restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Prophetic Resistance as the Calling of the Church

 David Alan Black 

All who live by the sword perish by the sword. The warning of Matthew’s Gospel is our lesson for today.

While in prison (ca. 1575), one of my Baptist forebears, Hendrick Terwoort, wrote a confession of faith. It rejected infant baptism and held that a Christian should not make an oath or bear arms. Anabaptists, said Terwoort, “believe and confess that magistrates are set and ordained of God, to punish the evil and protect the good,” that they pray for them and are subject to them in every good work, and that they revere the “gracious queen” as a sovereign. He sent a copy of his confession to Elizabeth, but she was not inclined to listen to him. At the ripe old age of 25, Terwoort was put to death because he would not make his conscience Elizabeth’s footstool.

According to J. D. Cramp, it was the unpardonable sin of Baptists that they condemned the interference of the civil power with religion. They were remarkably clear on that subject. They taught that “the civil magistrate hath no authority in ecclesiastical matters, and that he ought not to meddle in causes of religion and faith,” that “no man ought to be compelled to faith and religion,” and that “Christians ought to punish faults, not with imprisonment, not with the sword, or corporal punishment, but only with excommunication.”

These scriptural truths were suppressed by the bishops because their own beliefs were inconsistent with them. After Terwoort and his friends were arrested, they were required to subscribe to four articles, condemning their own principles.

“They proposed to us four questions,” says one of the prisoners, “telling us to say yea or nay—”

“‘Whether Christ had not taken His flesh and blood of the Virgin Mary?’”

“We answered: ‘He is the Son of the living God.’”

“‘Ought not little children to be baptized ?’”

“We answered: ‘Not so; we find it not written in Holy Scripture.’”

“‘May a Christian serve the office of a magistrate?’”

“We answered: ‘That it did not oblige our consciences; but, as we read, we esteemed it an ordinance of God.’”

“‘Whether a Christian, if needs be, may not swear?’”

“We answered: ‘That it also obliged not our consciences; for Christ has said, in Matthew, Let your words be yea, yea; nay, nay.’”

“Then we were silent.”

Prophetic resistance to the state is always related to the affirmation of government as a God-given institution for the common good of society. As in the sixteenth century, so today there is a profound need for a “prophetic theology” as the authentic mind and voice of the church in calling itself and the state to account and in taking responsibility for bringing justice and power together for the freedom, peace, and good of all.

Nowhere is this situation of conflict more intense and urgent than in the church in America. Its task here is no different from what it has been throughout history. It is to be the church in obedience to Jesus Christ, and by so being it will enable the state to be the state. This is the most loyal service the church can render the state, to a particular government, and to itself—to protect the government from itself, and to strive to ensure that civil authority fulfills its office as instituted by God. But the price for this service can be high.

Modern-day Terwoorts (like Roy Moore) know this all too well.

November 13, 2003

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

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Projects to Help the Lord’s Church in Southern Ethiopia

 David Alan Black 

The following projects are being funded and administered by Dave and BeckyLynn Black, in conjunction with the churches in the Alaba and Burji districts in south-central Ethiopia.

The Alaba church is a group of 10 churches in an aggressively Muslim area. These churches are currently suffering severe persecution, as people in the area burn their churches, ransack their homes and kidnap/murder their children. The church is strong spiritually but is in great need of material support and encouragement.

The Burji church is in the far reaches of Ethiopia. It is far away from medical help, stores, etc., so they have precious few visitors to come help them. There are 26 churches in this group. The people are all farmers, and they are suffering economically because the Tsetse fly is killing their oxen that they use for plowing. The average income of these people is $300-350/year for a whole family. As their fields have suffered, their offerings that support their evangelists, etc., have declined. The Burji church is sending evangelists into the nomad tribes along the Ethiopia/Kenya border. Because of tribal warfare, missionaries will not go into this area, but the Burji people are going!

How can we help?

Dave and BeckyLynn have already been to these churches in person. The needs are real. The people are precious ones who sincerely are trying to work with what they have to reach their areas for the Kingdom of our Lord. In December, 2005, a third missionary trip will be made to this country. Relationships of accountability have been well established, and specific needs established.  When we return in December (just a few months away), we would like to take the following with us to help them.

Bibles for children:  500 children in Burji and 200 children in Alaba are memorizing 10 large passages of Scripture. Upon completion of the memory work, each child will receive their own copy of the Bible in their national language. They want to finish this memory project by the time we visit, so that they can get their Bible directly from us! Each Bible costs $3. We have already made arrangements with the International Bible Society in Ethiopia to have 700 Bibles ready for us in December; we will pay $2100 for these Bibles.

English/Amharic Testament and Study Book for Youth:  200 youth in Burji and 100 youth in Alaba are memorizing the 10 passages of the children, plus an additional 10 passages. Upon completion of the memory work, each youth will receive his own copy of a diglot New Testament and a book on how to study the Bible. These items were originally produced by BeckyLynn’s father, a retired missionary, and the publisher is giving us a 33- discount. We will pick up the books in December and will pay $900.

Children’s Evangelism and Teaching Tools–Flannelgraph:  There is absolutely NOTHING available to assist teachers in working with children. They have only their mouth and their hands to reach these young ones for Christ. Over half of the population of Ethiopia is under age 35; the numbers of children is HUGE! BeckyLynn has taught Bible lessons to classes of over 150 children; the children sat attentive for over an hour as she used flannelgraph pieces to help tell the story. Afterward, the children themselves retold the story to each other, using the same flannelgraph BeckyLynn had used, thus re-enforcing the lesson! We are taking 2 sets of flannelgraph, one for Alaba and one for Burji.  We will divide each set into 8 sections and prepare lesson plans for each section.  These sections can then be rotated among the churches. Each set is about $250; we will order these now so we can cut them and create the sections. The total cost is estimated $500. We would appreciate any help in cutting these set out!

Children’s Teaching Aids—Flip Charts:  We have found a ministry that has created picture clip charts and audio cassettes in the Ethiopian language! They have also made a hand-driven cassette player that is suitable for the back areas of Ethiopia where there is no electricity or batteries. The cost of the sets and 2 players for each district is only about $250.

Eyeglasses:  There is absolutely NO vision care available to these people. As the people age, their vision fails as they struggle to read the Scriptures by the firelight in their huts. We have already taken some eyeglasses to the Burji church and they are ecstatic beyond words to be able to see well again to read their Bibles. We would like to collect 200 pairs to be divided between the districts. Although prescription eyeglasses are OK, the most valuable glasses are the non-prescription reading glasses available at Dollar Tree and other inexpensive places. Dollar Tree charges only $1/pair!  We will package each pair in a small zip-lock bag, along with a cleaning cloth. Unless we are able to get a bulk quantity directly from the manufacturer, we expect to pay about $225 total for this ministry.

Books for Ministers: Each district has a small Bible school with about 20 students. The students and teachers are able to read simple English, but they cannot afford any books. We are asking for people to give us any Bible study books that they have. Commentaries, Bible dictionaries, atlases, Study Bibles and English dictionaries are especially beneficial. 

Laptops:  The evangelists in these districts are usually alone, separated from their families. They have had a very basic Bible education. They travel between villages by foot usually. They sleep anywhere they can, and return to the district office every few weeks. We are collecting used laptops and buying new ones at the best price we can find. We are buying extra batteries, word processing programs, the Jesus Film, and CDs with a library of books in Amharic and English. Already we have given one laptop to a young man in Alaba; he is using it to prepare Bible study notes, show the Jesus Film, and read Christian library books.  It is a TREMENDOUS help to him! We would like to gather or buy at least 4 more.  If they are taken into the country with us (or friends) then there is no customs fee. Naturally, we will teach them how to use the laptops during our visit in December. A friend has found some good quality but outdated laptops for $400 each. Total cost is about $1800-00.

The Conclusion of the Matter

In Luke chapter ten, a self-contented man asked Jesus about getting right with God. The man knew that he should love God thoroughly and love his neighbor as much as he loved himself. But he didn’t want the inconvenience, the discomfort, the cost of putting that into practice. So he tried to play a game of philosophy with Jesus by asking “And who exactly is my neighbor?” Jesus’ answer: Anyone who has a need that you have become aware of.

On the other side of the world our brothers and sisters are suffering through no fault of their own. Except for the grace of God in our lives, we would be in their place and they in ours. Dave and BeckyLynn cannot turn away. Do you also want to join in the giving and blessing? There is an indescribable, mystical link between sacrifice and blessing, between sharing and receiving, between faith and works. Those who sacrifice receive an extra measure of blessing; those who share what God has already given them somehow receive more from Him; those who have genuine faith always demonstrate that faith through works.

If you want to join us in this venture of service, you may send checks payable to BeckyLynn Black, Bradford Hall, 2691, White House Road, Nelson, VA 24580. Or you may contact us at  dblack@sebts.edu or phone 434-374-0492. No tax-deductible receipt will be given, but you will receive a thank you from us and the Ethiopians. And you will receive a “Well done” from our Saviour.

September 5, 2005

David Alan Black is the editor of www.daveblackonline.com. If you would like to know more about becoming a follower of King Jesus, please feel free to write Dave.

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Profs Without Borders

 David Alan Black 

“All … were scattered” (Acts 8:1).

Religion is very fashionable today, but religious activity is no substitute for Christian living. I write from long years of reflecting on how tragically we misunderstand biblical priorities and of pondering what “the priesthood of all believers” means both personally and organizationally.

When we assemble for mutual edification we are the church “gathered.” The church dispersed for its everyday relationships is the church “scattered.” The church scattered is the church at work missionally – believers spreading the good news through our daily interactions in ever-widening circles. Peter’s opening salutation (1 Pet. 1:1-2) encapsulates this thought when he describes believers as strangers who have been “scattered” for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus. Through His scattered followers Christ keeps His kingdom spreading as we take His life into the many circles of our ordinary lives.

The purpose of our scattering is the “sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ” – sprinkling in the sense of scattering in drops, in small particles here and there. This is the “secular” church – the church as it engages the world through the circles of interconnected human relationships. A disciple is one who not only comes to Jesus but who comes after Him as well. Multitudes of professed believers have come to Jesus to find rest but somehow have avoided taking His yoke upon them. But His business is our business as Christians. Just as our Lord was always about His Father’s business, we too have a heavenly vocation. The Bible has a lot to say about our works, and the imminence of Christ’s return is always balanced in the Scriptures by His sober counsel to be good stewards in the meantime and buy up the opportunities between now and then.

Maybe I should start a new NGO. I’ll call it “Profs Without Borders.” Its membership would include any academic who has come to the realization that there is nothing greater in life than to know Christ and make Him known. Are we not – all of us – called to “full-time” Christian service? This is the heart of the Christian experience. Dead with Christ, we live to walk in newness of life, outliving ourselves by living for others in the here-and-now.

True Christians are always missionaries. Let us, then, be found occupying till He comes, using well our time and strength so that we shall not be ashamed at His coming. Let us dare to enlarge our borders, to “go … and preach the Gospel to every creature.” A pagan world surrounds us, and lost men and women need us. Who will yield to the Lord and obey His call? We need no Macedonian vision, for the Lord has already commanded us to share His love with others.

Chase earthly treasures and you will be satisfied for a while. Blessed is the man who in spite of infirmities of body and mind moves out of his self-satisfied complacency and false contentment into a needy world.

March 15, 2005

David Alan Black is the editor of www.daveblackonline.com. If you would like to know more about becoming a follower of King Jesus, please feel free to write Dave.

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

The Problem of Wineskins

 David Alan Black 

Recently I received an email from a man who believes that no musical instruments should be allowed in church, and that believers may sing only psalms. I did not answer him, as he did not ask me to. His email was simply a lecture. Had he asked me what I thought, my reply would have been along the following lines.

The first thing I would say is that we must all be interested in one thing and one thing only – holding a truly biblical position before the Lord and based on the teaching of Scripture. It is extremely important for us to see what the Bible says both in its didactic statements and in the way it illustrates the truth in the lives of God’s people. In all the really important areas of our lives I believe we can find that the principles set down in Scripture are adequate to answer our questions. They tell us the way we should live.

But there are some areas where the Bible does not give us such a clear indication. Sometimes these areas include such questions as how and why we do what we do when we assemble as believers. Personally I find no mechanical formula for church music in the Bible. But the Bible does make it very plain that when believers come together “in church” it is to be primarily for edification and not for worship (1 Cor. 14:26). In this regard I do not tend to involve myself in questions about “worship” or “praise” styles because it seems clear to me that worship is to be a continuing practice of the Christian. We do not come to church to worship; we come to church as worshippers intent on building each other up. Thus, if we are truly seeking the Lord in this matter of worship, we will have to acknowledge that the Bible teaches that Christians have an obligation to worship God in their daily walk, not just on Sunday.

Another thing to guard against is the idea that the patterns for the assembling together of believers are somehow unclear or, if they are clear, inapplicable to today. Some say, “If the wine is new, why worry about the wineskins? The wine is the important thing.” However, it is imperative to notice that while the Bible indicates that the inward is more important than the outward, the Bible does not allow us to disregard what it says about the new wineskins. We must realize that in these areas of church life God can lead as He wishes and often His leading is very quiet. This is how it has been for my wife and me. Although we feel that the Scripture makes adequately plain which practices please Him and which do not, we do try to keep these matters in perspective. This does not mean that these things are not important to the Body of Christ or that they are unimportant to us. It is just that none of these things has any part in our justification before God, although once we become Christians we are to obey the commands of Christ and His apostles.

The Lord has been speaking to me during my prayer times in the quietness of the farm that it is important to be faithful in the matter of the wineskins and not just the wine. It is not for me, however, to convince any other believer how he or she must think. It is my prayer that the whole church of Christ will seek to know God’s will in all these matters. My advice would be to remember at all times that His arms are around us, and that He will continue to lead us into all truth if we are willing to do His will.

September 8, 2006

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

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Pro-War Hypocrisy

Lee R. Shelton IV

Those rallying behind Bush’s war in Iraq say that it is impossible to support the troops without supporting the war itself. They also tend to lump everyone opposing this war – both conservatives and liberals – into a single, anti-American, unpatriotic group.

Consider the following remarks made by Rush Limbaugh during his radio program on June 1:

The fact of the matter is, when people on the left say, “We support the troops. We oppose the war,” they are trying to camouflage the fact that they’re anti-military. They are all anti-military. It’s a defining characteristic of the left. … You can’t sit there and say, “I support the troops, but I don’t think they should be sent to war. I support the troops, but I don’t want them getting hurt.” Well, hell, if you want to have troops that don’t get hurt, don’t have troops. The purpose of troops is to kill people and break things, and if you don’t support that, you don’t support the troops. Nice try, but BS.

Notice how all who oppose the war are considered part of “the left.” The caller to whom Limbaugh was responding never used the words “left,” “right,” “Democrat,” “Republican,” “liberal” or “conservative.”

Naturally, most of Rush’s listeners agreed with him. Jesse, a soldier calling in from North Carolina, had this to say:

You could sit here and you say you support the soldiers, but if you’re sitting here and saying you don’t support the president, you don’t support the administration, then I got news for you: you’re not supporting us. I can speak for quite a few people, especially in my own unit, that we all believe in what we’re doing, and, you know, it’s our duty to do so, and when our country calls it’s our duty to answer to it. Wherever they send us, whatever we do, we’re going to do it, get the job done and that’s just the bottom line and we’re all very proud of what we do.

There you have it. If you are critical of the president’s war in Iraq, it is impossible for you to support the troops. The funny thing is that the righteous rhetoric coming from so-called “conservatives” betrays their hypocrisy. For example, prominent figures on the right were bitterly opposed to Bill Clinton’s actions as commander in chief of the armed forces – and they were hardly shy about it.

On the May 13, 1999, edition of “The Crier Report,” Joe Scarborough was extremely critical of U.S. military action in the Balkans:

The reason why we didn’t achieve our goals during Vietnam are the same reasons we won’t achieve our goals [in Kosovo], and it’s because they’re not clearly focused and they’re not based on good strategic decisions. … This is a remarkably undisciplined action. … NATO, after being around for 50 years, has taken the radical, extreme, and I think very dangerous step of going from being a defensive alliance to becoming an offensive alliance.

Sean Hannity, addressing New York Congressman Joseph Dioguardi on “Hannity and Colmes” on March 23, 1999, asked, “Would you go fight over there? And how do you explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why did their son or daughter give up their life?”

Radio talk show host and author Michael Savage, in a November 30, 1999, column for NewsMax.com, detailed his position on the Balkan conflict:

Kosovo was about oil and nothing but oil, with maybe some uranium thrown in and a dash of ‘wag-the-dog.’ And you thought it was to save the poor Kosovar Albanians. … Big Oil required a pipeline through Kosovo and the poor Serbs just happened to own the wrong real estate at the wrong time.

… During the shameful and cowardly NATO bombing of the historic bridges across the Danube River, the mouthpieces of the Government-Media complex ceaselessly propagandized. Jamie Shea, the English soccer thug; James Rubin, Mad Half-Bright’s Stooge; Solana, the Spanish socialist; an unnamed Luftwaffe general; and others continued the Big Lie. They were bombing Serbian civilians (hospitals, schools, trains, powerplants, apartments, orphanages) to save Albanians!

They were also destroying Kosovo to save it. These international war criminals were led by General Wesley Clark (a Rhodes Scholar from Arkansas) who clicked his shiny heels for the commander-in-grief, Bill Clinton (another Rhodes Scholar from Arkansas).

Even high-ranking Republicans in Congress voiced their dissent. House Majority Leader Dick Armey said that troop deployment to Kosovo was “poorly considered and unlikely to achieve our desired ends.” House Majority Whip Tom Delay said it was “just another bad idea in a foreign policy without a focus.”

Why weren’t these men accused of demoralizing U.S. troops in the Balkans? Why weren’t anti-American charges leveled against them? If the military deserves our undying, patriotic support in every undertaking, what difference does it make who’s giving the orders?

Not surprisingly, the defenders of the Bush Doctrine will quickly point out that the most ardent supporters of Clinton’s war in Kosovo are now the harshest critics of the current war in Iraq. Yes, that is hypocritical on their part – but hypocrisy is by no means a stranger to “conservatives.”

June 7, 2004

Lee Shelton resides with his wife in Minneapolis, Minn., and is the founder and editor of EverVigilant.net. He is a self-described “paleoconservatarian”— someone adhering to the founding conservative and libertarian principles that built this nation of states—and hopes to return to the days when government was small and elected officials actually sought to protect the inalienable, God-given rights of the American people. Lee is currently working on a book that addresses a wide range of controversial issues affecting American politics today: from airport security to abortion, from the Supreme Court to Southern heritage. He can be reached via e-mail at editor@evervigilant.net.

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Principles of Relationships

Becky Lynn Black  

As we begin 2011, it is a good time to take stock of our lives. Human tendency is to get into a rut, put our heads down, and go step by step down the rut. We have no concept of where the rut will take us, and we rarely lift our heads out of the rut to survey the option of getting out of the rut and changing directions.

This is true for many areas of life. Not until something major happens do we consider our ways and the advisability of changing things in our lives.

But Wisdom says that we should consider our ways in light of the Scriptures. My grandsons have chosen this verse for 2011: “How can a young man keep his way pure?  By paying attention to Thy word.” Psalm 1 is also a good clear picture of the person who follows Scripture versus the one who ignores Scripture.

Relationships is one area where we easily get into a rut.  Day after day passes without  consciously taking the reins through self-discipline to obey the Scriptures. The life of Jesus and the life of the apostle Paul are excellent examples to us of how to deal with all kinds of relationships. And as I have studied their lives these past months, I have come up with 10 basic principles. Of course, this is not exhaustive, but it is what God has brought to my attention.

Principle One….We can never force a relationship. If the relationship is forced (demanded), if it is driven by guilt or obligation, or if it is purchased by favors, then it is not a relationship based upon love. Love is God-given and person-focused. It must be spontaneous, coming from within the heart, as God works it out. We cannot over-ride another person’s will in a relationship. (Of course, the great example of this is the way in which the Lord gives us freedom to accept or decline His offer of relationship with Him.) Our focus should be upon asking God to give a relationship, rather than forcing a relationship against another’s will.

Principle Two…We must allow others  the freedom to fail, just as Christ allows us to fail.  This means a person must be given the freedom to act responsibly and godly, or to act selfishly and irresponsibly. It is better to accept another’s failure than push them to act responsibly and godly. Again, this is modeled by the Lord, as He waits for us to repent of our selfishness and turn back to Him.

Principle Three…As with all other kinds of investments, our investment in a person can produce either a negative or a positive return in the short-term. It is not until the End that the value of an investment can be rightly judged. So we must resist the urge to judge an investment in a person before the time of judgment. Paul clearly discusses this issue in I Corinthians 4. Note: we must always be checking our motivation for investment in another person….it should be for Kingdom purposes, not for our own gain or manipulation as noted in Principle One.

Principle Four…We should expect much investment in other’s lives to be non-productive, as Jesus demonstrated with the seed parable in Matthew 13. But we should not get discouraged by a poor return on our investment. We should still make Kingdom investments in others’ lives because when the investment scores, it scores big (reproducing even a hundred-fold). Our lifestyles should be about investing in others; this is the way of Jesus.

Principle Five…We must give grace and patience for immaturity, as evidenced by narrow-mindedness, self-centeredness, and failure to grasp situations. We should remember that once we were also less mature than we are today. In fact, we are still immature in some ways. Immaturity is not necessarily sin, and our response to immaturity should be grace and patience.

Principle Six…Within a relationship, preferences and needs can be communicated. But (according to Principle One and Two) we must give freedom for the other person to disregard or disdain our preferences and needs. The Scriptures tell us to take our concerns to the Lord (Philippians 4), and they also assure us of His commitment to meet our every need (Matthew 6). So we must be careful not to confuse the role of people and the role of the Lord in our lives. (See also Principle Nine)

Principle Seven…It is OK, even normal, for relationships to involve pain and tears.  Crying out because of pain due to sin was modeled in Jesus and many of the prophets.  Surrendering to the Lord in trust of His care is the best response to pain due to separation issues (e.g., kids moving off to college). Always, in the crying and surrender, remember that Heaven is Coming, where there will be no more pain.

Principle Eight…Emotions are God-given. They are part of His declaration (“It is very good”) at man’s creation. But rash venting of emotions is no substitute for the virtue of self-control (Galatians 5). Pain, anger, frustration, confusion are valid emotions and are often totally justified. But the expression of those emotions must be under the control of the Holy Spirit, remembering our place as His people.

Principle Nine…Never substitute a human being, however nice and godly, for the Lord Jesus.  To do so is to lay the foundation for great heartache. On earth, hold all relationships at arm’s length; hold only Jesus in the closest spaces. We must long only for a relationship with Jesus; all other relationships are to be enjoyed, suffered, used for Kingdom purposes. In Heaven, all human short-comings will be corrected and relationships will be whole. But until then, only the Lord Jesus will never disappoint us or hurt us.

Principles Ten…Remember what Jesus said: Our true family consists of those who do the will of the Father (Mark 3). Being an obedient follower of His means that we must divide our relationships accordingly. Every aspect of our lives must revolve around His Kingdom…even the “family” aspect, even close friends, even business associates.  Remember the words of Psalm One and read 2 Corinthians 6 about being “unequally yoked” (although this passage is in specific reference to marriage, it is applicable to all close relationships). Those actively following Jesus as Lord cannot closely relate to those who are apathetic about His Lordship. As the prophet Amos put it, “How can two walk together, except they be agreed?” He asked that question of the Israelites who had maintained close relationships with their godless neighbors and had started worshipping the gods of their neighbors. As obedient followers of Jesus, we must divide our relationships according to His criteria, not ours.

As we move through this new year, may God help us to order ourselves in our relationships according to His Word, and the example of His Son.

February 4, 2011

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

The Price of Patriotism

 David Alan Black 

Our national anthem, The Star Spangled Banner, was written by Francis Scott Key during the British attack on Fort McHenry on September 13, 1814. The British bombardment, which continued for 25 hours, involved 1,500 bombshells that weighed as much as 220 pounds and carried lighted fuses that would cause them to blow up when they reached their target. Not being very dependable, the bombs often exploded in midair.

Key watched the battle with apprehension, knowing that as long as the shelling continued, Fort McHenry had not surrendered. Long before daylight there came a sudden and mysterious silence. What Key did not know was that the British attack had been abandoned, the attackers judging Baltimore as being too costly a prize.

In the predawn darkness, Key waited for the sight that would end his anxiety: the sight of Fort Henry’s great flag blowing in the breeze. When at last daylight came, the flag was still there!

Forty-seven years later, Francis Scott Key’s grandson would be arrested by order of President Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln’s suspension of the writ of habeas corpus on April 27, 1861, was based upon his conviction that any person not unconditionally supportive of the war against the South was guilty of treason. In a classic example of political jabberwocky, Lincoln stated, “Arrests by process of courts and arrests in cases of rebellion do not proceed altogether upon the same basis. In the latter case the arrests are made not so much for what has been done, as for what probably would be done.” In other words, what a person might do could now get him arrested by federal authorities!

Because Maryland’s sympathies were with the South, Lincoln interceded to make sure it wouldn’t pass an ordinance of secession. He had Maryland legislators arrested, along with other leading citizens, including newspaper publishers. One of those imprisoned was Francis Key Howard, the editor of the Baltimore Exchange. As he sat imprisoned in Fort McHenry, Howard penned the following words. Ironically, the date was September 13, 1861.

When I looked out in the morning, I could not help being struck by an odd and not pleasant coincidence. On that day, forty-seven years before, my grandfather, Mr. F. S. Key, the prisoner on a British ship, had witnessed the bombardment of Ft. McHenry. When on the following morning the hospital fleet drew off, defeated, he wrote the song so long popular throughout the country, the “Star Spangled Banner.” As I stood upon the very scene of that conflict, I could not but contrast my position with his, forty-seven years before. The flag which he had then so proudly hailed, I saw waving at the same place over the victims of as vulgar and brutal a despotism as modern times have witnessed.

Later, Howard was removed from Fort McHenry to the casemate prison at Fortress Monroe, imprisoned because the federal government “had in its possession ample evidence of the fact, that all who had been arrested had in some way violated the laws.” After further imprisonments in Fort Lafayette in New York Harbor and Fort Warren in Boston, Howard was finally released on November 27, 1862. Upon his discharge from prison, he wrote these powerful words: “We came out of prison just as we had gone in, holding the same just scorn and detestation [for] the despotism under which the country was prostrate, and with a stronger resolution that ever to oppose it by every means to which, as American freemen, we had the right to resort.”

Four months before being discovered and deported to a Nazi concentration camp, Anne Frank wrote in her now famous diary: “I want to go on living even after my death.” Anne Frank wanted to make a lasting difference in her world. As we see the storms of despotism arise in our nation, we, too, must see the importance of being concerned and involved.

I believe every follower of Jesus Christ who values liberty must be responsible to do something. I also suggest that every believer in Jesus Christ must stand up for faithfulness to Scripture, for the founding principles of this nation, and for obedience to Christ’s call to resist the oppressors and destroyers of this age. Doing something, even if it feels hopeless or seems insignificant, is better than doing nothing at all. We are commissioned by our Lord onto the streets, footpaths, and byways of the world to minister to the whole person, whoever he or she may be.

September 16, 2003

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

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

President George W. Hamilton

 David Alan Black 

Those who insist upon reducing George W. Bush to a one-dimensional line drawing of the visionary idealist prefer to explain away his position on power and morals by charging him with inconsistency or hypocrisy. Such views seem absurd to me. They only express the (understandable) irritation of those who oversimplify values, who wish to force an absolutist position even upon men who make it explicit that for them the actual consequences of any value for the welfare of human beings determine its weight in competition with alternative values. Indeed, Bush’s most revealing characterization of his philosophy of power breathes eternal defiance to the either-or, one-and-only type of opinion. Bush refers to the ideal of American democratic government as an “empire for liberty,” thus joining in lifelike tension two compelling concepts, one symbolizing strength for self-preservation, the other indicating the object for which that national strength is to be sought: so that freedom can be realized under the kind of benign government that values men and respects human rights.

It is in this sense, I believe, that the president was moved to say in his UN speech this week that “The advance of democratic institutions in Iraq is setting an example that others, including the Palestinian people, would be wise to follow. The Palestinian cause is betrayed by leaders who cling to power by feeding old hatreds and destroying the good work of others.” Hearkening back to his philosophy of “compassionate conservatism,” Bush said the war in Iraq was justified on the basis of the discovery of mass graves and torture chambers. He thus gave a defensive speech that revealed a continuing division in Washington over how aggressively to pursue more foreign troops for Iraq and about the UN’s role in Iraq. The New York Times noted that the response to Bush’s UN speech was cool and applause was mild compared to the cheers that followed the speeches of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and French President Jacques Chirac, both of whom denounced preemptive and unilateral military actions. And in an oblique reference to the “I told you so” tone of the president’s remarks, the Spanish daily El Pais noted, “The president reasserted his justification for the [Iraq] invasion without recognizing the errors of the strategy and postwar reconstruction.”

I believe we find ourselves, at the time of growing American imperialism, in a climate of thought strangely reminiscent of Alexander Hamilton, for it was he who played the most active role in speeding up the process that led from a financially impotent federation to a financially functioning central government. It was also Hamilton who seized upon the “broad” interpretation of the Constitution to stretch its vulnerable clauses as protection for the growth of federal power. In this sense, the work of Hamilton and the current Bush administration are properly seen as a continuing logic as well as a shared interest. On matters of central economic doctrine Hamilton stood in contrast to Jefferson, who was an advocate of those parts of the Adam Smith doctrine that denied the state a positive role in economic matters and promoted free trade, whereas Hamilton felt it was necessary for the government to create positive conditions for economic growth. Hamilton asserted a principle that we can certainly appreciate in our own day: “A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing. It will be a powerful cement of our Union. It will also create a necessity for keeping up taxation to a degree, which, without being oppressive, will be a spur to industry.”

Central to any meaningful understanding of George W. Bush are his views about power, and, again, the parallels with Hamilton’s interests are notable. Hamilton’s conception of power joined political power with money. “Money is, with propriety, considered as the vital principle of the body politic,” he wrote. It is only where the men who govern are moneyed can one rightly expect to have energetic government, he said. Furthermore, when real issues concerning money and power arose, Hamilton showed himself willing to use coercion and force, as in the famous case of the Newburgh Affair. And in his later years, when he orchestrated the downfall of his own Federalist Party, he wrote, “It is yet to be determined by experience whether Republican government can be consistent with that stability and order in government which are essential to public strength and private security and happiness.”

A curious meeting once took place between Jefferson and Hamilton that helps us to explain the contrast between these two famous Americans. Jefferson reported that Hamilton, on a visit to his rooms, saw his collection of three portraits and asked Jefferson who they were. Jefferson named them—Bacon, Newton, and Locke—and expressed his admiration for them as the greatest men of all time. Hamilton paused and then remarked, “The greatest man that ever lived was Julius Caesar.”

Thus we have two very different visions of man and society—Jefferson the advocate of luminous reason, and Hamilton the visionary of energetic power, with instruments of military, political, and economic force to protect, sustain, and enhance such power. The devotion to the image of Caesar goes far in explaining Hamilton’s character, for in his conduct and thought—no less than in the case of President Bush—is the embodiment of an ageless theme: the pervasive drive for power. Hamilton stated this himself with astonishing prescience when, as a twelve year old child clerk in a West Indian trading house, he wrote:

To confess my weakness, Ned, my ambition is prevalent, so that I contemn the groveling condition of a clerk or the like, to which my fortune, etc. condemns me, and would willingly risk my life, though not my character, to exalt my station. I am confident…that my youth eludes me from any hopes to immediate preferment; …but I mean to prepare the way for futurity…. I shall conclude saying, I wish there was a war.

September 26, 2003

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

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

President Bush’s “Faith-Based Initiative” Un-Godly, Un-Christian, Un-Biblical, and Un-Constitutional

Michael Peroutka

President Bush’s continued pushing of his so-called “faith-based initiative”– which is really nothing more than a program to entice churches to get on Federal welfare – is un-Christian, un-Constitutional, and a disgraceful example of pork-barrel politics at its worst and most dangerous.

In his recent address to the Knights Of Columbus in Dallas, Texas, Mr. Bush used his talk to announce $188 million in grants to help “religious” charities compete for Federal funds. He said his goal was to end “unfair discrimination” against “faith-based” charities by the Federal Government. He pointed out, however, that the recipients of these Federal funds will not be allowed “to proselytize.”

In other words, for example, Christian groups who receive these Federal funds are forbidden to practice the “faith” upon which they are “based!” They are forbidden to proselytize, to preach the Gospel – which our Lord commands (Matthew 28:19-).

Instead of trying to, in Mr. Bush’s words, “level the playing field” by trying to get “faith-based” groups on the Federal welfare –  there should be no such “field” at all, none, for anybody. Instead of trying to get Christian groups ON Federal welfare, he should be getting non-“faith-based” groups OFF of Federal welfare.

Nowhere in the Bible does God’s Word allow any civil government to fund “faith-based” groups. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is there any authorization for the Federal-funding of “faith-based” groups.

And in purely practical and political terms, for any Christian group to receive Federal welfare would involve them in a bureaucratic nightmare, wrap them in miles of Federal red tape and lead to such things as IRS audits and much, much more Federal intrusion.

In addition, while Mr. Bush said in his talk that his “faith-based” welfare program would apply to “all faiths, Christian, Jew or Muslim,” it will NOT be limited to these faiths. It will only be a matter of time before some judge somewhere rules that “faith-based” means the Wicca/witch “religion,” Satan-worshippers, those who practice voodoo and, literally, only God knows what other “faiths.”

The Lord Jesus Christ says we must “render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21). Amen! But neither Scripture nor our Constitution say that “Caesar” is allowed to give money to “faith-based” organizations. And those Christian groups who seek and receive Federal welfare reveal that, ironically, they have no faith because they do not believe that God can provide for their needs.

August 5, 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

The President’s Faith

 David Alan Black

In response to last weekend’s PBS story on Bush’s faith, perhaps I may be permitted to quote from an essay I wrote back in August of 2003 entitled “Why Do Conservative Christians Uphold the Scriptures Yet Compromise on the Constitution?”:

Ironically, the very same conservative Christians who follow the Scriptures when it comes to matters of morality (e.g., same-sex marriage, the ordination of homosexuals, abortion) fail to uphold the Constitution when it comes to matters of freedom. The Neocon-Christian Right alliance, which came to power during the Reagan era, now controls the conservative movement, wielding its influence through such mouthpieces as the Weekly Standard, the National Review, and the New Republic.

Say what they may, but adherents to this alliance are completely out of sync with the Constitution. Our politicians may assert that all Americans have the “right” to free health care, education, and retirement benefits, but none of these so-called rights is supported by the Constitution, and hence the case is closed—or ought to be. The Republican Party calls itself the party of limited government, but after three years of George W. Bush can anyone name a single regulation that has been repealed or a single agency that has been abolished? Even the National Endowment for the Arts, which is perhaps the most unconstitutional establishment in America, struts along exuberantly. And the problem is not just the Republican Party. On matters of foreign policy, trade policy, immigration policy, and socialized medicine, the two major parties have become inseparable twins.

Thus, while I genuinely appreciate the fact that our president espouses faith in Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior, and while I also appreciate the dead earnestness with which he approaches the issues of the day, I cannot agree that his policies—his “faith-based” initiative, for example, or his spreading of “democracy” at the point of a bayonet—are compatible with the document he swore an oath to defend and protect, the United States Constitution.  Perhaps that’s why my readers will understand my excitement when I first ran across the preamble to the Constitution Party’s platform. In no uncertain terms it acknowledges both the absolute Lordship of Jesus Christ (nothing here about Christians and Muslims praying to the same God) as well as the foundational significance of the U.S. Constitution, which itself is based on biblical law:

We, the members of the Constitution Party, gratefully acknowledge the blessing of the Lord God as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of this Nation. We solemnly declare that the foundation of our political position and moving principle of our political activity is our full submission and unshakable faith in our Savior and Redeemer, our Lord Jesus Christ. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Divine Providence as we work to restore and preserve this Nation as a government of the People, by the People, and for the People.

The U.S. Constitution established a Republic under God, rather than a democracy.

Our Republic is a nation governed by a Constitution that is rooted in Biblical law, administered by representatives who are Constitutionally elected by the citizens.

In a Republic governed by Constitutional law rooted in Biblical law, all Life, Liberty and Property are protected because law rules.

The tragedy of our times is that the situation is desperate but Christians are not. If the saints became as desperate as the situation, something might change. The Scriptures portray the times in which we live in terms of an emergency that calls for urgency. Earnestness is no substitute for the leadership of the Holy Spirit, for men may be in dead earnest about causes far removed from the truth.

In the end, there is no need to call into question the genuineness of the president’s faith—or his sincerity. He believes his causes are just. That is as it should be. But sincerity is no gauge of truth. There must be a touchstone, an immovable foundation, upon which to make one’s decisions. In our country, that touchstone is our precious Constitution. As former Republican Senator Barry Goldwater once put it:

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ interests, I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.

Our delinquent generation will not get back on the right track until it heeds the Founders’ legacy of constitutional government rooted in biblical law. And blind allegiance to a “lesser of two evils” mindset will only get in the way.

May 4, 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