restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

The Synoptic Problem: Why Are the Fathers Ignored?

 David Alan Black  

We always have a stimulating time in class as we discuss the various solutions to the Synoptic Problem. Obviously my own approach is not the traditional one, in that I take the statements of the early church fathers seriously. I am very much aware of the extensive work being done on exegesis, hermeneutics, and source criticism of the Gospels. But after listening seriously to the questions posed and the answers proffered, I am convinced there is no real future for them.

Most experts disregard the external evidence for the historical origins of the Gospels in a way that is very odd. It seems to me today there is more faddism than serious academic inquiry taking place. In reality, the fathers are ignored. This has to do perhaps with the observable tendency in evangelical scholarship to pay mere lip service to the careful exegesis of the patristic writings. A classic example is the misuse of Origen when dealing with the authorship of Hebrews, a subject I have treated elsewhere. It seems to me to be rationally untenable to discard sound hermeneutics when it comes to the writings of the church fathers while at the same time insisting that the Scriptures be investigated and expounded in the light of their historical contexts. Incidentally, I have my students read Scot McKnight’s excellent essay on the Synoptic Problem in the book I co-edited, Interpreting the New Testament. I am sympathetic with many of the points made. The points of disagreement are also there, for I cannot believe that it is sufficient to assert the importance of studying the church fathers without actually doing so. Nor can I accept the commonplaces of source critics that hypothecated documents (Q, M, and L) are necessary if an appeal to the fathers is heeded.

This raises one of the themes that crops up again and again in my teaching, namely my view that the internal evidence, being so obviously and unavoidably subjective, is never probative but is at best corroborative. Or, to put it another way, theories based on internal evidence alone inevitably lead to results that are mutually incompatible. One may point to the use of the so-called linguistic argument to support both Markan priority (McKnight et al.) and Matthean priority (Farmer et al.). In my own writings I have tried to show that Mark’s peculiar diction proves only that the content of the Gospel of Mark is different from that of the other Synoptics. There is no question here of temporal priority. We have stylistic differences and no more. On my view – the Fourfold Gospel Hypothesis – these differences are attributable to the fact that the Gospel of Mark is a viva voce transcription of Peter’s discourses in Rome and thus it preserves the flavor of oral (as opposed to literary) communication. This view is in concord with the fathers’ opinion that the bulk of Mark’s Gospel consists of chreiai or short, pithy stories presented in an unusually vivid style (consider, for example, the 151 instances of the historical present in Mark). However, the internal evidence itself does not require Matthean priority any more than it requires Markan priority. What is settled by the internal evidence is only the possibility (and no more than that) that Peter had the scrolls of Matthew and Luke in front of him as he dictated his lectures. This means that nothing is proved by the internal evidence. It would be completely fallacious if I were to say that the Synoptic Problem is solved by means of internal evidence.

To sum up, we find the following occurring in Synoptic studies today: (1) the neglect or utter rejection of the patristic testimony; (2) the determination to base one’s theory on internal evidence; and (3) the resultant growth of artificial techniques of investigation. In these conditions it is absolutely impossible to say that source criticism is making any headway. This is why it seems to me that the most urgent and decisive task for the New Testament teacher today is to give our students as many points of view as possible, even those which appear to us to be patently reactionary and retrogressive, and then encourage our students to make up their own minds.

This is not at all an affirmation of the indifferent neutrality of things. The one question is: Which of the competing theories best accounts for all the evidence? It is thus unconscionable to me that anyone today would teach the Synoptic Problem and leave out the massive and detailed evidence provided by the fathers. I am not being scrupulous over trifles. I am not interdicting or condemning scientific scholarship by Christians. I am simply saying that many fields of study, including source criticism, are still very much open to question. We must therefore be careful – all of us, teachers and students alike – to weigh our decisions, realizing that there are often points of view that we will fail to consider simply because we are trapped by a group mentality.

September 7, 2007

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

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Swimming on Dry Ground

 David Alan Black 

We ought to see how each of us may arouse one another to love and acts of kindness, not staying away from church meetings, as some do, but rather encouraging one another, and all the more so as you see the day of Christ’s return drawing closer and closer (Heb. 10:24-25, my paraphrase).

One of the saddest things in the Christian world is to learn that most church members are content to let others do the work of the ministry for them. They are told that they are ministers but have not learned to act the part. A lot of teaching nowadays about spiritual gifts is like swimming lessons on dry ground. We can read all the books on the subject and memorize the instructions, but we will swim only in the water.

I have come to see the church as a functioning fellowship and Christian leadership as a fellowship of leadership. “Fellowship” is the key word. It cannot be pointed out too strongly that the church is its citizens, most of whom are ordinary people engaged in normal, ordinary pursuits. The fact that the church has leaders does not in the least absolve its members of the responsibility of personal involvement.

Much of the present tragedy in the church lies in the fact that many who want to be part of Christ’s family are looking for genuine relationships but are finding a complacent church culture concerned to an absurd degree with its own internal politics or so unimaginative as to suggest that saints can be sanctified by a pew and an offering plate. If we are to make progress we must rid our minds of accepted ideas of what a true church is or ought to be. To begin with, we must eschew the notion that the church is a hierarchy of professional religious men. There must be a radical reappraisal of the nature of the church and a rediscovery of the amazing vitality of early Christianity. We need not go back to the original pattern with superstitious obedience, but we would be wise, when we see some central feature of apostolic Christianity, to ask whether this can be incorporated into our present practice.

For example, it is perfectly clear that the earliest Christians considered that Christ was their Senior Pastor, that they were all equal members of the sheepfold, and that to be a Christian was to be engaged in Christ’s service personally and not vicariously through professionals. A clear and obvious illustration of this is found in Col. 3:16, where we read “teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom.” The key words here are “one another.” When the early Christians met, they expected participation of all; and this participation was so universal that Paul had to provide rules to avoid confusion (1 Cor. 14:16-33). And yet I dare ask, Where in our churches today would there be any meaning to Paul’s words, “you can all prophecy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged” (1 Cor. 14:31)?

There is no suggestion that the early followers of Christ had any other Leader than Christ Himself, who led His people through His under-shepherds who humbly served the saints (Phil 1:1). The early Christians did not elevate any man above their Lord and Savior. Instead, each accepted the responsibility of being representatives of Jesus Christ in daily life. The church of Jesus Christ is not people flocking to a shrine or people making up an audience for a speaker but workers engaged in the task of serving God. The person who says, “I don’t need to work; I just support the workforce,” is insufferably self-righteous. What Christian among us is without the Holy Spirit? As I frequently remind Christian young people, you do not have to graduate from high school to get your spiritual gift!

In short, then, a genuine Christian is an active Christian. Church ministry is not the job of a few gifted or trained men but the inescapable responsibility of every person who belongs to Jesus Christ. The only way to erase the distinction between clergy and laity is by the inclusion of all in ministry. If Paul had been able to foresee the current state of affairs in which the pastor is expected to perform the entire ministry, he might well have added “neither layman nor cleric” to his dictum that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor free, neither male nor female. The problem of how to begin an every-member model of ministry is so great that it will require our best efforts to overcome. At the very least we can put a stop to special days that give our services over to “Laymen” and ‘Laywomen.” Instead, we must enlarge our training until it includes our total membership. Why should a pastor monopolize public praying? Why shouldn’t the common man read the Scriptures aloud? Why shouldn’t other gifted members do some of the teaching? After all, Paul encouraged those who had the gift of teaching to employ it (Rom. 12:7).

I shall have more to say about this in my book Unleashing the Church. All I want to point out for the present is the need for each individual to exercise his or her gift for the edification of all. We make an important step forward when we, as churchmen and churchwomen, learn the difference between the task of supporting ministers and of being ministers. The glorious fact is that there can be a recovery of every-member ministry if we are bold and courageous enough to insist upon it.

Just as swimming lessons are to be tried out in the water, so the Word of God is to be practiced in daily living. So I ask: Are you swimming on dry ground?

March 2, 2006

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

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Swift Vote Veterans for Bush

FROM THE APPROPRIATED PRESS                                                                                                           AUGUST 23, 2004

Supporters of President Jorge W. Bush, responding to charges of ignorance and apathy, have formed Swift Vote Veterans for Bush, calling on all faithful members of the Republicrat Party to join. George Nicolaitan, speaking on behalf of the group, said, “We are sick and tired of people criticizing the president. Now is the time for all Americans to put up or shut up. You are either for the president or you are against him. There is no middle ground.”

White House spokesman Dewey Needham agreed: “In a time of war it is unconscionable that people should seek to undermine a sitting president. What was good for the nation in 2000 is still good for the nation in 2004. We stand behind the SVVB 100 percent.”

Interviewed for today’s story, the major candidates for president had various responses. “It’s ridiculous, just ridiculous,” said Democracy Party candidate John Hairy. “The real issues – the issues the people care about – are jobs, education, and health care. Got it? JOBS, EDUCATION, and HEALTH CARE!”

Liberty Party candidate Dan Goodnarik was more magnanimous. “As long as they don’t bother us, we won’t bother them,” he said. “After all, it’s a free country.”

Constitutional Party candidate Michael Bazooka, however, insisted that the SVVB was ignoring basic constitutional principles. “Unless we really think through the issues before we vote, we will end up with the same old same old – Big Brother getting bigger and bigger and less efficient. It’s all a matter of returning to the U.S. Constitution as our guiding touchstone.”

Swift Vote Veterans for Bush remained undeterred, however. “No need to think about anything,” retorted Nicolaitan. “Just go to the polls and punch the card for Bush. It’s your patriotic duty.”

Whether the SVVB can convince the majority of Americans to vote for the president remains to be seen. “If we can,” said Nicolaitan, “then maybe the nation will finally get past its incessant squabbling over the issues.”

August 23, 2004

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Surprises from Heaven

(Ethiopia, December 2006 – January 2007, Part 1)

 Becky Lynn Black 

God preparing the way for us…

We landed in Addis Ababa and were greeted by our numerous Ethiopian “children.” As part of the rush of greeting and reporting, our Alaba son David told us how the Lord had already gone before us. If you had been watching the news, you knew that Ethiopia and Somalia had been on the brink of war for several months. In fact, as we boarded the plan in Washington DC, headed for Germany, the front page in the newspaper read, “Somalia declares Jihad on Ethiopia.” What the article didn’t say is that the extreme fundamentalist elements of the religion of Islam had been doing terrorist training (Al Qaeda style) in the Alaba region. The instant Somali forces crossed into Ethiopia, they were poised to cause disruption. 

But the Ethiopian government had undercover spies in Alaba, and just 2 weeks before we arrived they did a sweep, arresting dozens of top terrorist leaders. As David joyfully reported, “So we have peace now, with soldiers everywhere!” In the providence of our loving God, the Ethiopian forces entered Somalia while we were out in the rural villages, and within a matter of days, God gave them complete victory. The fundamentalist Somali leaders and their army were cornered between Kenyan forces on the Kenya border, Ethiopian soldiers, and the US Navy standing off Somalia in the Indian Ocean. 

We have never been afraid of possible harm; our Lord knows what He is doing, and He is fully able to keep that which we’ve committed to Him (our souls and our lives). Most of the time we are blissfully ignorant of His actions on our behalf. But sometimes He gives us a little peek. This was one of those peeks, and we praise His Name for being the All-Sufficient One.

A bumper crop harvest…

About 2 years ago a young Muslim man murdered a young Christian man in a village in Alaba. A judge sentenced him to 12 years in prison. In revenge actions taken by the Muslim relatives of the murdered man, the two brothers of the victim were accused and also imprisoned. Family rose against family; fear permeated relationships as accusations raged and homes were burned. 

Into this situation, 18 months ago, Dave visited Alaba for the first time. He wanted to meet the parents of the murdered man and pray with them. While returning from their village, he saw lights in the distance…it was the prison. The next day he went to visit Mohammed the prisoner. He explained the purpose of Christ’s life; he told of forgiveness in the blood of Jesus; he spoke of a love that knows no bounds. Mohammed wept upon hearing this good news; but the weight of warring families was upon his young shoulders. Dave gave him a thick blanket to keep out the cold of the rainy season.

Here in our home in Virginia we began to pray nightly for Mohammed the prisoner, pleading with our Lord to open his eyes and bring him into His family. On our next visit, exactly one year ago, Mohammed accepted a Bible from us. We also gave him clothes. The church leaders were visiting him; the godly women in the church were cooking meals for him. Love was reigning, Christ’s love in all its glory.

We continued to pray. Church people and leaders continued to visit and love. And then it happened.  At about 4:30pm Monday afternoon, on our first day in Alaba, we visited Mohammed and the one remaining brother in prison. We took them clothes and we talked with them. And out of the clear blue Mohammed said, “I’m ready.” Ready? For what?  For a long time he had been quietly considering Christ and His love. He knew all too well the cost he would pay for “changing sides.” Already his family had told him in no uncertain terms: “If you accept Christianity you will no longer be a part of us. We will not come to care for you when you are sick, and we will not attend your burial when you die.” Already isolated in prison, he would be totally alone if his family rejected him. Could the love of Christ keep him? On Monday afternoon, December 18, 2006, he decided to take the plunge.

Surrounded by Dave, myself, and our son David, Mohammed raised both his hands to heaven and repeated the declaration of trust in Jesus as Saviour and Lord. Dave welcomed him into the family of God; we celebrated with hugs and tears of joy. “You are my parents. You’ve showed me love,” he kept saying. Then we returned to Alaba Town, and Mohammed returned to his prison comrades, 99 percent of whom are Muslims.

We began our teaching ministry, but a few days later we returned to check on our new son in the faith. What did we find? We found a young man who was absolutely radiant with joy and confidence; he was at peace with himself and his God. How was it going with the other Muslims?  “Yes, they want me to come back. But I’m not afraid of anyone!” The church leaders have arranged for frequent discipling with Mohammed. By God’s continuing grace, Mohammed will be strong in the faith when he’s released from prison. And who knows what great things our Lord will do with his young life.

Mohammed’s embracing of Jesus’ love isn’t the only “success” story in this prison. The other brother, standing by and witnessing Mohammed’s raised arms and declaration of trust, knowing the price he was paying, decided to rededicate himself to the Master. The next day Kedir’s only pair of pants were stolen off the clothes line; he came to meet Dave wrapped in a bed sheet. And he was suffering tremendously with resistant malaria and typhoid; the prison would only pay for the cheap non-effective medicine. We were allowed to pay for his testing and medicines. Pray for Kedir; like all of us who have wandered from the Saviour, his heart is sore with the misery he’s brought. Pray for him to stand strong in the blood of the Lord Jesus, a blood thick enough to cover ANY sin! He must daily call the Enemy’s lies what they are…lies…and he must live in the reality of Jesus’ forgiveness, just as Peter lived in that reality 2000 years ago.

But the story doesn’t stop with Mohammed and Kedir. There are the guards. On our first visit, we were searched with suspicion; they definitely did not want us visiting. But by the second and third visits these guards were not only freely allowing us entrance, they were asking Dave to sketch their portraits, inviting us to coffee with them, letting Mohammed and Kedir outside the prison to visit with us and the guards. And when we saw these guards in town, they greeted us like long-lost family members!

We don’t know where these guards are spiritually yet. All we know at this point is that God has opened wide the door of the prison. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the Spirit of God swept through that prison, using Kedir and Mohammed?  Jesus has turned these former enemies into brothers; He has replaced anger and aggression with His love and gentleness. In the confines of the prison, the others are watching. Changed lives are a testimony to power. In my interviews, I cannot tell you how many people said they came to Christ because they could not resist the testimony of changed lives. The church leaders are following up with discipleship training. And we plan to keep in regular contact, sending care packages, letters, etc., to both prisoners and guards. Please pray for this little plot of land where the air is so thick with heartache. Pray that the Lord will sweep the area with His love, so that many, many more will come to Him as Saviour and Lord.

Haile the barber…

Like Paul in the book of Acts, we’ve met people in the normal course of life who seem to be divinely appointed. One such person is Haile the barber. Haile is regularly visited by our son David and many other believers. They have been reaching out to him, touching him with the Saviour. Last year Dave visited Haile’s shop on several occasions…not so much for the hair cut as for the relationship. Amazingly, just before our departure here we received an email from Haile. He was eagerly awaiting our arrival.

On our first day in Alaba we visited his shop but he wasn’t there. We went on down the road. Word must have been sent to him, because some time later we saw Haile running down the dusty road, shouting with joy upon seeing us. What a happy reunion! He showed us pictures of his new bride; I gave him a jar of my strawberry jam and a kitchen towel.

Haile was raised Orthodox. This religion is the foundational religion of Ethiopian culture. Many have said, “To be Ethiopian is to be Orthodox.”  It dates to the fourth century, and probably at one time it reflected the true, simple Gospel of faith in Jesus’ blood alone. But in the 1600 years since its arrival in Ethiopia, the Orthodox Church has departed from the Scriptures. Today it is a mixture of Old Testament law, New Testament Gospel, superstition, traditional teachings, complicated rituals, and political conniving. The Orthodox Church leadership hates the evangelical churches and has fought the missionary movement from Day One. The persecution by the Orthodox Church of evangelicals equals that of any Muslim group.

But God is working in the lives of people in the Orthodox Church. One by one, despite the pressures of their priests, disappointed and empty people are searching outside this organized, complicated religious system for some sense of spiritual satisfaction. One such person is Haile. He’s beginning to attend an evangelical church. He said to me, “There is much love here,” referring to the Alaba Town church. Every month Haile touches the lives of hundreds of people, over and over again, on the main street of dusty Alaba. What our Lord couldn’t do if Haile’s life was changed into one of true spiritual satisfaction and power! Imagine the discussions week after week with his captive audience in the barber chair. With the prevalence of HIV/AIDS, men are very careful about whom they choose as their barber. Haile is trusted. If our Lord redeems him, men will continue to come to him…they will hear of the Saviour as well as get a good, safe shave. Please pray for Haile. We did not expect the Lord to cause this relationship to blossom. As we were packing up our last items and loading the van to leave Alaba, Haile showed up. It was truly an honor for us, that he would leave his shop to come say goodbye. We will keep in touch by email, but mostly we just need to pray. Our Lord can do with Haile what He has already done with Mohammed the prisoner and with you and me. And so the glory of His love continues…..

                      Road Scene                                                                                        River Scene

Coming up next: A Definition of “Ministry.”

January 11, 2007

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Surprise Me, Dr. Dobson!

Michael Peroutka

Dear Friends of the Constitutional Republic,

One of the reasons President Bush has been able to sell-out so easily on so many issues of concern to conservatives is that some Christian/conservative “leaders” have excused his actions rather than honestly and forcefully criticizing them. A recent case-in-point involves Dr. James Dobson and the choice of several primetime speakers at the upcoming Republican Convention, such pro-abortion, pro-homosexual “rights” individuals as: New York Governor George Pataki; former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

On Fox TV’s “Hannity & Colmes” show recently, Dr. Dobson, founder of “Focus On The Family,” was asked if he was disturbed that Pataki, Giuliani and Schwarzenegger were being allowed to be in the spotlight at the GOP Convention? Well, not really, said Dr. Dobson, because we don’t yet know the entire lineup of speakers. Besides, he added, the President will be speaking and “he’s a conservative.” He adds a little later that Mr. Bush “is one of the most conservative presidents we’ve ever had.”

Really? Is Mr. Bush REALLY a conservative?

The main issue which used to define a conservative – particularly a Republican conservative –  was his advocacy of a limited, Constitutional, fiscally responsible government. Has Mr. Bush given us a limited, Constitutional, fiscally responsible government? No, he has not. He has given us the largest, most un-Constitutional, fiscally irresponsible, debt-ridden government in our history.

In this same interview, Dr. Dobson not only refused to criticize the choice of Pataki, he excused his being allowed to speak in primetime because Pataki is Governor of the state hosting the Convention. OK. But the issue is why are Pataki, Giuliani and Schwarzenegger being allowed to speak in PRIMETIME?! On this issue, Dr. Dobson said he was “not yet ready to pass judgment.”

Interestingly, Dr. Dobson said, almost in the same breath, that he represents certain “moral principles and values” and anyone who contradicts what he believes “I disagree with.” Well, by being pro-abortion and pro-homosexual “rights,” Pataki, Giuliani and Schwarzenegger all DISAGREE with what Dr. Dobson stands for.

So, why isn’t Dr. Dobson disagreeing with the decision to let them speak in primetime at the Republican Convention? And if Mr. Bush IS a conservative, why is he allowing Pataki, Giuliani and Schwarzenegger to speak in primetime at a Convention he controls?

Finally, Dr. Dobson says that one of the things about John Kerry that he’s “afraid” of is that the Democrat Presidential candidate will “turn the country over to the United Nations, certainly the military.”

But, George Bush has already, de facto, done this!

Repeatedly, over and over, again and again, Mr. Bush said that one of the reasons for going to war with Iraq was that Saddam Hussein was systematically in defiance of 16 United Nations Security Council Resolutions!

No President has given more credibility to the U.N., and surrendered more moral authority to the U.N., than has George W. Bush.

In this “Hannity & Colmes” interview, Dr. Dobson said to Alan Colmes: “I am not a Republican….I might surprise you with the way I voted in the past when politicians have parted from the things that I believed.’

Well – if this is so – surprise me, Dr. Dobson. Please, sir, surprise me. Announce publicly that you have joined the Constitution Party and that you are voting for the Peroutka-Baldwin ticket. We believe a lot more of the things that you believe than does Mr. Bush. All of us make promises. The difference is that we will keep our promises. 

For God, Family, & the Republic, 

Michael Peroutka

July 28, 2004

Mr. Michael Peroutka is the 2004 Constitution Party presidential candidate.  He may be reached for comment here.

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Supreme Stupidity

 David Alan Black

Today, states rights were brutally assaulted by the nation’s highest court. Up until the 1960s, every state in the nation prohibited sodomy. But in a landmark decision that activists say could pave the way toward full gay rights in America, the U. S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas law banning gay sex, reversing a decision the court made in a Georgia case 17 years ago.

Gay rights activists nationwide hailed the 6-3 decision that ruled the Texas sodomy law an unconstitutional violation of privacy. “This is a giant leap for gay and lesbian civil rights,” said Hector Vargas, southern regional director for Lambda Legal, which took the Texas case to the court. “This is clearly the most important decision that has come down for the gay community. It marks the end of an era.”

The justices’ ruling also invalidated gay sodomy laws in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri and statutes in nine other states that outlaw sodomy for heterosexuals and homosexuals. “When homosexual conduct is made criminal by the law of the state, that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, and Stephen Breyer agreed with Kennedy fully. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor agreed with the outcome of the case but not all of Kennedy’s opinion.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented. “The court has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda,” Scalia wrote in 21-page dissent three pages longer than the majority opinion. He added, “The court has taken sides in the culture war. Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools or as boarders in their home.”

Among the groups backing the court are the Cato Institute, the Institute for Justice, the American Bar Association, the National Lesbian and Gay Law Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the National Organization for Women Legal Defense and Education Fund. The court’s decision also had the backing of several Republican groups, including the Log Cabin Republicans and the Republican Unity Coalition.

Backing Texas were the state attorneys general of Alabama, South Carolina, and Utah, the American Center for Law and Justice, the American Family Association, the Center for Arizona Policy, the Center for Law and Justice International, the Center for the Original Intent of the Constitution, Concerned Women for America, the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, the Liberty Counsel, the Pro Family Law Center, the Texas Eagle Forum, the Christian Medical and Dental Association, the Catholic Medical Association, and United Families International.

These groups had asked a very important question: “Where in the U.S. Constitution is there a right to engage in sodomy?” They complained that, once again, extreme judicial activism is determining state policy regarding marriage, the family, and sexual conduct outside of marriage. Clearly the court’s decision is a politically motivated attempt to change the way Americans think about traditional sex-related acts.

Thankfully, some are speaking out. “So is the next stage of all of this going to be that a man can commit bestiality as long as it’s in the privacy of his own home?” asked the Rev. James Merritt, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Snellville and Cross Pointe and a former president of the Southern Baptist Convention. “Where do we stop now? We’re beginning now down a slippery slope to which there is no end.”

It is perhaps an extreme irony that today also marks the death of Senator Strom Thurmond. The Southern Manifesto that he composed in 1956 is one of the clearest defenses of states rights ever written. In it Thurmond wrote:

The Founding Fathers gave us a Constitution of checks and balances because they realized the inescapable lesson of history that no man or group of men can be safely entrusted with unlimited power. They framed this Constitution with its provisions for change by amendment in order to secure the fundamentals of government against the dangers of temporary popular passion or the personal predilections of public officeholders.

We regard the decisions of the Supreme Court in the school cases as a clear abuse of judicial power. It climaxes a trend in the Federal Judiciary undertaking to legislate, in derogation of the authority of Congress, and to encroach upon the reserved rights of the States and the people.

Sadly for our nation, while Thurmond is being eulogized today even by some of his erstwhile opponents in Congress, his message continues to fall on deaf ears. What is tragic about today’s ruling is the way in which it usurps the legitimate powers of the states and turns the Supreme Court into a protector of an evil social philosophy instead of being a defender of our God-given rights. As Thurmond might have said had he lived to see this day, this question is one that should be decided by the states, not by the Congress or the United States Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, whether the issue is gay marriage, the death penalty, abortion, quotas, school prayer, or vouchers, we Americans sit around meekly waiting for nine human beings to tell us how we may govern ourselves. If this isn’t supreme stupidity, I don’t know what is.

June 27, 2003

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

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

The Supreme Importance of the Great Commission

 David Alan Black  

The mission of the church is world evangelization. In Mark 16:15, our Lord Jesus commands us, “Go into all the world and preach the Good News to every creature.” Nothing could be clearer: Go everywhere and tell everyone.

The Great Commission leaves us no option. Our first task as local churches is to extend the kingdom of God to every nation on earth, including our own. Everything else must be subordinate to that cause. Every time we are considering a new plan or a new program or a new building we must ask the test question of every decision: Is this helping to fulfill the Great Commission on this earth or not?

The church does not exist for itself. In 2 Cor. 5:14-21, Paul teaches us that believers are called to be ambassadors for Christ. We are sent out to represent Him in a lost world. He has entrusted to us the ministry of reconciliation. There can therefore be no argument about which comes first — home or foreign missions. There is only one harvest andone Lord of the harvest. We all need to work together and support each other in the common task of “going into all the world and preaching the Good News to every creature” and of “making disciples of all the nations.”

Prioritizing the Great Commission in our churches will not be an easy task. Each individual believer is assigned a different place in the harvest. Each of us has different gifts and interests. That’s why we need to fully understand the Great Commission and the principles of the kingdom. Even though the church is comprised of many different parts, and each part is different, love should be the rule among us. One of the saddest things I find today is that many Christians don’t understand this principle. Satan has deceived them into thinking that other things are more important than the kingdom. Usually that “other thing” is their church or their ministry. Too often we’re building up our own little kingdoms instead of the kingdom of God. Often the result is bitter competition. Can you see why “self” must be nailed to the cross for us to have unity? Conflict is inevitable in the Lord’s work. Jesus promised as much. But it must be with our real enemies, not with our fellow Christians.

If our churches were truly committed to the Great Commission, it would show in a lifestyle that matches our response to a lost and dying world. In Paul’s lengthy passage on Christian stewardship (2 Cor. 8-9) he describes the economics of the kingdom. He reminds us of the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, who became poor for us even though He was rich. Paul adds, “I don’t mean that others should have relief while you have hardship. But there should be equity. Your abundance should supply their needs.”

Can you imagine what would happen if our churches in America were to grasp this principle of equity and of sharing our wealth and applying it to the needs of the Gospel around the world? Could it be that our materialism is keeping the world in darkness about the Good News?Shocking statistics published recently report that:

According to the World Christian Encyclopedia of all the money designated for “missions” in the U.S. only 5.4- is used for foreign missions. Of that 5.4-, only 0.37- is used to take the gospel to unreached people who don’t have access to the gospel. That’s about two cents out of every dollar given to missions! The rest goes towards efforts to further evangelize reached people.

Again, let me stress that there is no one-size-fits-all pattern of giving. All churches are called upon to find ways to prioritize the kingdom as the Holy Spirit directs. The most important principle to keep in mind is to employ material things for the kingdom of God rather than for ourselves. This is the true test of where our priorities lie. God may ask us to forgo building that new sanctuary, giving up our Sunday School quarterlies (and using the Bible instead), or sacrificing our padded pews. Many will think you’re crazy if you do things like this. The Christian media often measure success in terms of big numbers, big buildings, and big programs. God, I think, measures success differently. He is calling each of us to be a bondslave to a world in need. We are called to be foot-washers for Jesus. We are invited to accept the call to live a life of radical Christian servanthood wherever we are and wherever we go in the world. Today I believe God is calling out an army of Americans who will feel His heartbeat and answer that call. 

The conclusion is inescapable: In light of the commands of our risen Lord and Savior and in view of the present desperate condition of a lost world, we must give everything above our basic necessities to finish the task of world evangelization. We cannot serve God and Wealth at the same time. Money will either be our master or our slave. We are to lay up for ourselves treasure in heaven — not on the earth. 1 John 3:16-18 gives us our marching orders:

This is how we can know the love of God, because He laid down His life for us. We too should lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. Whoever has this world’s goods and sees his fellow believer in need and shuts up his compassion for them — how can the love of God dwell in that person? My dear children, we must love not in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth.

The whole purpose of the church can be summed up in that one concept: sharing. We are never commanded in the New Testament to do many of the things we are currently doing (paying out lavish salaries, building huge worship centers, etc.). This is not evil in and of itself, of course. But the Bible clearly commands us to “share what we have with God’s people who are in need” (Rom. 12:13). What a rebuke this verse is to the pleasure-loving and disobedience of so many Christians and churches today in America. How much longer will we allow our desire for comfort and “the good life” to be the bottleneck that prevents world evangelization?

Today every evangelical church stands at the crossroads on the question of priorities. Will we surrender to the spirit of the age, or will we join the company of the committed? Will we make a deliberate decision to accept sacrifice and suffering for the sake of Christ, or will we continue the pattern of extravagance and waste that has become the norm of our evangelical subculture?

Jesus said, “I did not come to be served but to serve and to give my life as a ransom for many.” Jesus lived for the Great Commission. Should we not also?

March 6, 2010

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

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Suffering in 1 Peter 3:13-4:19

 Joel Gravely

The theme or summary that sticks out to me most about this entire section of Scripture is unjust suffering.  Peter seems to be encouraging all those who were being persecuted for righteousness and its various forms.  He repeats the fact that you should be suffering for righteousness not for sinful choices.  He also spends a lofty amount of time explaining the hope we have in the gospel as a means to comfort us in our suffering.  This is mentioned in 1 Peter 3:18-22, where he talks about how Christ has forgiven our sins by dying for us.  This is meant to motivate us to righteousness and enable us to perform all of the imperatives that Peter gives in the preceding and following verses. 

I find it interesting that sometimes pastors misapply this text in our modern American context.  They will use scenarios that talk about being made fun of at work, school, or social gatherings at the hands of the pagans.  While that can be difficult and painful at times, I wonder if that is the totality of what Peter is saying here.  Certainly there have been many places in the world throughout history where anti-Christian persecution from pagans was a serious threat, but I also believe Peter is talking about suffering in a much broader sense.

Suffering for righteousness can come on many levels. In this writing I am going to touch on two of the main ones in our American culture.    The first one is in our homes.   We can often experience much suffering when we try to live a Christian life around professing or un-professing loved ones who are not living for Christ.  This can be experienced on multiple levels.  It can be an unrepentant spouse who refuses to live a godly life and the consequences are extremely painful.  It can be a rebellious child who sins against you in ways that cause massive devastation.  Or it could be your parents who disown you, belittle you, or exasperate you.    Often times, someone who is sincerely living for God will experience much opposition from those in their own family.  The sad thing is the often times these loved ones profess to be believers.   

The other place of suffering is surprisingly in the church. Perhaps it is easier to forgive those who blatantly deny Jesus Christ as Lord.  It is much harder to forgive those who callously sin against you in the body of Christ.  These situations are much harder to swallow and often the pain can be immense.  I don’t think this text is only talking about those who live in a pagan society of extreme persecution for being a Christian.  I think it is also talking about theocratic societies where being a “true Christian” can draw immense persecution.  The Middle Ages were the most Christianized society in the entire history of Christendom, yet one of the most corrupt in terms of the gospel.  The leadership of many churches was so bad that to live a true Christian life often got you tortured or killed. 

John Huss, Wycliffe, and many others were burned as heretics by the Catholic Church for simply living an orthodox Christian life.  On the Protestant side, the religious community in Geneva was responsible for executing a man who preached heresy.  The Catholics and Protestants fought wars over baptism, communion, and various other doctrines. If you believed differently in that time you would be killed by none other than the “church.”   Many others were kicked out of their church, exiled, and shunned by their communities for simply living the Christian life. So while I do think these passages apply to place like China and Indonesia, I also think they apply to the most Christianized cultures in the world as well.

As a society becomes more anti-Christian, it has a way of refining the church.  I think the last verse in 4:17 is in reference to this very thing.  Peter states that judgment must begin with the house of God.  I think God will allow pagans to persecute Christians in order to refine and bring judgment as seen throughout the Old Testament with Israel.  The church is no different. It will experience persecution eventually as our society turns more secular every day.  However, the gospel gives us hope that although we are experiencing suffering from others, our God has justified us and stands in our defense. 

December 2, 2011

Joel Gravely is originally from Tuscaloosa, Alabama.  He graduated from the University of South Alabama in 2006.  After teaching school for a year,  he moved to DC metro area to be a part of Covenant Life Church (Sovereign Grace Ministries).  Part of that time was spent doing college ministry at the University of Maryland as well as helping out with an urban church plant near Washington, DC. He is now enrolled at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and is working on his M. Div. in Pastoral Ministry.   

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

The Suffering Church

 David Alan Black  

This year I will be meeting with a group of persecuted pastors in a country I cannot name, men who have learned that zeal for the Gospel can lead to hazardous consequences.

I will teach them that an important aspect of love for the brethren is the willingness to risk reputation, property, and life itself. I will share with them what Acts and 1 Thessalonians and Philippians teach about suffering: that it is the rule, and not the exception, of Christian living. I will hold up as examples the sixteenth century Anabaptists, whose willingness to lose their loves for others was so profound that the Anabaptist faith has been characterized as a “theology of martyrdom.” These Dissenters even offered to take the place of imprisoned brothers. Yet despite all these stresses, a complete church developed.

Anabaptism went beyond the Reformation in adding to Luther’s marks of a church (proper preaching and the sacraments) holy living, brotherly love, witnessing, and suffering. For the Anabaptists it was impossible to speak of faith without practicing sacrificial Christian love. According to the Hutterian Peter Walpot, in Protestantism “each looks to his advantage, to his own favor and greed, that he gathers to himself and fills his sack.” Contrariwise, the Anabaptists suffered seizure of goods, lengthy imprisonments, even capital punishment.

Why? And why should believers today suffer persecution for the cause of Christ? Simply because a believer ought at all times to be prepared before God and man to share his possessions, his wealth, all he has, however little it may be, to meet the needs of others. And the greatest need of others will always be the Gospel.

I will put it plainly. In certain areas of the world, if you take the Gospel seriously you will be hunted down, possibly to the death. You may be questioned by the authorities under the threat and actual use of torture. Are you prepared for individual suffering? Am I?

Those of us who today refuse obedience in such matters may well face a sterner judgment on another Day.

September 11, 2007

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

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Suffer the Little Children

 David Alan Black

Yesterday I had a wonderful time preaching (i.e., teaching) at a small church in Southside Virginia during the congregation’s children’s emphasis Sunday. These precious children comprised the choir, took the offering, read the Scriptures, and prayed. Afterwards they sat with their parents throughout the sermon. Present were children and youth ranging from nursing infants (one was a month old) to high schoolers. I spoke on the myth of adolescence and, more specifically, “Jesus and the Age Twelve Transition,” showing how at the age of 12 Jesus became a young adult (not an adolescent) in His culture (cf. 1 Cor 13:11).

How refreshing it was to see families worshipping together as God intended! In my message I noted that children were consistently present in the worship of the people of God in both the Old and New Testaments (note how Moses anticipated the literal “children” of Israel to be present when the Law was read [Deut 31.12-13]). Paul’s letters always assume the presence of children (Eph 6.1-4; Col 3.20), and children were present when our Lord taught (Matt 18.1-5; 19.13-15). In fact, when the disciples were concerned that children were becoming a distraction, Jesus specifically commanded that the children be present when He instructed His followers (Mark 10:14-16):

Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.

At the first Uniting Church and Home Conference held in 2002, Mr. John Thompson addressed “Ten ways churches are harming families.” He noted that modern churches have “unconsciously and unintentionally” adopted the unbiblical philosophies of the world as their model for church life. Mr. Thompson said, “Sunday schools, children’s church, and youth groups are, interestingly, based not upon the Bible but upon humanistic and evolutionary theory applied to education.” He noted how churches have chosen to follow the failed child training model of the government schools rather than following the clear pattern of Scripture.

Those who believe in excluding children from the meetings of the church often use the false argument that the matter must be decided only on the basis of convenience and expediency. Since when did portions of the revealed will of God become optional for the church? Such an approach is a blatant denial of the Word of God, which says, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim 3:16). If one argues that we should have children’s programs as a way to reach their parents for Christ, I would point out that we do not need to employ unbiblical methods to accomplish biblical goals. A better solution is to obey Paul’s command in Titus 2:1-8 and focus on teaching parents how to teach their own children. Our goal as parents in training our children should be to disciple them in the truth of God’s Word and teach them how to walk in the Spirit.

The bottom line is this: No matter how well-intentioned and sincere we may be, there is simply no biblical justification for children’s church or nursery care.

If this is true, then why don’t we “suffer the little children to come unto Him”?

April 26, 2004

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

Back to daveblackonline