restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Say What?

 David Alan Black 

Poor guy. He really tries, but loquaciousness is just not his forte. Witness:

“Rarely is the question asked: is our children learning?” (Florence, SC, Jan. 11, 2000).

“Actually, I—this may sound a little West Texan to you, but I like it. When I’m talking about—when I’m talking about myself, and when he’s talking about myself, all of us are talking about me” (Hardball, MSNBC, May 31, 2000).

“Laura and I really don’t realize how bright our children is sometime until we get an objective analysis” (Meet the Press, April 15, 2000).

“We want our teachers to be trained so they can meet the obligations; their obligations as teachers. We want them to know how to teach the science of reading. In order to make sure there’s not this kind of federal cufflink” (Fritsche Middle School, Milwaukee, March 30, 2000).

“I understand small business growth. I was one” (New York Daily News, Feb. 19, 2000).

“I’ve changed my style somewhat, as you know. I’m less, I pontificate less, although it may be hard to tell it from this show. And I’m more interacting with people” (Meet The Press, Feb. 13, 2000).

“They said, ‘You know, this issue doesn’t seem to resignate with the people.’ And I said, you know something? Whether it resignates or not doesn’t matter to me, because I stand for doing what’s the right thing, and what the right thing is hearing the voices of people who work” (Portland, Ore., Oct. 31, 2000).

“I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family” (Greater Nashua, N.H., Chamber of Commerce, Jan. 27, 2000).

The speaker, of course, is President Bush, who yesterday finally offered a statement via a spokesman about Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who refused to follow an unconstitutional federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from his state judicial building’s rotunda.

According to World Net Daily, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, “Well, Les, I think that we’ve addressed this issue. One, we need to respect our laws. Two, the courts have ruled that in certain circumstances it is OK to display the Ten Commandments, and in other circumstances, the courts have ruled that it’s not OK. But the president believes that we must respect our laws. There is an appeals process that can be followed if you disagree with those rulings, and that’s where things are.” This in response to the question: “Scott, does the president in any way support the censorship of the Ten Commandments in Alabama?”

Clear as a Los Angeles sunset.

Several years ago I ran across a tribute to Spurgeon, that great Baptist preacher of London. It said, “The only colours which Mr. Spurgeon recognized were either black or white…. With Mr. Spurgeon you were either up or down, in or out, alive or dead. As for middle zones, graded lines, light compounding with shadow in a graceful exercise of give-and-take, he simply looked upon them as heterodox and as implacable enemies of the Metropolitan Tabernacle.”

Our Lord put it this way: “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad” (Matthew 12:30). Apparently Jesus had no tolerance for halfway stations or obtuse non-committal, for “middle zones” or “graded lines.” He wanted men to be either boiling hot or freezing cold but not lukewarm. Be black or white, He said, but not gray! Alas, our world today is characterized by the climate of compromise, the arrogance of appeasement, the fallacy of peaceful coexistence. It marks the nations and is the predominant characteristic of the Laodicean church.

The Alabama Ten Commandments case calls for a showdown on Carmel between Baal and Yahweh, and what do we get? Light compounding with shadow. Oh well. What can we expect from a man who once uttered such luminous words as these: “I think if you know what you believe, it makes it a lot easier to answer questions. I can’t answer your question” (Reynoldsburg, Ohio, October 4, 2000).

(Note: Bush quotes from “Dubya Says.”)

September 4, 2003

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

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

“Saved!” Do We Deserve It?

Chad Harris

From WND:

New film mocks Christianity

A noted movie critic says the new film “Saved!” is a sad, bigoted, anti-Christian movie that mocks the Christian faith.

Ted Baehr, the founder of the Christian Film & Television Commission™ ministry has come out swinging against the MGM movie, according to Assist News Service. The film is slated to be released May 28.

“‘SAVED!’ is a hateful, politically correct movie,” Baehr declared. “It is being heavily marketed to the community it mocks to lead Christian youth astray and make them resent their own faith.”

Read the whole thing. I saw the preview. I’m not advocating that everyone should see it, but I can vouch, this doesn’t look good. There are no obligatory preview scenes of those “lovable-yet-misguided” Christians. All serious Christians are portrayed as mean-spirited prudes in a very unsympathetic way. Jesus-jokes and pokes at the popularizing of Christianity abound.

And yet, I’m thinking, do we, speaking as a Christian, deserve this?

Let’s see…we’ve spent the past few decades trying to put the “cool” back in Christianity. We’ve taken the harsh realities of sin and redemption out, and replaced them with pastels, portraits, and “Huggy Jesus.“ We’ve made bureaucracies of our churches and called them “community programs.” We’ve taken our songs of faith, given them a bubblegum beat, vapid lyrics, and miniskirts and called it “worship.”

Mind, there’s nothing essentially wrong with some of those things, and they have their place. But what is our motivation? Are we really trying to further the cause of Christ, or are we just trying to be liked? Are we focused on the message itself, or just what we can do that makes us feel good?

I think we’ve had our priorities wrong for some time now. I’ve seen a lot of crazy things done in the name of Christianity in order to reach “the world.” But the problem is, our efforts have been downright nauseating. Every time I see a pastor preach a Bibleless message with a constant organ tune playing in the background to cue crowd reaction, I switch the channel in disgust. Every time I hear of a church basing an entire service around a NASCAR race, NFL game, or old episodes of The Andy Griffith Show, I weep. Every time I see another pathetic attempt at “Christian entertainment” come down the pike, I want to run far away. Granted, we’re trying to reach a shallow world, but shouldn’t we be trying to fill it up?

And the sad part is, we actually think it’s effective. Right. So effective that Hollywood is going to devote an entire hour-and-a-half solely for ridiculing us for that. Real effective, guys.

Maybe I sound like I’m 18 going on 58 here, but I don’t care. The fact is, we deserve this film for everything we’ve done for the past 20 years or so. We’ve tried being buddy-buddy with the world, and they continue to bite us. Well, this time, it’s personal.

If only we have the wit to wake up, this time, maybe we can actually start making a difference in this world by…I don’t know…being Christians? One of the things that struck me about the article was this quote from Baehr:

Imagine if this movie were set in an Orthodox Jewish school with faithful Jewish children cast as the villains and a Christian girl shows how legalistic the Jewish girls are. Or, what if it were set in an Islamic school with faithful Muslims cast as the villains and a Christian or Jewish girl exposes how legalistic the Muslims are? The outcry in the press would be tremendous! Not to mention the righteous outcry from Jews or Muslims!

Ouch.

What he’s essentially saying is, although he probably doesn’t realize it, Jews and Muslims are better at being who they are than Christians! They can claim personal insult to themselves because they actually believe in what they believe in! But why are Christians the ones targeted here? Simple. Because Hollywood knows it can get away with it. I wouldn’t be surprised if youth groups went and saw this film. We just don’t care when Christians are targeted, because I think we don’t really know what we are. The average “Christian” will usually describe his walk with God as, “Ummmm, I go to church most Sundays, and I sing some Christian songs. Yeah, it’s a big part of my life.” All that is well and good, but isn’t a personal relationship with Jesus Christ supposed to factor into the equation at all? Or are we just supposed to feel good while the world quite literally goes to Hell?

So, to sum up, I feel that we’ve “sacharrined” Christianity down to the point where the world laughs at our puny attempts to appeal to them, and Christians themselves don’t really care about what they have. If there is not even a whimper of outcry over this film and the state of the Church today, then we’re as good as spiritually dead. It should bother us that we’re getting this treatment, because we well deserve it. We should look to, not only protesting this film (though that’s a good idea), but also reforming what we have become to ensure that this sort of thing does not happen again.

Who’s with me?

May 13, 2004

Chad Harris, whose essay originally appeared at Deux Ego, is a website administrator for CapitalFocus Media LLC, and a freelance web journalist. He currently resides in Belgium with his missionary family. Mr. Harris may be reached for comment here.

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

home

welcome

about dave

on the road

the book box

columns & essays

reading room

contact dave

He Took Your Bullet for You

She was one of those non-descript people you’d never take for a hero. She taught English in a middle school in Jonesboro, Arkansas. But one thing people knew about Shannon Wright was that she loved her children. And one day, when two boys began shooting at their schoolmates, Shannon Wright stepped between the bullets and her students. She literally gave her life for them. And today there is a student who is alive in Jonesboro, Arkansas, because his teacher loved him more than she loved her own life.

Now, how do think that student reacted when he attended her funeral? Do you think he just said, “Well, that’s sorta interesting. I’m real glad she did what she did.” Or, “Let’s take a picture so we can hang it on our wall.”

Of course not! I’ll tell you what happened. There’s a student in Jonesboro, Arkansas, and there’s a mother in Jonesboro, Arkansas, and there’s a daddy in Jonesboro, Arkansas, and when they looked into that casket there was one thought racing through their minds: “Don’t you ever forget the price that was paid so that you could have a today and a tomorrow.”

Friend, Jesus took your bullet for you. Why? Because you are headed for destruction and need a Savior. The Bible says that we have all sinned against God. Jesus said that if we lust, we commit adultery in our heart. He said that if we hate someone, we are guilty of murder. We sin when we fail to put God first in our lives, giving preference instead to people, possessions, and activities. Above all, we make a god in our image by trusting in ourselves, our abilities, our goodness to solve our problems.

But Jesus provided a way for us to be saved. He gave His life so that we could have not only another day but eternal life with Him forever. He took our punishment upon Himself and then rose from the dead, defeating death. The moment we repent of our sins and trust in Him for salvation, God will forgive us and grant us the gift of eternal life.

You may be saying, “Dave, I don’t need a Savior. I can make it on my own.” Oh no you can’t. Look at yourself. You’re not making it on your own now. You can’t make it on your own in time, and you certainly can’t make it on your own in eternity. Repent and trust Jesus Christ as your Savior and Lord today.

Remember, He took your bullet for you. He truly loves you.

If you have any questions, please contact me. I am available to answer any questions you might have.

Sincerely,

Dave Black

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Sacerdotalism Or Every-Member Ministry?

 David Alan Black  

Here’s something to chew on:

One’s understanding of the nature of the church is a test or expression of one’s understanding of Christ and the Bible.

For example, why do we use the terms “minister” and “ministry” synonymously with “pastor” and “pastorate”? Or why do some use “priest” for an official minister when the term in the New Testament is used for any believer?

We must honestly admit that there is in the New Testament not the faintest hint of a clergy-laity distinction. The various gifts of the Holy Spirit were bestowed by Jesus on all His followers for the purpose of building up His church. New Testament ecclesiology can be realized only when the congregation is filled with the Spirit and when each member is exercising his or her spiritual gift.

In Rom. 12:4-8 and 1 Cor. 12:12-31 (key passages – read them!), Paul insists that in the church no class distinction is found. Although there are functional differences, every part of the Body is important; if one part is lacking, the Body cannot function as it should. “The body should work together as a whole with all the members in sympathetic relationship with one another” (1 Cor. 12:23-25 summarized). The immediate effect of Christ’s ascension and exaltation is to make it possible for the individual believer to present his or her body as a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God. The practical effect of such consecration is twofold: All believers are priests by virtue of the fact that they comprise a royal priesthood, and all Christians are truly ministers and servants of God. Every member of the congregation is therefore useful and necessary for the common good.

Thus in the church there can be no sacerdotalism, no apostolic succession, no one-man rule. Here the rigorous volunteerism of the Anabaptists is worth emulating. In Anabaptist thinking, the church is a voluntary association of converted and committed Christians. The “official ministry” is but a representative ministry, and therefore true ecclesiology can only be realized by a congregation in which all the members are exercising their gifts. The apostle Peter writes, “As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God” (1 Pet. 4:6). Any appointed ministry must function within the total framework of the church as the Body of Christ, of which He alone is the Head (Col. 1:18).

But we must not stop there. There are important tasks to be performed. We need courage both intellectually and spiritually to acknowledge in our practice the priesthood of all believers. We need meetings that are more participatory. We are to act, not on the basic of some grandiose plan, but on a point-by-point basis. Contrary to most modern theologians, we do not have to settle for the status quo.

We have been given, by God and through Him, the perennial possibility of starting anew.

January 31, 2010

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

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

home

welcome

about dave

on the road

the book box

columns & essays

reading room

contact dave

Russian Essays

Брак Великого Поручения

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Rumsfeld’s Trial

 David Alan Black 

According to news reports, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is under fire for his “breathtaking arrogance.” Even William Kristol, one of the Iraq war’s most ardent supporters and editor of the neocon Weekly Standard, said no wartime defense secretary had ever “so breezily dodged responsibility and so glibly passed the buck.”

Some people in government are calling for Rumsfeld’s resignation. These include Senator John McCain, who obviously is positioning himself as an opponent of Mr. Bush following the disaster in Iraq. This week McCain said he had “lost confidence” in the Pentagon chief.

And now Rumsfeld is being charged as a war criminal. Earlier this week, lawyers acting for a U.S. advocacy group filed war crimes charges in Germany against several U.S. administration officials – including Rumsfeld, former CIA chief George Tenet, and eight other officials – for their alleged role in torture at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. “German law in this area is leading the world,” Peter Weiss, Vice President of the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, a human rights group, was quoted as saying last Tuesday in the Frankfurter Rundschau.

Don’t expect Rumsfeld to be tried, at least any time soon. No foreign government will ever arrest a U.S. official. In fact, it’s obvious that no one connected to Iraq under President Bush will ever be held accountable for their actions. A 13-page internal investigation submitted one month before the Abu Ghraib story broke stated that torture was being used and was tacitly approved by Washington. Did that make any difference in U.S. policy? Not when the White House thinks it’s OK to use information gained through torture.

Rumsfeld & Co. routinely defend their actions by claiming they are promoting “democracy” throughout the world. This is nothing but globaloney. Put it up there with the “rescue” of Private Lynch, Saddam’s “complicity” in 9/11, his “arsenal” of WMD, etc. Nice try, but it’s not so simple. Remember that our “war on terror” – Guantanamo included – has only succeeded in countless fresh cells of terrorists worldwide.

How many heads have rolled over the brutal disaster that is Iraq today? Not one. Mr. Bush has not held a single person accountable and he will not. Everyone in power is squeaky clean. As the president claimed in his 2003 State of the Union Address, there is “power, wonder-working power, in the goodness and idealism and faith of the American people.”

But that’s not the end of the story.

We poor sinners – all of us – will one day be judged by the Word of God and stand before the bar of Christ. How ridiculous to act as though we might escape the justice of God! Conditions that should put the nation at the mourners’ bench are subjects of wisecracks and ridicule. Our delinquent generation, juvenile and adult, will not get back on track until it hears the One who chastens and rebukes.

Arrogance is not just Rumsfeld’s problem. It is our national sin. A generation that flouts the law and makes sport of justice will meet its match when it comes against the bar of God’s justice. Arrogance is moral leprosy, and to put up with leprosy is to die of leprosy. If, as a nation, we do not deal with the malignancy it will deal with us, and malignancy tolerates nothing.

There’s a lesson to be learned from Secretary Rumsfeld. We cannot break God’s laws. We break ourselves against them. Nor can we pass the buck to others. One day men will call on the rocks and mountains to hide them from the wrath of the Lamb.

Rumsfeld’s trial – and ours – is inevitable. The man who has any doubts about his readiness to die can do nothing better than to start right now by pondering his “day in court,” his appointment with the Almighty.

December 16, 2004

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

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Rules for English Composition

 David Alan Black

During a break from reading my students’ term papers this week, I sat down to peruse the text of the proposed draft constitution of the European Union. Consider this a selfless act of dedication to journalistic inquiry. In 27 years of teaching I have seen some dreadful grammar, but the EU draft matches the worst I’ve ever encountered. I realize the document is meant to be multi-lingual, but in reading it I wondered if the authors had invented a whole new dialect of English.

Not that I have any right to judge. To be honest with you, Dave Black speaking on English composition is a bit like Nero speaking on fire safety. Growing up in Hawaii I remember once asking my High School English teacher, “Why should I study English? I’m not planning on going to England.” What do you expect from a guy whose mother tongue was pidgin?

But back to the EU constitution. I’ll bore you with only two examples of what seems to me to be fairly ludicrous diction:

The Union shall have exclusive competence for the conclusion of an international agreement when its conclusion is provided for in a legislative act of the Union, is necessary to enable the Union to exercise its competence internally, or affects an internal Union act.

Under the principle of subsidiary, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence the Union shall act only if and insofar as the objectives of the intended of the intended action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.

Again, who am I to judge? I’m no expert in English style and diction. Nor am I a linguist or a scholar of the history of language. I have dabbled a bit in Greek linguistics, mostly to try to convince my seminary students that the language of the New Testament has architectural precision. I am wary of prescriptive grammars that set out standards of “correct” and “incorrect” usage. Professional linguists argue—correctly, in my opinion—that many usages censured by self-styled grammarians are in fact perfectly reasonable, whether on historical grounds, logical grounds, or both. If you don’t believe me, just see how we translated John 18:4 in the International Standard Version.

There are several writing guides I recommend to my students. H. W. Fowler’s 700-page volume titled Modern English Usage is perhaps the best. This book includes every conceivable stylistic point, arranged alphabetically, and written in an informal tone. Almost every entry has illustrative quotations from real life. However, Fowler is probably too sophisticated for non-native speakers and rank beginners.

Years ago I assembled a list of 20 “rules for English composition” for my students. These are not original to me (a longer list may be found here), but I do ask my students to follow them punctiliously. I offer them to you for your solemn consideration.

1.      Always avoid alliteration.

2.      Prepositions are not words to end sentences with.

3.      Avoid clichés like the plague.

4.      Eschew ampersands & abbreviations, etc.

5.      It is wrong to ever split an infinitive.

6.      Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are unnecessary.

7.      Foreign words and phrases are hardly apropos.

8.      Never generalize.

9.      Comparisons are as bad as clichés.

10.  Don’t be redundant or use more words than necessary; it’s highly superfluous.

11.  Be more or less specific.

12.  One-word sentences? Eliminate.

13.  The passive voice is to be avoided.

14.  Even if a metaphor sings, it should be derailed.

15.  Who needs rhetorical questions?

16.  Employ the vernacular.

17.  Analogies are like feathers on a snake.

18.  Contractions aren’t proper.

19.  Eliminate quotations; as Emerson once said: “I hate quotations.”

20.  Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement.

These rules are much simpler than those found in Fowler. I tell my students to read them daily and perhaps even keep a copy under their pillow. One never knows when one might need to be able to write English good.

May 28, 2003

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

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

The Rule of Paul

 David Alan Black  

Church meetings today tend to be somewhat monolingual. By contrast, the early church seemed to welcome participation by all. This becomes clear when we read 1 Corinthians 12-14. The power of Christ’s upside-down kingdom lies in the corporate and community life of its citizens.

Interestingly, this notion of mutual participation, this dialogical liberty, was described by Zwingli as “the rule of Paul,” even though it never became a part of the national church in Switzerland. It would be up to Zwingli’s erstwhile disciples, the Anabaptists, to flesh it out. In other words, the Zwinglians and the Anabaptists did not answer the same question differently. They asked different questions. And the key was the question of biblical authority rather than adherence to different theological traditions.

I think it would be helpful to recall this “rule of Paul” whenever we read and study Paul’s Corinthian Correspondence. Clearly, highly participatory meetings were not what the Magisterial Reformers intended when they argued for the perspicuity of Scripture and the priesthood of all believers. As a result, the “radicals” of the Reformation were driven into isolation. Certainly, today there is a need for such radical Christianity — the term “radical” referring not to specific societal issues but to the degree of thoroughness with which one attempts to implement reform. In a more communal and less monolingual context (such as is practiced byMessiah Baptist Church in Wake Forest, NC), we have a sign of those fresh wineskins Jesus spoke about.

This task of rebuilding the church is an urgent mandate for our generation. Are we willing to embrace a community in which kingdom citizens can participate as the Spirit leads them? Or are we using our positions of authority to perpetuate inequity? Are we building pyramids of power that Jesus cannot bless because His kingdom is flat? Do we allow edification to gravitate to the hands of a few? Do we work hard to decentralize ministry as much as possible? These questions cut to the core of our identity as followers of Jesus. His way unnerved the religious authorities of His day, and it will do the same thing today. His life and message assaulted the status quo. Likewise, Paul’s appeal to every-member ministry offers an alternative model of community. Paul isn’t just teaching church polity. He’s unpacking bigger things. He asks us to remove the handcuffs that limit service to paid professionals. He invites kingdom citizens to become blind to status differences. He teaches that pastors are not to monopolize ministry but to equip others for works of service. He urges us to see others as more important than ourselves.

There can be no misunderstanding here. Paul turns our notions of “doing church” on their head. He defangs the clamor for status that drives so many of us. He replaces ladders of power and prestige with towels and basins. We need to grapple with these issues — even seminary professors whom “Joe Student” is very careful to address by their titles. Let’s face it — pecking orders are deeply embedded in every area of our Christian experience.

Ought this to be? If not, why not?

May 19, 2011

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

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Roots: Ethiopia Church Version

 Becky Lynn Black  

The year is 1951. The place is “Gembo,” where the beginnings of a mission station are being established. The woman is Theresa Fellows. The record is called “Burji Log Book.” And in that book we find some old-fashioned typing, done by Theresa, that tells the story of the how the Gospel first came to Burji, Ethiopia.

If it were not for Theresa’s notes, the details of this explosion of Truth would have been lost. She tells of her husband, Alex Fellows, trekking from village to village with an Ethiopian evangelist from the Woyetta section of Ethiopia. As they trek, they stop at any place that has signs of human life. And they tell the story of Jesus, the Savior who had come to remove the chains of the Evil Spirits, to break the power of the Witch Doctor, to set the people free from the life of fear that had plagued them for centuries.

Today many in the USA of African descent are wanting to return to the “African religion.” They don’t know what they are talking about. The “African religion” is animism….the worship of evil spirits that reside in trees, rocks, or people. These evil spirits play havoc with the human mind and emotions. Curses and omens abound. Uncertainty, fear, dread, bondage hound the person who wants only peace for his soul.

I grew up in the midst of those who practiced “African religion.” I know first-hand the horror of such a religion. I’ve watched as twins are set out for the hyenas to eat because of the bad omen that they represented. I’ve seen persons possessed of evil spirits, as they turn mad  and live as animals. I’ve seen men and women in desperation do anything the Witch Doctor tells them in order to get peace and safety for their children.

It is a horrible religion, full of darkness and terror. From Theresa’s notes in the Burji Log Book:

July 3.

Demon possessed man came. Next day ran off with a clinic boy. Two days later he came back again and paced around our house for 4 hours. He had broken prison chains and escaped. After several more visits from we saw him no more. Next thing, several months later, they went by here taking him to the cemetery to bury him. Another lost soul? Were we too late?

And this religion reigned supreme in Burji until Alex and Theresa came with the Woyetta evangelist. Then the light of the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ shown in the darkness of the native religion. The Spirit of God moved in the hearts of those who heard the good news, and they embraced the freedom Jesus offers.

On January 21, 1951, the first one to believe was a man named Sego. He has since passed to Heaven to meet his Savior face to face. 

Jan. 21.

First believer, Sego brought to the Lord by the evangelists. Praise the Lord!

Six days later, the second one to believe came to Christ, a young man named Ware (“War-eh”).  He is now about 85 years old. He is still living in Koro village, in the mountains of Burji. He walks slowly, using a walking stick. His eyes are becoming dim. As an evidence of God’s grace to us, he traveled down from his village to meet with us in Soyama Town.

He radiated the settled peace of a saint who has walked with the Lord a long time. We had made a copy of the Burji Log Book for him.  He squinted at the picture of the first converts…he was the 4th from the left.

While Sego and Ware were learning of the Savior, a young man was living a wild life. He was from the Amaro tribe, which neighbored Burji on the other side of the Burji Mountains. This young man would fight others without reason. He delighted to burn homes and crops. In fact, he would catch rats, tie a piece of cloth to their tail, light it on fire, and then release the rat near someone’s home. He sat back in delight as the fire spread wherever the rat went.

One day this young man was sitting in his hut in Susay village. He was 20 years old and single.  In the Ethiopian calendar, it was 1942…that would be 1951 in our calendar. God saw him in that hut. God knew his life of destruction. And God loved him.  So much so that He sent Alex Fellows and the Woyetta evangelist right to his door! They shared the story of Jesus with this young man, and immediately he embraced the Gospel. His life was radically changed…from the inside out. He began to read the Bible. He traveled over the mountains to attend Bible School at the mission station.

And today Olka still travels all over the Amaro and Burji areas speaking of the Lord Jesus. He came to Soyama Town and waited 8 days for me to arrive. He drew a map of all the churches that are now established in Amaro; these are the same churches where my father trekked on mule to help establish church-schools.

Olka is a fireball for the Lord! Although in his 80s and suffering from what appeared to be congestive heart failure, he keeps on going. Give him half a minute, and he has a word of encouragement, correction or teaching from the Scriptures. Psalm 119:9-16, John 3:16-18, Hebrews 11:6 are some of his favorite Bible passages. Does he have a message for his brothers and sisters in America? “Please pray that they will expand the Gospel.”

We met with many other “old-timers.” These first believers in the Gospel are precious…they are hidden treasures in Burji. Imagine living in a culture that had never heard the name of Jesus, a culture full of wickedness and fear. Then suddenly the Light of Jesus comes from outside visitors. Lives are changed dramatically. Joy replaces fear, Love replaces anger, Goodness replaces Evil. 

As I think of these precious ones, my mind goes to Ephesians 5:14-17. “Wake up! Live wisely! Don’t be a fool! Redeem the time! The days are evil. Don’t be a fool, but live with an understanding of the will of the Lord for your life!”

And what is that will? To represent the Gospel of Jesus Christ in word and deed to a generation of people that are living in fear, in wickedness, in bondage. I thank God for Alex and Theresa Fellows, and for the Woyetta evangelists who traveled with them. They lived wisely. They redeemed the time. They lived understanding the Lord’s will for their lives. And because of them, the Gospel came to Burji.

The question remains….to whom is the Gospel coming because of the way that I live? Or because of the way that you live?

April 29, 2010

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Ron Reagan’s Stem Cell Utopia

Bob Strodtbeck

Ron Reagan, son of the late former president, addressed the nation during the Democrat National Convention Tuesday, July 27, with a plea of voter support for candidates who would support public funding for stem cell research.

Speculations that such investigations could lead to cures for illnesses like Alzheimer’s Disease, which claimed the life of former President Reagan, has fueled his son’s passion for developing this new branch of biomedical technology. It is reasonable to understand the younger Reagan’s devotion to the new technology when the decade-long experience of witnessing his once vigorous father waste away with his chronic illness is taken into consideration.

The decision as to whether new biomedical technologies are developed should not be left to the guidance of passions or emotionally wrenching anecdotes, however. It is incumbent upon this generation to search for the wisdom that can foresee the possible consequences of using and abusing the new technology.

Any such investigation demands that the proper terms and definitions are employed. In Mr. Reagan’s notable and influential speech he said, “Let me try and paint as simple a picture as I can while still doing justice to the science, the incredible science involved.” The proper word to have used in this passage is technology. Making this distinction is not a trivial game in semantics, because those who oppose developing stem cell medical treatments can do so for very scientific reasons. In fact, any moral limits that a community places upon itself are most sound if they are can be validated scientifically.

That is because science is nothing but a process to acquire knowledge, not an institutionalized body of intellectuals or achievements. The scientific process that has helped Western Civilization (once known as Christendom) to advance well beyond its eastern and Arab counterparts is based upon observations, conjecturing (or hypothesizing), as to the cause of the observation, and then setting up a method of experimentation (or theory), to test the conjectures. A simple scientific validation of a moral limit is the dramatically reduced incidence of sexually transmitted diseases among people who do not commit adultery.

Engaging the scientific process to investigate the ethical challenges that can come with stem cell research can begin with examining the source of propagating the stem cells. According to Reagan, those stem cells are a combination of a few cells from a patient seeking stem cell therapy that are then, “placed into a donor egg whose own nucleus has been removed.”

A reasonable question is what is the source of the donor eggs? A reasonable answer is women. It only makes sense, then, to ponder what women? It is a biological fact that each woman produces a certain amount of ovum in her life. Each menstrual cycle brings a woman closer to the end of her fertility. If she has her ovum surgically removed for the sake of providing medical treatments, she further reduces her ability to conceive.

Looking into this truth is not merely an effort to induce women to consider the potential sorrow that can come from the decision to offer ovum to the advancement of medical technology. It is more offered for the sake of considering some of the questions that social scientific history should inspire such as if there have ever been cases that people groups have been targeted for elimination? Wouldn’t limiting the ability of women to procreate help to eliminate various people groups? Can such efforts arise in a modern world of tolerance and sophistication?

These questions do not even begin to contemplate the potential horror that can come with injecting an already infirmed patient with a self-replicating life form that grows beyond its intended purpose. Nor is there consideration given here for who would be able to access such a treatment that would no doubt be very costly – this economic reality, of course, could greatly impact questions regarding the potential use of stem cell technology for the benefit of an elite few at the procreative detriment of common masses.

Certainly, the new technology is going to be developed whether in this country or elsewhere in the world. The challenge is not to enter a race to develop a new technology, but to possess the courage to see how accepting the new technology can concentrate wealth and power to consequently erode justice for all.

Although Mr. Reagan painted a very attractive picture as he carried his audience to a euphoric promise, “Welcome to the future of medicine,” it was, nevertheless, a utopian vision, and utopian visions are often pursued by people who, in Reagan’s words, “are just grinding a political axe.”

August 3, 2004

Since 1993 Bob Strodtbeck has been writing commentaries for The Apopka Chief, a news weekly circulated in a community ten miles north of Orlando. His analyses investigate a wide range of topics from what he calls a “Christian pragmatic” view – that is to say, he considers that human interactions are largely driven by the human instinct toward self-service, which is traditionally known as sin. This perspective has given Bob great liberty to criticize governmental officials from both parties upon the standards of constitutional laws they swear to uphold and review cultural and economic phenomena from moral standards defined in the Bible. Bob currently lives in Orlando with his bride Pam and children Charlotte and Richard. He may be reached for comment here.

Back to daveblackonline