spend their hard-earned money. But nowhere is it being suggested that perhaps the state government ought to divest itself of certain functions it has assumed. Proposals to devolve activities to the private sector (such as charities or church-run relief organizations) are sloughed off as so much conservative drabble.

I believe that Alabamans have an unprecedented opportunity to move beyond merely debating where to cut their state’s budget. The time is ripe for considering the only solution that will actually work in the long run, whether we’re talking about Alabama or any other state: shrinking government back to its biblical and constitutionally legitimate functions. The crisis in Alabama is fundamentally an issue of the state’s exorbitantly high level of government spending. The best solution to this problem is to cut many if not most government programs and return government to its limited, constitutional duties.

Gov. Riley has decried the fact that budgetary cuts could end nursing home care for hundreds of elderly citizens and curtail prescription drug medicines for the mentally ill. He is right; the consequences of irresponsible government have finally caught up with the state’s politicians. But the governor’s complaint is based on a misreading of the real source of the profligacy—the fact that churches and private individuals have allowed the government to step in and do what the Bible tells them is their responsibility.

It is precisely at this point that Gov. Riley can properly appeal to the sympathy and compassion of the Christians in his state, not by saying it is their duty to support a tax increase, as he did prior to yesterday’s referendum, but by asserting the biblical principle that those who are financially bereft are to be given care, sympathy, and even financial support by the church (please read 1 Timothy 5). Especially widows who are truly helpless are to be supported by their families. According to Paul, caring for parents or grandparents is not only acceptable to God but is a “reverent” (eusebein) action and therefore cannot be lightly treated. Jesus Himself emphasized the importance of this obligation in Mark 7:9-12. Furthermore, for children to shirk this responsibility places them in a position even worse than the unbeliever, for even unbelievers assent (in principal at least) to the filial obligation being urged by Paul.

Gov. Riley can remind Christians that the early church practiced charity and that believers were eager to share their possessions with one another (Acts 2:44-45). They literally “kept on having all things in common” (the imperfect tense in Greek is used). For these early Christians, social responsibility was inseparable from spirituality. Within the Christian community existed a spirit of generosity and great joy, and outside it the believers enjoyed great goodwill among the people, who must have been awestruck at the way Christians truly cared for one another. Note that there was no compulsion involved here, no sense of “Communism”; the communal purse remained an individual and voluntary matter, motivated simply by the love of Christ.

Here would be a clear example of government doing something right for the right reason. It’s right because government has no business redistributing the people’s wealth to care for its neediest citizens when the church and private charities are duty bound to step up to the plate. That’s called self-responsibility, something Americans of an earlier generation actually knew and valued.

In the final analysis, economics is not the real issue in Alabama. Morality is important too, even vital. Gov. Riley was right in appealing to the Christian conscience of the people of Alabama but wrong in his application. People in the Yellowhammer State need social services and health care, don’t they? Of course they do—which is precisely why the church and the private sector must stop looking to a failed government system to do for them what it was never designed to do in the first place.

I say “Two cheers for Alabama!” for soundly rejecting their governor’s tax hike proposal. Now if Christians would only get serious about fulfilling their God-given assignment of caring for the needy in society, I will make that a hearty “Three cheers!”

September 10, 2003

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

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

TV Or Not TV?

 David Alan Black 

I sometimes feel like a doctoral candidate in the School of Hard Knocks. So many of my daily habits seem so out of kilter with the practices of the early church that I often find myself asking, “How in the world did I get so far away from an intentional, biblical pattern of living?”

I live – as I suppose many of you do – in a constant tension between the simple, non-conformist pattern of early Christianity and modern, “sophisticated” neo-evangelical culture. This tension is caused, I believe, by two polarities: (1) the need to obey the teachings of Scripture as God grants us light, and (2) the necessity to be patient and forbearing toward those – ourselves included – who are struggling with these issues. Very few of us seem to find a healthy balance between these two poles. Those who emphasize #1 without #2 become condescending and arrogant, causing strife and disunity within the Body, while those who emphasize #2 without #1 seem to remain trapped forever in the status quo.

One example of this tension is the question, “Should we allow TV in our home?” Yesterday my son challenged our congregation to reconsider their viewing habits. He quoted this very witty ditty:

The TV is my shepherd, I shall not want anything else. It maketh me to lie down on the sofa. It leadeth me away from the Scripture. It destroys my soul. It leadeth me in the paths of sex and violence for the sponsor’s sake.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will enjoy the evil, for blood and sex they excite me. It’s cable and remote they comfort me. It prepares a commercial before me in the presence of my children. It anoints my head with humanism, My coveting runneth over.

Surely laziness and ignorance shall follow my family all the days of our lives, and we shall dwell in the house watching TV forever.

He suggested that we spend no more time watching TV than we do reading the Word of God. Thus, if I were to watch TV for one hour, then I must obligate myself to spend at least one hour reading the Bible. This suggestion got our people thinking – and sound, biblical thinking is where we must always begin. We cannot start with our finite, human reasoning, and have things turn out right. But with an open Bible we may certainly expect divine guidance on the issues of life.

It seems to me that the most important consideration is this: Christian liberty is not license. “All things are lawful for me” is the slogan of the careless Christian. He thinks being a believer gives him liberty to do as he pleases. In one sense, of course, he is right, for the law of the Spirit of life has made him free from the law of sin and death (Romans 8:2). But one thing he must never do is confuse freedom with “free” living. Each time the sloganeer parrots his “All things are lawful for me,” Paul answers with a qualifying “but.”

(1) “But not all things are expedient.” This is the test of expediency. Some things, though innocent enough in and of themselves, hinder my running well the race set before me. I will therefore discard what delays me.

(2) “But I will not be brought under the power of any.” This is the test of enslavement. The avocation easily becomes an obsession. I will therefore not be enslaved by what I allow.

(3) “But all things do not edify.” This is the test of edification. Not everything builds me up in the faith. I must therefore build with gold, silver, and precious stones and not with wood, hay, and stubble.

This is similar to what Paul says in Galatians 5:1: “Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be ye not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.” Here the apostle tells us to stand firm in the freedom by which Christ has liberated us. So if the situation in our lives clears the three hurdles set forth by Paul, we may go ahead. But if there is any doubt, we must forsake that path altogether. The Lord very clearly led my wife and me to give up TV altogether when we moved to our Virginia farm, but this does not necessarily mean that He will lead others in the same way. However, it is important to pray and look to the Lord for His leading, realizing that the wisdom of God comes through the Scriptures and not, as we moderns would like to think, through our own finite knowledge. That’s why Paul also commands us to seek the things that are above – that is, to see everything from the perspective of God’s existence as taught in Scripture, rather than as though we were autonomous.

In light of this, it is perfectly acceptable to view TV programs provided we view them in the proper (spiritual) perspective. Nowhere do the Scriptures teach a “platonic” approach in which the proper pleasures of life are held to be suspect. I would also note, however, that our family has found infinitely more pleasure in other things – open communication between people, visiting shut-ins, working outdoors, spending time with our animals, riding horses, listening to classical music – than in watching TV.

I believe there is some good on TV, but I can say from personal experience that the longer you go without it, the less you will miss it. If you find that you cannot live without it, then perhaps you are enslaved to it. If that is the case, then I would suggest that you follow my son’s advice and spend at least as much time in the Word of God as you do in front of the idiot box.

December 6, 2004

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

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Turning a Deaf Ear to the “American Way”

 David Alan Black  

Jesus often violated turf rules. He engaged enemies. He loved them. We draw lines. We create boundaries. We are thoroughbreds. Others are mutts. We can’t live without our rigid social rankings.

But Jesus was willing to break societal rules. He gave without expecting a return. He invited but never coerced. His obedience and love mock our social boxes. He was willing to embrace the towel. He chose compassion over personal ambition.

What social boxes are keeping you from serving the kingdom? What kind of turf rules would you be willing to break? To what extent does personal ambition drive you? How specifically are you pursuing kingdom principles?

My 10-day trip to the Middle East starts tomorrow. It will be a test for me in many ways. It is another opportunity to focus on the meaning of the cross and discipleship. No hocus-pocus involved here. It’s just a call to walk in the way of Jesus. When I was a teenager I thought this meant going barefooted and having long hair. Today I’m finding that the call to discipleship is more expensive. It demands that I turn a deaf ear to the seductive force of materialism and the “American Way.”

Perhaps the main question is this: What is my passion in life? Am I willing to defy the pull of upward mobility? Can I serve the Lord in places where most U.S. citizens would consider unreachable? Am I ready to use my position and talents to advance God’s agenda in this world?

The fact is, I care deeply about my own comfort. Jesus shocks me. He was an upside-down Messiah. We tried to imitate Him in the 1960s, but the Jesus Movement was often a sad parody. I want to do better today. Jesus is inviting us to join the movement. The Scriptures are clear. We’re asked to sell and give all, to serve, to go; to endure suffering without complaint or bitterness; to demonstrate that the towel is greater than the sword.

Are we truly willing to devote our energies to embrace the service of this Jesus? Even as Americans? We are called to salute a new King. His kingdom transcends human boundaries. We pledge allegiance to the Lamb and Him alone. We pray, “Your kingdom come.”

What difference would it make in your life if you viewed the kingdom of God in this way? What does it mean to be a revolutionary for Jesus? Is it really possible to eradicate the boxes we put people in, including our so-called “enemies”? In what ways can we become truly countercultural?

I do not have the answers to these questions. But they will be on my mind as I wing my way to a faraway desert. May God help us all become kingdom Christians and turn a deaf ear to the sinful world that seduces us into thinking that the “Good Life” is what it’s all about.

August 3, 2010

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

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Truth and Love: Finding Our Balance

 David Alan Black 

I appreciate the younger generation of emergent Christians. I do praise the Lord that the Holy Spirit has led them into understanding the weaknesses of the institutionalized church. I feel that this is very much like those of us in the 1960s who were part of the Jesus Movement.

However, I also feel that the new generation is in a place of grave danger because, realizing as they do that much of what is called evangelical Christianity has dreadful weaknesses, they tend to ignore the weaknesses of their own movement. Just as the Jesus Movement was eccentric in its overemphasis on Jesus as “friend” instead of Lord, so the emergent church not only fails to argue its case biblically but actually considers propositional truth largely irrelevant. Therefore I feel that the emergent church is so completely destructive in the finding of truth that I would not for a moment even seem to equate it with what we call a New Testament church. The profound connection that I see between doctrine, spirituality, and the whole spectrum of reality veritably shouts out a “No!” to the wrong emphases in both the emergent church and non-emergent Christianity and as a “Yes!” to the non-clerical, non-institutionalized, and non-professional New Testament vision of Christ’s Body.

I am convinced that most young people today are taught against too narrow a backdrop. Some are fighting exclusively the old battles of the Reformation concerning the great doctrines of the faith, while others are seeking exclusively the answer to really deep spiritual issues such as the meaning of life, communion with God, and genuine koinonia. The marvelous thing, as I see it, is that the Bible has such wonderful and clear answers not only to our intellectual questions but to the spiritual ones as well. I feel that many of our reformed churches have let the pendulum swing too far in one direction in thinking that if only the right doctrines were taught all would be well, while the emergers have concentrated almost exclusively in the opposite area of practice. Increasingly I am becoming convinced that since God is both phos and agape (as taught in 1 John), it is our calling as Christians to act in such a way as to demonstrate to others the character of God as both light and love. Failure to show forth either of these virtues is, in my opinion, a perversion of the Gospel. We must emphasize doctrinal truth and sacrificial love simultaneously.

I am convinced after much prayer and thought that what is needed today is a fundamental recommitment to the twofold emphasis of the primitive church upon apostolic doctrine and fellowship (Acts 2:42) – in other words, a recommitment to both orthodoxy and orthopraxy. It seems to me, in having read with interest what the emergers are saying, that they understand the spiritual reality of the leading of the indwelling Holy Spirit and that they are properly repulsed by a form of Christianity that stresses the external signs without the internal realities. And because of this I sense that their numbers will grow among those in Christendom who are seeking a recommitment to showing forth the love of God. It is my firm belief that doctrinal rightness is exceedingly important, indeed foundational and indispensable, but only as a starting point to go on to a living relationship with God. At the same time, the church still has the sacred duty of defending the truth and proclaiming the exclusive Gospel claims of Jesus Christ to lost men and women, and such activities cannot be reduced to non-verbal forms of witnessing. God willing, Becky and I will be doing both in Ethiopia in just a few short months.

September 12, 2006

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

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

The Truth About Terrorism

 David Alan Black

Yesterday, in his remarks at the United States Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, President Bush gave the false impression that his “war on terror” is making the nation a safer place. “Our agenda,” he said, “…is freedom and independence, security and prosperity for the Iraqi people. And by removing a source of terrorist violence and instability in the Middle East, we also make our own country more secure.”

Yet just this morning the BBC, citing the conclusions of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a London-based think tank, reported that al-Qaeda remains an effective “network of networks” that has been galvanized, not weakened, by the Iraq War.

According to the IISS report, al-Qaeda is now present in more than 60 countries and has “18,000 potential terrorists at large.” The report further states that the war in Iraq has refocused the energies and resources of al-Qaeda and its followers while diluting those of the global counter-terrorism coalition. The recent attacks in Spain, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia show that al-Qaeda has fully reconstituted itself after the loss of its base in Afghanistan. The report also notes that Osama Bin Laden’s network has set its sights firmly on the United States and its closest Western allies and plans to use of weapons of mass destruction.

Thus, as Mr. Bush begins his predictable round of speeches focusing on the successes of his “war on terror,” the evidence shows that his war aims have not been achieved. Perhaps his foremost mistake in the aftermath of September 11 was to assume that a military victory over Saddam Hussein in Iraq would inflict severe damage on al-Qaeda’s operational capability. In point of fact, the war has provided invaluable political patronage for al-Qaeda and has promoted enormous growth in grassroots support for terrorism throughout the Islamic world. Indeed, by occupying Iraq the United States has provided 130,000 easy targets for the radicals.

Another key administration mistake has been to focus on secondary problems such as Afghanistan and Iraq while soft-peddling on the principal sponsors of al-Qaeda, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. The unpleasant truth is that these two Western “allies” have played a major role in the growth of al-Qaeda into an international terrorist network.

If the president wanted to bolster the nation for the dark days ahead, he should have told us the truth—that the U.S.-led “war on terror” has been a failure, that our military successes in Afghanistan and Iraq have failed to crush al-Qaeda’s structure or stem its recruitment, and that international terrorism is stronger than before September 11, 2001.

The chaos of post-war Iraq, the abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison, and the confusion that reigns in our “exit strategy” represent significant setbacks for a Republican administration running on a “war” platform. The two major achievements of that war—the ousting of the Taliban from Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein from Iraq—are hollow victories at best.

Mr. Bush says the United States will “do what is necessary” to defeat the “enemies of freedom.” What I want to know is this: Who in the administration will have the courage to tell the president that our counterproductive emphasis on military action and nation building will never stop terrorism?

May 25, 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

Trust Bush on Iran? Bad Idea

 David Alan Black 

President Bush has consistently appealed to the American people for trust. He says he acted in good faith when he invaded Iraq, and he expects us to trust him. He granted unheard of power to the attorney general, and he asks us to trust him. He speaks of Iran’s “unacceptable” nuclear program, and he asks us to trust him.

Well, I don’t trust him, and neither should you. Where are the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction? Not found. What are Iran’s nuclear capabilities? Unknown. Still, the White House wants to turn the heat up. And what will be the likely outcome for our sons and daughters? Perpetual war.

And now, as if things weren’t bad enough between the U.S. and Europe, Washington and the E.U. are on a collision course over how to neutralize Tehran’s nuclear capabilities. The good news is that Iran has agreed to freeze its nuclear program, even dropping its insistence that some uranium enrichment activities be exempted from a deal with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and also dropping its condition that 20 centrifuges be exempted from the freeze. The bad news? This is unlikely to satisfy Mr. Bush, who is confident the E.U.-Iran pact will collapse. Over the weekend Bush said he appreciated the European efforts, but that “The only good deal is one that’s verifiable.”

“Verifiable.” Heard this before?

Thus the Prussianization of America proceeds apace. The growth of militarism and statism during the Bush presidency is simply mind-boggling. Let us recall that our nation’s Founders refused to place war-making power in the hands of a single individual. Yet today, this all-important constitutional guarantee against militarism has been lost. The power to decide for war or peace has been moved from the Capitol to the White House.

Bush’s aggressive, hand-on-gun stance in relation to Iran is the inevitable result of a spirit of militarism that has infected him and his neocon advisors. Suggestions to negotiate are regarded by the New Right as signs of weakness. There is at present the very real possibility that our political leaders, despite the counsel of the military, may escalate the conflict in Iraq and bring on a general conflagration in the region. The actions of the Bush administration seem to be leading almost inevitably toward thermonuclear war.

What can a Christian do in such a situation? He is bound to suspect any political leader who asks him to obliterate his love of peace for the sake of foreign adventurism. No American has a “duty” to die for his country. Moreover, the Christian must always oppose the spirit of militarism in order that people may maintain the freedom to act according to their consciences – to assume or refuse employment in the military without restrictions or encumbrances imposed upon them by the state. Finally, the Christian must always ask, “Does the situation justify the use of military force, and if so, may I with good conscience become a participant?”

Years ago Alfred Vagts, a leading authority on military history, wrote:

Militarism is thus not the opposite of pacifism; its true counterpart is civilianism. Love of war, bellicosity, is the counterpart of the love of peace, pacifism; but militarism is more, and sometimes less, than the love of war. It covers every system of thinking and valuing and every complex of feelings which rank military institutions and ways above the ways of civilian life, carrying military mentality and modes of acting and decision into the civilian sphere (A History of Militarism [New York: Meridian, 1959] 17).

It seems that the present leadership in the White House is guilty of militarism to a shocking degree, and unless Christians shake off their apathy, a creeping pro-militaristic spirit may soon become totalitarianism. Expanding the war in the Middle East is not beyond the president’s aspirations, and a huge and well-funded propaganda machine centered in Washington will undoubtedly continue to put pressure on the American people to support the administration’s military ambitions. Unless we guard against this unwarranted influence of the military-industrial complex – and an unwarranted “trust” in the president – the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power will only persist and increase.

November 29, 2004

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

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

True Worship

 David Alan Black 

Vaughan Roberts has written a delightful book called True Worship. It has six chapters:

1. The Foundations of Christian Worship

2. The Nature of Christian Worship

3. The End of Religion

4. The Purpose of Christian Meetings

5. The Place of Music and Singing

6. Understanding the Lord’s Supper

In chapter 1, Roberts’ main point is that true worship is all about Jesus. Where can He be found? The surprising answer is that we can meet Him anywhere — be it Jerusalem, a mountain in Gerizim, or even a church building. During my teen years, as part of the so-called Jesus Movement, I met with him while surfing in Waikiki just as much as when I paddled in for an hour of “worship” at the Hilton Hawaiian Village Hotel. True worship is always possible because it doesn’t involve going to a special place, writes Roberts. You simply go to Jesus.

While reading chapter 2, I was reminded of the saying, “Enter to worship, and depart to serve.” Somehow we’ve gotten the very mistaken idea that worship focuses exclusively on Christian meetings. Roberts responds: We are called to worship at all times. “Worship involves an obedience to God’s will in all parts of life” (p. 22). Thus one cannot judge a church’s “worship” by what happens on Sunday morning. “The real test is how its members behave during the rest of the week” (p. 30). Roberts then offers a “worship checklist” (pp. 31-34) that I thought was fabulous. He probes 5 areas of life:

• Your relationship with yourself
• Your relationship with other Christians
• Your relationship with your enemies
• Your relationship to authorities
• Your relationship to God’s standards

Worship, for Roberts, defines the whole of life. To use his analogy, you would no sooner say “I’m going to bed to breathe for a while” than you would say “I’m going to church to worship.”

In chapter 3 Roberts correctly notes that the New Testament never refers to “morning worship” or “evening service.” He explores the different Greek words for worship (proskuneo, leitourgeo, sebomai, and latreuo), concluding that Christians do not go to church to worship. Quoting F. F. Bruce (p. 40):

[T]he remarkable fact is that Christian meetings are not said to take place specifically to worship God and the language of worship is not used as a means of referring to them or describing herm. To sum up what goes on in a Christian meeting as being specifically for the purpose of ‘worship’ is without New Testament precedent.

Roberts thinks the problem is that we’re muddled down in Old Testament concepts and patterns of worship, where “holy” people do “holy” things in “holy” places. “Jesus,” he notes, “brought the whole temple system to an end” (p. 43). This is clearly taught in the book of Hebrews. Thus Roberts concludes (p. 55):

So let us not go back to the ways of the old covenant. Christ has brought an end to religion. If we grasp that great truth we will see why the New Testament does not teach that we meet together to worship.

Up to this point our author has been making a largely negative argument. Now, in chapter 4, he turns to the positive New Testament teaching concerning the purpose for the gathering of the church. Christians are to meet with one another for encouragement (Heb. 10:24-25) and edification (1 Cor. 14:26). Thus “… in our meetings we are directing ourselves primarily towards one another rather than toward God….” (p. 60). It is still God, of course, who ultimately provides the encouragement and edification we need. This He does largely through His word. But take note! Lest you think that Roberts is pointing exclusively to a pulpit ministry, he adds: “The sharing of God’s word was the responsibility of all church members” (p. 63). Of course, this does not minimize the importance and significance of elder-teachers in the church. But Christians should not abdicate their responsibility to know God’s word to their “ministers.” “Again and again the New Testament exhorts all church members to be involved in ministering to one another” (p. 71). Church leaders have an important role to play, but it is one of becoming catalysts enabling others to do their part. For Roberts, the church is a Christian family, and good family members always “spur each other on in the Christian life. And the more we do that, the better we will worship God — not just on Sunday, but with the whole of our lives” (p. 83). Or, in the words of Howard Marshall (quoted on p. 81):

Christian meetings are for the benefit of the congregation and so indirectly for the glory of God.

Chapter 5 points out the very grave danger of viewing “worship” as essentially a time of singing through which we are draw close to God. For Roberts, these dangers can lead to a situation in which:

• God’s word is marginalized
• Our assurance is threatened
• Musicians are exalted
• Division is increased

Positively, Roberts insists that we should indeed still sing, for two reasons: to praise God, and to encourage one another. He encourages both “God-focused songs” and “God-focused singing.” And always pay careful attention to the words we sing!

Chapter 6 hearkens back to the original setting of the Lord’s Supper as a fellowship meal. For Roberts, communion is a time to look back (remembrance), look up (communion), look around (edification), and look forward (hope).

What Roberts does in this short book is nothing less than earth-shaking. I know some folks will think that his views are inherently anti-church. But I don’t see why this should be the case at all. In John 4, Jesus was very specific about worship. He wasn’t trying to duck the Samaritan woman’s question. With the coming of the Messiah, He said, everything was about to change. He would introduce a completely new way of engaging with God the Father, one that depended on “Spirit and truth” rather than on any place, person, or posture.

If you’re willing to go back to the (New Testament) drawing board, Roberts’ book would be a good place to start. No longer can we think of a church building as a sanctuary or as “the house of God.” No logger can we think of the gathering of the body as a “worship service.” I know this suggestion is going to disappoint some, but I’m convinced it’s the truth. Now the question is: How do I implement this truth in my local church, and how do you implement it in yours? In his essay “Worship — not just about Sundays” (see http://fervr.net/bible/worship-not-just-about-sundays), Bruce Chapman writes:

Worship is not ‘just about Sunday’ it is NOT even about Sunday! Worship is living in obedience to God every day.

Worship is when I washed the dishes yesterday. Worship is when I wrote a chapter in my book Godworld this week. Worship is when I brushed my teeth this morning. I do not mean this facetiously. By God’s design, we are to be worshippers 24/7/365. He wants us to see our daily work as an act of worship. Ditto for anything else in our lives. You can worship God through your marriage. You are not just a husband or a wife. You are worshippers of the living God. Right now, at your school or your job, there are people who will be influenced for Christ as you worship Him through your daily lives. No matter how small or insignificant you think your daily activities might be, they aren’t to Jesus. When you worship God through working at Starbucks or flipping burgers you are showing what Sunday “worship” is all about: merely a supplement or continuation of what you do throughout the week. All of life is sacred because of our union with Jesus. You are God’s “worship team,” and your place of service is not limited to a building on Sunday morning.

I am not suggesting that on Sunday mornings we should not offer worship that is acceptable to God. But it seems to be assumed by some that worship is an activity led by singers and performed in a church sanctuary. We cannot simply write off such verses as 1 Cor. 14:26 and make believe they say nothing about the true purpose of the gathering. That’s why I’m not all that interested in the so-called worship wars. What I do on Sunday morning is merely a tiny fragment of the worship I (hopefully) offer to God in Spirit and in truth as I sit at my computer or pick up hay. Worship is not the prerogative of some. It is the daily privilege of all of us. And a theology of worship that does not take into account the sacredness of all of life, I maintain, is a defective theology.

So, what are you doing right now, at this very moment? Is it an act of worship unto the Lord Most High? It can be and should be and will be if you would but offer it to God as such.

January 28, 2018

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

Back to daveblackonline