Dave Black – Page 66 – Dave Black Online

Ron Paul Is Right

Post author:Dave Black
Post published:
Post comments:0 Comments

restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Ron Paul Is Right

The memory of utopian liberal humanists is always conveniently short.

The theory was that Iraq would be a cakewalk. The actual outworking in history? But still the nation does not draw the obvious conclusion: that we must abandon this brutal anti-God, humanistic New World Order philosophy. No way. Lets stay the course, whatever the cost. Like night follows day, so now Iran will follow Iraq. Imperialism is embedded in our midst.

The scenario is already well known. In response to Irans nuclear threat, the president will decide to orchestrate regime change inside that nation, thus ending its alleged links to al-Qaeda. By toppling the mullahs regime, the neoconservatives in power can replace it with a new order that is more sensitive to Western security concerns.

And what will our meddling produce? Wars and rumors of war, what else? As Republican Ron Paul of Texas said on the floor of Congress:

I find it incomprehensible that as the failure of our Iraq policy becomes more evident even to its most determined advocates we here are approving the same kind of policy toward Iran. With Iraq becoming more of a problem daily, the solution as envisioned by this legislation is to look for yet another fight. And we should not fool ourselves: this legislation sets the stage for direct conflict with Iran. The resolution calls upon all State Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), including the United States, to use all appropriate means to deter, dissuade, and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons… Note the phrase …use all appropriate means….

Additionally, this legislation calls for yet more and stricter sanctions on Iran, including a demand that other countries also impose sanctions on Iran. As we know, sanctions are unmistakably a move toward war, particularly when, as in this legislation, a demand is made that the other nations of the world similarly isolate and blockade the country. Those who wish for a regime change in Iran should especially reject sanctions just look at how our Cuba policy has allowed Fidel Castro to maintain his hold on power for decades. Sanctions do not hurt political leaders, as we know most recently from our sanctions against Iraq, but rather sow misery among the poorest and most vulnerable segments of society. Dictators do not go hungry when sanctions are imposed.

It is somewhat ironic that we are again meddling in Iranian affairs. Students of history will recall that the US government’s ill-advised coup against Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 and its subsequent installation of the Shah as the supreme ruler led to intense hatred of the United States and eventually to the radical Islamic revolution of 1979. One can only wonder what our relations would be with Iran if not for the decades of meddling in that country’s internal affairs. We likely would not be considering resolutions such as this. Yet the solution to all the difficulties created by our meddling foreign policy always seems to always be yet more meddling. Will Congress ever learn?

As usual, Ron Paul is right. His words should be believed by every instructed Christian. It remains for us to think on them and pray over them until they begin to burn within us.

August 31, 2004

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

Back to daveblackonline

Ron Paul and Republican Politics

Post author:Dave Black
Post published:
Post comments:0 Comments

restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Ron Paul and Republican Politics

David Alan Black

As everyone knows, the term republican in Republican Party is a misnomer. The Republican Party is only nominally republican. The actual support it gives to republican ideals is illusory. In matters pertaining to foreign policy, economics, and personal liberty, it scarcely differs from the Democratic Party.

Ironically enough, it is the Republican Partys identification with the warfare-welfare state, so often in the past a source of embarrassment and despair to its best servants, that provides its only remaining strength. This connection is unlikely to be broken in the near future, even if Ron Paul should ascend to the White House. A moribund Congress and an even more dependent civil population cling together, each one knowing it will collapse if it loses control of the other. One thinks of a group of drunkards holding on to each other, swaying back and forth, barely managing to remain upright. Alone, each would invariably fall into the gutter.

It is natural enough, I suppose, for Republicans to concentrate on their social, and ignore their constitutional, responsibilities. They are merely reflecting the spirit of the age, the illusory notion that a better world can be constructed out of our man-made Gardens of Eden. After all, in a materialistic and progressive society, one can hardly expect the upholders of Big Government to take their marching orders from a document as ancient as the Constitution.

I increasingly see in the current race for the White House a futile battle over fundamentals. I say futile only because a civilization with such vast resources of wealth and knowledge is hardly likely to wake up one day and admit that the utopia it aspires to is a hopelessly impossible dream. The pursuit of happiness is, for us Americans, but a grand exercise in narcissism a wonderful dream indeed, but one hardly attainable apart from the cross. I have never met anyone who attained happiness from their bank accounts or physical beauty or worldly accomplishments or even their political successes.

Let me try to tell you, as simply as I can, what the Ron Paul Revolution means to me. If, by some miracle, Mr. Paul were to become our next president, it would not affect my spiritual equilibrium at all. Please do not misunderstand me. I entirely agree that the Paul campaign is a very good thing for America. If a nation is to be governed, somebody has to accept that responsibility, and I would much rather that person be a true republican than a republican-in-name-only.

I would go further and say this that I think the grassroots movement inspired by Ron Paul has the potential for significantly reshaping the future of American politics for the good, not just for Americans but for the people of the entire world. I know as well as others that no man is more worthy of the title Mr. Constitution than Ron Paul that Dr. No is really, in a paradoxical sense, Dr. Yes, for he is, so to speak, above all a man willing to acknowledge, affirm, and adhere to our nations founding principles.

Yet having said this, and firmly believing it, I think Mr. Paul would be the first to tell us that the Revolution is not about him, nor do I gather from his writings that his sense of personal worth or happiness is tied up very much in his politics. As people have often said, the fact that so few of his views will ever catch on doesnt deter him one bit.

Thus, win or lose, the Ron Paul Revolution is already a success. Years from now I think we will look back on this time in our history with gratitude at having been allowed to catch a glimpse of Lady Liberty, her torch shining like a beacon, lighting up the nation and making it glow with a great reflected glory. Already the younger and marginal members of the Republican Party are clamoring for change, while the older and more satisfied members prefer to maintain the existing course. Those who are at home in the Party are inevitably tempted to look upon reform as a species of rebellion. Certainly, true reform will be costly to the Party. At every level, people will tend to shy away from the demands of the Revolution, to muzzle its prophetic impact, to take refuge in the established order. Mr. Paul himself will be accused of too quick and easy answers.

I doubt that any of this matters very much to Ron Paul. This is because I am convinced that he truly grasps the triviality of our utopian achievements and understands how foolish man is when he sees in himself the likeness of God.

So let the revolution in Republican politics go on. It is a good work. Its leaders and followers alike are entitled to say, as did John Stuart Mill, My love for an institution is in proportion to my desire to reform it. But slavish imitation of the past will not suffice for genuine renewal.

November 10, 2007

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

Back to daveblackonline

Ron Paul

Post author:Dave Black
Post published:
Post comments:0 Comments

restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Ron Pauls Isolationism

David Alan Black

The Republican primaries are now in their opening stages of ebullition. It is gratifying to know that it is no longer a question of the lesser of two evils, as a really great American is in the race, and to stay, while others are beginning to drop like flies.

Meanwhile, the whole dreadful business of war grinds on, producing exactly the kind of political, economic, and moral results predicted by Ron Paul in 2003. The funniest feature of the primaries will no doubt be the people who try to make Paul look like a silly isolationist, which, of course, he is not. They will couch their attack in the flag, but the ploy will not work thank God for the Internet! Im glad that the good Congressman is flourishing to the extent he is. Its good for the nation, and its good for the principle of constitutional government. Still, I am always appalled when I hear people who ought to know better prattling away of isolationism and pacifism and the like, when in fact the beast has quite a different nature.

The truth is that Ron Paul is a rational, humble, and utterly civilized statesman. He realizes that Americas greatest aspirations are embodied in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. He alone among the Republican candidates advocates détente with Iran and an end to mindless intervention into the affairs of other nations. Ever vigilant against freedom-constricting pressures, he is fearless in challenging demagogues and exposing political salesmanship. While George W. Bush frightens the American people with baseless epithets and impugns the loyalty of patriots who oppose the ill-conceived and ill-executed Iraq War, Ron Paul insists on focusing attention on the truth about our economy and foreign policy, however distasteful. In short, Ron Paul is attempting to alter the very course of American democracy and to move the United States from a position of unfettered, unilateral power toward a foreign policy based on a scrupulous concern for internal peace and national sovereignty. If this is isolationism, then so be it!

On a recent trip to Eastern Europe and Central Asia, I was asked repeatedly why Americans are so anti-democratic, so uncritical in their attitudes toward American militarism and hegemony. They ask: How is it that the United States, Christian America, could perpetrate the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, of Dresden and Fallujah? Incidentally, I am not making claims about being immune from self-deceit. Jesus taught that there was no sin like that of thinking one is not a sinner as other men are, no crime like arrogating moral superiority over other men to yourself. Yet isnt this exactly what our nation has done? We elect Woodrow Wilson because he kept us out of war, and then we follow him into the war to end war. (Substitute Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Bush for Wilson and you will see that, a century later, we are still engaged in issues thought to be settled in 1916.)

The problem is not one simply for social conservatives. Salutes and pledges to the flag are now ubiquitous, and even places of Christian worship put the national flag near altar or pulpit. Evangelical Christians who oppose the war are not only labeled pro-Iraq but un-American. The pejorative pacifist is sometimes tacked on for good measure a term of opprobrium which, of course, misrepresents their position. A pacifist is not an ostrich that ignores evil. He examines the evil and inquires as to the best way to deal with it. As with Jesus and the apostle Paul, he answers that the worst possible way of dealing with one evil is to do another evil. When we as a nation threaten other nations, we do not make them less aggressive; we merely stimulate them to add to their own arsenals. One nation gets a nuclear warhead, not to do anyone harm, of course, but as a precaution against attack. The nation to which the warhead is pointed, however, feels defenseless and thus acquires its own warhead, and so it goes.

I do not mean to suggest that the situation is simple, nor do I approve of or condone every act of protest against the war. Nevertheless, the Ron Paul Revolution has a vitally important role to play in the current debate over the war, and there is now a genuine opportunity for a significant shift in U.S. policy in Iraq. For the U.S. to recognize that its interventionism is at an end would not only save American lives but would be a much more efficacious way to stop terrorism than the policy we are now pursuing. This is not to deny the problem of civil war that might be resorted to by the factions in Iraq, but to insist that if we are fighting for self-determination for the Iraqi people, it is senseless to impose on them democracy. The Iraqis must be able to determine their own future, whatever it may be, without interference from foreign troops.

Meanwhile, the hostility that Mr. Paul evokes among many church people is piercingly clear evidence of the extent to which Orwells Nineteen Eight-Four has come true. But Ron Paul can handle all this and a great deal more. He is an excellent toreador, and tosses his constitutional darts where they have the greatest effect.

You ask: Will it make a difference? I dont know. But I doubt that America can give Nemesis the slip forever.

December 24, 2007

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

Back to daveblackonline

Ron Paul

Post author:Dave Black
Post published:
Post comments:0 Comments

restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Ron Paul: Rekindling Liberty

David Alan Black

How great a forest is set ablaze by a small fire. James 3:5

A great deal of thought has been given of late to the problem of how to turn our nation around. And youve probably noticed that an obscure Congressman from Texas claims to know what is missing.

How does one explain the wildfire of liberty being stirred up by Ron Paul?

For one thing, he has a first-class brain. He has already established himself as a leader of opinion such as the U.S. greatly needs. He tells us what the obstacles are to a sensible policy being pursued by government, and shows us how we can overcome them.

Read him and you will see that he is not unduly an alarmist. While he speaks of a threatening collapse of our economic order, he also offers good reasons why it need not be inevitable. His message is simple.

Individual liberty is not really a bizarre idea after all.
No longer need money be sucked out of our paychecks and poured into the pockets of others.
The dollar need no longer be a sick international joke.
Economic wealth and political liberty are inextricably interwoven.

Ron Paul knows that government cannot cure the ills of mankind. He actually believes that the federal government cannot continue to print money hand over fist to help finance its expenditures. The government can pay off our folly for a time, but this will only continue to debase our currency until we finally have financial collapse.

I could go on and on, but you get the idea. (If you dont, click here.) My own feeling is that Pauls opponents are just plain jealous of his intellect. He has a rare sense of economic direction because he is himself a kind of magnet. Above all, he is never egotizing or parvanimous. And that says a lot in todays political culture.

I do not demand a new face in Washington. A secondhand one in good working condition will do.

November 27, 2007

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

Back to daveblackonline

Ron Paul

Post author:Dave Black
Post published:
Post comments:0 Comments

restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Ron Pauls Slam Dunk Foreign Policy

David Alan Black

Isnt the Internet something else? I dont watch TV, but even so, I could still watch Jay Leno interviewing Republican Congressman Ron Paul on the Tonight Show. (In case you missed it, heres the transcript.)

And what an interview it was. I heard nothing of the typical Republican Manichean view that divides the world into us and them, good and evil, black and white, and American and other. Just a simple, sound foreign policy. When it comes to the threat of U.S. hegemony, Paul isnt afraid to sound unpatriotic, even left-leaning, though, as he reminded everyone, it wasnt all that long ago that our president was talking about a non-interventionist, humble foreign policy. Kudos for Paul.

At the risk of stating the obvious, Ron Pauls views on foreign policy are breathtakingly fresh, American (in the George Washington sense of the word), and dare I day it? sensible. While George W. Bush has been squandering our post-9/11 national unity and the good will of the world, Paul keeps reminding us that politics is all about liberty, the Constitution, and true patriotism. He has tirelessly reminded us that the U.S. effort from 1991 on has been one long war with no end in sight, and that when a nation goes to war for faulty reasons it undermines all the actions that follow. Far from maintaining a single-minded focus on bin Laden and al Qaeda, our national policy has created training grounds for new generations of jihadists. As Alex Potter recently put it, Im not going to even talk about the Republican candidates, besides Ron Paul, because they are all unabashedly for continuing the failed policy of trying to shape the Middle East to our whims, whether it is in Iran, Iraq, Israel or Saudi Arabia. Vote for any of those candidates if you want decades of military presence in Iraq at the cost of trillions of dollars, thousands more lives, more anti-American sentiment that leads to extremism and possibly an even wider regional war.

Ron Paul, for one, is not afraid to tell us the bitter truth about all this, without belittling his critics or minimizing the problems that his fellow Republicans have helped create. The U.S has lost the moral high ground in the Middle East, he says, and all but the blindest supporters of the current administration understand how bad the situation is. Our nations arrogance and incompetence have proven poisonous beyond measure for our foreign policy. That seems to be the message Im getting from the Paul campaign, and boy do I think theyre right.

Itll be interesting to see how the race for the Republican nomination turns out next year now that Paul is no longer being ignored with a collective shrug, even by the mainstream media. Meanwhile, Ill take watching Globetrotter Paul dribble behind his back, slam duck, and toss alley-oops to the American people over watching Giuliani and the Washington Generals trip all over each other.

November 2, 2007

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

Back to daveblackonline

Ron Paul

Post author:Dave Black
Post published:
Post comments:0 Comments

restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Ron Paul: Our Next President?

David Alan Black

We are living in a day when those in high places seem to put far more value on political expediency than they do on fundamentals. In recent years we have witnessed federal departments and agencies encroaching on the Bill of Rights to advance political policies to a degree matched only by that of the Lincolnian era. The United States has converted itself into an international Santa Claus who scatters untold billions of dollars of the patrimony of our people among multitudes of foreign nations in the pious hope that America can thereby purchase friends and peace in the international world and induce foreign nations to reform their internal affairs in ways pleasing to the dispensers of our largess.

It is my conviction that the time has come for a new kind of leader in America. If I had my way, what would our next president be like?

He would be a man of devotion to good government, which by definition is limited constitutional government, and to the freedoms of individuals as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and secured to them by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

He would be a man who unquestioningly supports the Constitutiona document that William Gladstone once described as the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of manwhich protects all American citizens from tyranny on the one hand and anarchy on the other.

He would be a man who recognizes that a government that is not a government of laws is a despotism; that occupants of public offices love power and are prone to abuse it; and that the Founders desired above all else to secure to the people in a written Constitution every right that they had wrested from autocratic rulers while they were struggling for the right of self-rule and freedom.

He would be a man who recognizes that rights come from God Himself and are therefore unalienable, i.e., they cannot be taken away; that the possession of these rights is absolutely necessary for a free society; and that violation of these rights by government is nothing less than tyranny.

He would be a man who understands that the supreme duty of government as envisioned by our Founding Fathers is to defend the Constitution and to oppose all enactments that violate the supreme law of the land; that it is therefore improper to approve funds for any federal agency, program, or activity that is not specifically authorized by the Constitution; and that it is time to reduce the size of the federal government by abolishing or returning to the states all departments, agencies, or programs lacking constitutionally-granted authority.

He would be a man who believes that the pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in Gods image and that the first duty of the law is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood.

He would be a man who understands that it is not the proper role of government to take money from one wage earner and transfer that wealth to another.

He would be a man who understands that all teaching is related to basic assumptions about God and man; that education cannot be separated from religious faith; that Gods law assigns the authority and responsibility of educating children to their parents; and that education should therefore be free from all federal government subsidies, including vouchers, tax incentives, and loans.

He would be a man who understands that the right to keep and bear arms is inherent in the right of self defense conferred on the individual and the community by God to safeguard life, liberty, and property; that this right is guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution; and that it may not properly be infringed upon or denied.

He would be a man who recognizes that the Constitution speaks with finality, and that the oath of Supreme Court Justices to support it is worse than mockery if they do not discharge their duties agreeably to the Constitution.

He would be a man who recognizes that the most serious threat to good government and freedom in America is not posed by evil-minded men and women but by legislative and judicial activists who are bent on remaking America in the image of their own New World thinking.

He would be a man who teaches that earth yields nothing to man except the products of his own labor, and that free men cannot be induced to provide goods or services of value unless they are allowed to retain a fair share of the fruits of their labor for themselves, their families, and the causes they hold dear.

He would be a man who believes in a strong national defense but who will never sacrifice freedom or violate the Constitution for so-called security.

He would be a man who recognizes that only Congress has the constitutional authority to declare war.

He would be a man whose predominant characteristics are his personal integrity and humility.

He would be a man who remembers the injunction of Exodus 23:2: Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.

Two centuries ago, George Washington was the inevitable and unchallenged choice for president of the newly founded republic. He did not seek the office and was reluctant to accept it. He was uncertain of his ability to discharge the duties that would devolve upon him and was more than ready to retire to his beloved Mount Vernon after the exertions of the Revolutionary War. But the unanimous call of his countrymen was hardly less than a command to a man of his character and love of country.

Whether a new George Washington awaits us beyond the stormy horizon I cannot tell. Time will tell if America will ever decide to return to her roots. But I fervently hope and pray that she does.

Meantime, I have concluded that no current politician comes closer to my ideal of a good president than Mr. Constitution himself, Ron Paul. If you havent yet considered his credentials, you can start here.

November 1, 2007

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

Back to daveblackonline

Romans 13 in Context

Post author:Dave Black
Post published:
Post comments:0 Comments

restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Romans 13 in Context

David Alan Black

Recently I received the following email from a DBO reader. It raises some very pertinent questions about the Christians relation to the state, and especially about the meaning of Romans 13.

Dear professor Black,

Your essays are fascinating and they resonate with my own opinions.

I am a Christian of the Reformed Baptist persuasion. I hold to the Scriptures alone, Lord willing to the best of my ability.

I have been struggling with some theological issues concerning the relationship between church and state for a long time now.

I hear some people saying that this nation was founded on Christian principles. I hear others saying that that is not true.

Could you answer a question or two for me?

How can I prove from the Bible that liberty of the sort spoken of by many patriotic Americans, including Thomas Jefferson (who was no Christian!) is a God-given right?

And if it can be shown from the Scriptures, then what forms the essence of this freedom?

If, as Dabney says, Government is not the creator but the creature of human society, isnt he denying its God-given authority? If government is not the master, but a servant, of, by, and for the people, how am I to understand Paul’s meaning in Romans 13?

When does government become illegitimate in Gods eyes? Christ submitted to death on a cross. He paid taxes. And yet, clearly governments sin against God, to the detriment of men. Is there an illegitimacy of government in Gods eyes that rests on something other than preventing personal obedience to the 10 commandments out of conscience to God?

Perhaps you could recommend some good books on the relationship between church and state. I have found only Martyn Lloyd-Jones commentary on Romans 13 to be helpful so far.

Regards and may the Lord bless,

Mark S.

Here is a brief response:

Dear Mark:

I agree with you that there is a great deal of confusion about the Christians attitude toward the state. According to the limited insight God has given me, permit me to say a few things in response to your excellent questions.

I believe we may dismiss from the outset any thought of a servile, uncritical attitude toward the state. I stress this because so many Christians today believe they are to give unquestioning obedience to the state. Such an attitude is based on a faulty misinterpretation of Romans 13:1: Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God (please read vv. 2-7 also). Statists are accustomed to appeal to this text as if it supported an unconditional and uncritical subjection to any and every demand of the state. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The immediate context shows that Pauls point is something quite different. He is at pains to show that the state performs properly what is forbidden to the individual Christian: it takes vengeance on the one who does evil (see verse 4). Christians, on the contrary, must never repay evil for evil (12:17), and therefore they are not to oppose this legitimate function of the state but are to submit to it. God alone may take vengeance, and it is the sword of the state that he uses for this purpose. Essentially, Paul is teaching the same thing that Jesus taught: Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars, and unto God the things that are Gods. Jesus assumes that the existence of the state is willed of God even the existence of the pagan Roman Empire. But the disciple of Jesus is not allowed to give to the state what is Gods. Whenever the state makes an illegitimate claim to what is Gods it has transgressed its limits; and the Christian will not render to the state what is unjustly required of him.

The state is often confused with the kingdom of God. Indeed, many Christians are guilty of this false association. The state is a temporary institution (see 13:11). It will pass away, whereas the kingdom is eternal. Therefore, as long as the present age exists, Christians need not oppose the institution of the state as such. Rather they are to give the state what it needs to exist (e.g., taxes) and submit to its right to bear the sword. This is the plain meaning of Romans 13.

Keep in mind that while the state is ordained of God, it is not by nature a divine institution nor are its principles equally valid to those pertaining to the kingdom. Elsewhere Paul uses the term rulers of this Death in the Arena world (1 Cor. 2:8) to refer to earthly political leaders. The state in which they rule is willed by God and hence Christians have to affirm the state as an institution. But, as Paul says in another passage, Christians are not to allow their controversies to be judged by the state because Christians themselves will one day sit in judgment over the very powers that now stand invisible behind the state (see 1 Cor. 6:1 ff.). So there is no question of Christians obeying the state at any point where it demands what is Gods. For Paul at least, this meant that no Christian could say Caesar is Lord or Let Jesus be accursed, even though such confessions might be demanded by the Roman state. The state that deifies or absolutizes itself has freed itself from its proper constraints as the servant of God and has, in fact, become satanic.

Inasmuch as the state remains within its proper limits, the Christian will acknowledge it as the servant of God. But inasmuch as the state transgresses its limits, it is to be considered the instrument of Satan. But even when the state functions properly as Gods servant, the genuine state for the Christian his politeuma (the Greek word Paul uses in Phil. 3:20) is in heaven. (On the concept of our Christian citizenship, please see my essay, The Christian as Citizen.)

And so the Christian gladly acknowledges the place of the state in Gods earthly economy, but he also knows the states place within the divine order. For that reason he will see his task regarding the state as one of watching to see that at no point does the state fall away from the divine order.

Thus I am forced to conclude that, far from teaching that the state is to be accepted uncritically in all that it does, Pauls discussion in Romans 13 serves as a warning against the state exceeding its limits. How this works itself out in daily life is, of course, another topic and one I hope to address in a book that I am currently writing entitled Unleashing the Church.

Thank you again for writing, and my very best wishes and warmest regards,

Dave

January 7, 2005

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

The Role of Humanitarian Aid in Building the Kingdom

Post author:Dave Black
Post published:
Post comments:0 Comments

restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

The Role of Humanitarian Aid in Building the Kingdom: A Study of John 6

Becky Lynn Black

One of the most effective tools of the Evil One is the tool of substituting the good thing for the core thing. And as he breeds confusion about priorities within the Lords church, a splintering of the church occurs. The resultant handicap in effective Gospel witness, no doubt, brings great delight to the one who is determined to destroy the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus.

The substitutions of which I speak are placed gradually, unconsciously. They are often imposed by cultural demands, by current philosophical bents, by shifts in personal gratifications, even by political expediency. So it behooves us to return frequently to the Scriptures, to look at the Saviour, to study His life and teachings, as well as the Apostles, and to evaluate our lives and ministries in light of our Lord Jesus.

In this article, let us look at the role of humanitarian aid in building the Kingdom of our Lord. And we will focus on Jesus evaluation of the spiritual effectiveness of humanitarian aid.

First, let us define the Kingdom. My personal definition is this:

The Kingdom is composed of those people who are characterized by two things: First, they have heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ and have embraced the salvation it offers. Second, they have been taught the teachings of Jesus as Lord and have a heart of willing obedience to those teachings (Matt. 28:19-).

So the Kingdom is not the development of a religious organization, with its hierarchy of authority. The Kingdom is not in any way related to financial markers, budget, and cash flows. The Kingdom is not a listing of projects. The Kingdom cannot be measured in terms of hands raised, aisles walked, or donations made. Its members are not rated by educational degrees attained, rankings obtained, or memberships granted.

The Kingdom is a spiritual, hidden, unseen thing. But it is not an exclusively spiritual, hidden, unseen thing.

Jesus said the Kingdom is within us. He did not mean that we have within us any spiritual life of our own, that somehow we must reach for that life and fan its embers into full expression. No, Scripture is clear that in us dwells no good thing, that we are spiritually dead apart from Jesus. Rather, He meant that the Spirit of the Living God is within each believer, and that Spirit is working out the Kingdom on a personal level as Time marches toward the return of the King. So although the Kingdom is purely spiritual, its evidence is clearly seen, and so it is not exclusively spiritual.

In trying to explain the Kingdom to Nicodemus, a very educated man, Jesus compared the Spirit to the wind. We cannot have wind without the movement of tree leaves; it is impossible. But just because we have the movement of tree leaves does not mean we have wind. Many things can make leaves shake perhaps someone is climbing the tree, perhaps the tree is being felled, perhaps a truck has passed nearby, perhaps an animal is reaching for a branch to eat its leaves. So shaking leaves are not caused exclusively by a wind, but wind will always cause shaking leaves.

And so it is with Humanitarian Aid.

Let us define Humanitarian Aid. This is a broad term. In this day and age, with extensive communications and large budgets, I have this working definition:

Humanitarian Aid is large-scale, organized projects designed to relieve the human condition, in which there is a great disconnect between those funding the relief, those administering the relief, and those receiving the relief.

I compare Humanitarian Aid with Charity.

Charity is relief of the human condition that is done on a personal scale, whereby those being relieved have a direct relationship with those doing the relief.

According to these definitions, Humanitarian Aid is done by organizations, governments, and agencies, whereas Charity is done by individuals or perhaps by small groups of individuals. Humanitarian Aid is done on a large scale and is largely devoid of relationship; its purposes, agendas, motivations are largely hidden and multi-faceted. Charity, on the other hand, is largely done person to person, or family to family, or small group to small group; it is done within the context of a relationship, and the motivations are fairly easy to determine by the recipient.

Although all of Scripture is God-written, and although all the apostles did the work of the Kingdom, the life and teachings of Jesus and the Apostle Paul are most clearly set before us. We have more details about their thinking and doings and instructions.

So let us look at the life of Jesus. The vast majority of the Gospels reference His acts of charity, telling story after story of His personal encounter with the distressing situations of individuals. The Centurions son, the widows child, the paralyzed man, the blind men, the lepers in each case, Jesus encountered these individuals in the normal course of His travels and doings. And as their lives dovetailed with His, He offered to them charity relief on a personal scale, within the context of a relationship, covered with discussion of spiritual things and personal admonition or encouragement. In each case the recipient of Jesus charity eventually went the way of all mankind, dying from some cause. But for a moment in time, kindness had been shown; Life had touched them. And for a period of time, they were encouraged and renewed physically and greatly challenged to change spiritually.

There is a time when we see Jesus doing Humanitarian Aid relief of suffering on a mass, impersonal scale. It is found in John 6. The setting is this: a very large group, involving thousands of people, is physically following Jesus because they had heard of or seen the miracles (acts of charity) He had been doing. They were caught up in the phenomenon; something unusual was occurring; God was visiting people in their personal settings. Because of these miracles, thousands of people were following Jesus everywhere He went.

So Jesus came to a mountain, and sitting with His disciples He noticed the huge crowd of people following Him up the mountain. The national Passover feast was coming soon. These people should have been home preparing for this feast but instead they were following Jesus in the countryside.

As Jesus looked at the people He saw hunger. He asked His disciples about the possibility of feeding such a large crowd; this questioning cemented in their minds the utter impossibility of the task.

In vv. 10-13 we see that Jesus did a miracle by feeding the thousands of hungry people. This miracle meets the definition above of Humanitarian Aid: it was designed to meet a mass condition, with little relationship between Jesus personally and the average person being fed; it was administered by His disciples and assistants; it was organized; and a great distance separated the One funding the project (Jesus) and the person receiving the benefit of the project (the average person on the hillside).

And what was the spiritual response to this Humanitarian Aid? In v. 14 the Scriptures clearly state the peoples response: This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world. And they determined to take Jesus by force, to make Him a king over them.

If you and I had been there, we would have said to ourselves Look! What a great spiritual harvest is occurring! Helping these people with their hunger has caused them to see that Jesus is the fulfillment of prophecy! Their spiritual eyes are opened because they have been fed!

But we see in the following verses that this was not the conclusion of the matter; this was not Jesus evaluation of the spiritual response to His aid.

Jesus slipped through the crowd; He escaped to be by Himself. Darkness came. The disciples returned back down the mountain, got into a boat at the side of the lake, and began to row toward the town of Capernaum, which was the home place of the Disciple Simon Peter (vv. 15-17).

While on the water, in the middle of the night, Jesus joined them. As soon as He stepped into the boat, the ship arrived at Capernaum (vv. 17-21).

As the sun rose on the new day, the people awoke from their sleep back on the mountainside (v. 22). And they discovered that during the night, Jesus and His disciples had disappeared. Immediately they also rushed to Capernaum, their single motive being to find Jesus (v. 24).

Again, if you and I had been there, we would doubtless have thought, Wow! Look at their dedication to Jesus! They truly are saved! They are leaving their homes and families and following Jesus! What a great harvest of souls is being reaped because of addressing their physical hunger!

But Jesus did not share our enthusiasm. He understood that this was not a spiritual harvest; He understood that it was merely a social harvest. In v. 26 He calls it what it is: Truly, trulyYou seek me, not because you saw the miracles, but because you did eat of the loaves and were filled. In other words, it was for their own personal comfort and convenience that these people were following Jesus.

This conclusion about their motivation for following Jesus is amplified in the discussion that followed between Jesus and these people. In vv. 28-40 we have a long discussion. Notice that the people keep saying, How can we get this God-power so that we can have bread? They were continuing to think on the level of personal betterment. They wanted an easy life; they wanted bread to satisfy them; they wanted things of a physical nature.

Today the masses of people want the same thing. They want food; they want education; they want choices (control). They want the good things, and they are willing to follow any religion, any government, any person or organization that will give them those things. This is a human trait and its tendency resides in all of us.

But Jesus refused to accommodate the masses of His day. He kept bringing them back to the Truth. And what is the Truth? Over and over He explains that physical bread is temporary, short-lived, earthly. But He Himself is the Bread that satisfies the soul, that survives into eternity, that comes directly from Heaven.

Jesus is saying that there is a big wall between the earthly and the heavenly. We must not confuse the two. Each realm has its purpose. Jesus did not deny the hunger of the masses; He fed them. But He had realistic expectations of the spiritual benefit of His feeding. We cannot expect spiritual benefit from earthly things.

Consistently, over and over again, we see in the Gospels that Jesus approach to building the Kingdom was two-pronged: to touch the hearts of people, and to teach the minds of people. He touched the hearts with His personal, uncomplicated, untangled, honest love for them. His was a love that was willing to cross barriers and give of Himself to meet a need. It did not matter if the need was for social acceptance/respect, or healing, or empathy, or feeding; it mattered not the need of the individual. He was willing to give of Himself to meet that need in order to touch their heart with Love. But Jesus was always concomitantly teaching Truth. He did not separate the touching of the heart and the teaching of the mind. It was the same exercise, in the same space of time, in the same venue, under the same circumstances. The two were always together.

Except in the case of the mass feeding of John 6. This exercise of Humanitarian Aid was a dismal failure in terms of building the Kingdom. What was its final spiritual reward?

Read v. 41: Jesus was rejected as the Bread of Heaven!

The people could not make the transition from personal benefit to personal Lord. How dare you exalt Yourself above us! they murmured. You are no better than us!

Jesus continued to declare the Truth. You and I would doubtless have said, Lets feed them another meal; theyre just angry. If we feed them more, they will be won to the Saviour. After all, remember how delighted they were after the meal on the mountain? Let us do what we can to return to their good graces. Let us delay Truth until we are again on positive social terms with them.

But this was not Jesus way. He kept telling Truth: only in HIM is true Life found! Only in Him personally is there salvation from the human condition!

Clearly, Jesus way is not the way of most humanitarian thrusts by mission or church organizations. He insisted on pushing the Truth forward. He kept feeding the Truth, making it as clear as possible, within the context of the discussion.

He deals honestly with the people. He tells them their true motives. He then shows them a better way, a heavenly way, the way of the Saviour Himself instead of the way of institutional/project benefit. When they reject the idea of the Saviour as being any better than they, He continues to explain that not only is He as Saviour a better way, He is the only way! And to follow Him meant to join Him in suffering!

And when presented with this exclusive claim, this ultimate Truth, and with the reality that to follow Jesus is to also share His suffering, the people forgot their fixation on the physical realm. Feeding or not, they wanted nothing of this Man who claimed a complete authority over them and who would require them to suffer for Him. That was entirely too much cost. No physical benefit was worth that cost!

Not only did the masses forsake Him at this point, but many of His own disciples questioned and forsook Him (see vv. 60, 66).

_____________________________________________________

Let us now summarize the emphatic points that Jesus makes in His teaching to the masses that were fed on the mountain:

1) v. 27: labor not for meat which perishes, but for the Meat which endures unto everlasting life.

Pay attention to what your ministry goal is; choose carefully the focus of your energy and resources.

2) vv. 35, 47-51: I am the bread of life; he that comes to me shall never hunger, and he that believes on me shall never thirst.

Pay attention that Jesus Himself is lifted up as the answer to the needs of man; take care not to substitute a system, a methodology, another person, a church or denomination, a worship style, or any other seemingly good or effective thing. Let us not be deluded: spiritual Life, eternal Life, the abundant Life comes only in the person of the Lord Jesus.

3) vv. 37-40, 43-46, 65: All that the Father gives me shall come to Me.

Although we do the work of evangelism, ultimately it is the Fathers choice who will be saved. There is no perfect tool of evangelism that overrides the Fathers choice. Prayer to the Father is a critical piece of evangelism.

4) vv. 53-58: He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood dwells in me and I in him.

Beware of separating suffering from salvation. To have His salvation, bought with His own flesh and blood, is to also have His suffering. To preach (or demonstrate, or emphasize) a way of comfort, convenience, health, wealth, etc. is to misrepresent the Gospel of Jesus.

5) vv. 61-63: It is the spirit that quickens [makes alive]; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Pay attention that you teach the words of Jesus. Only through these words does true regeneration occur. Earthly benefits fade quickly; only Jesus truth makes alive.

And what is the end of this episode in Jesus life? The masses disappeared; many disciples fell away. When fed, they were happy to follow Jesus, even to make Him King, so that their meals of the future would be secured. But when challenged with Truth, with the exclusivity of salvation through Jesus, with the suffering that comes with salvation, with the power of God in choosing His own these truths were not palatable. They were distasteful to the life the people wanted, so they rejected Jesus.

Then said Jesus onto the twelve, Will you also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life (vv. 67-68).

Simon Peter hit the nail on the head. He saw that life is apart from food: it is in the words of Jesus. Perhaps Peter remembered what Jesus had said before in Matt. 6:24-31: No man can serve two masterstake no thought for your life, what you shall eat, drink, or wearisnt Life more than these thingsyour Father knows about your needsbut seek the Kingdom, seek His righteousnessand the needs of your life will be met by the Father.

Ultimately the decision is a matter of choosing masters. Do we strive in our ministry for material things? Do we pursue the praise of the masses? Do we aim for the blessing of governments? Or do we pursue the Commission that salvation is to be offered through Jesus alone to each individual, and His way taught so that the life is changed to the Saviors. What is our focus?

The Evil One has been substituting his way for a very long time. He cares not what the substitute is. In fact, often good things make better substitutes; people go to sleep spiritually if they are involved in doing and funding good things.

Perhaps the Spirit put the passage of John 6 in the Gospels to warn us. Humanitarian Aid yields very little in terms of the Kingdom. Beware!

January 2, 2008

Back to daveblackonline