restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Please Don’t Call Me a Conservative

Matthew R. Gamel  

It really is becoming quite a nuisance when one attempts to engage in honest intellectual discourse with neo-conservatives concerning the War in Iraq and the War on Terror. If I had a dime every time a self-described “conservative” has labeled me a liberal concerning my position on the War in Iraq, there would be no need for me to worry about the American economy (at least with regards to myself).

Most folks today seem to enumerate a list of issues under “conservative” and “liberal” and tend to apply the former or latter to themselves without regard to reason or why they believe what they do. Of course, this tends to trivialize the issues and it usually boils them down to partisan politics. I believe that the neo-conservative position on these issues stems from the fact that if George W. Bush says so, it must be true. Therefore I would contend that in the unlikely and almost unthinkable event that Mr. Bush orders our troops to leave Iraq, the neocons would praise Mr. Bush for his “decisive” action and “superb” leadership.

If Mr. Bush pushed us into whole scale communism, the neocons would support it. Although some of them might snarl at the idea, most of them would remain faithful to the Republicrat party (this is evidenced by the fact that many neocons were upset by the Medicare fiasco but have put that aside for the victory of the party). Their reasoning seems to stem from the fact that Big Brother is our friend and that if Big Brother says so, I must pledge my eternal allegiance to the Republican high priests.

This is one of the reasons why I believe that the neocon position regarding government is particularly dangerous: because it involves blind allegiance to a political party and to the state with no questions asked. It is rare to find a neocon that is bold enough to question the leadership of the Republican Party – such is the unpardonable sin. As in Nazi Germany, we are beginning to see “Christianized” reasoning dupe believers into believing that the state is “returning” to God and has not really eliminated the acknowledgement of God. I know many people who have even suggested that things are looking up. But are they? Absolutely not! The state thinks it is God and this war in Iraq is the perfect example.

Let’s consider first the concept behind the War on Terror. Question: how many times has the Empire declared and won a war on an abstraction? Well, so far, I can think of many times when a “war,” whether it be domestic or foreign, was declared but I can’t recall ever winning any of these “wars.” McCarthyism is a good example of the type of madness we are seeing today. Being labeled a “terrorist” is to 2004 as being labeled a “communist” is to the mid-th century. Did we win the war on communism? No, it still exists today. We did, however pour mounds of money and American lives into the doctrine of “containment” for several decades. The Truman doctrine of 1947 was just another way the Empire has paved the way to massive political imperialism, and we are still seeing its fruits today. Moreover, this idea that we had to fight communism anywhere and everywhere it existed led to the draft and was conducted under the guise that we were paving the way for their “freedom.”

No wonder I had a strange sense of déjà vu concerning the War on Terror; Dave Black might well be correct that there is another draft coming. And I, being unmarried and young, will be a superb candidate to kill in the name of the expansion of the godless Empire – but I guess I’m being selfish, as most neocons would suggest.

Another good example of a policy whereby the Empire has declared war on an abstraction is the War on Drugs. Have we won the War on Drugs? No. The only thing that has resulted from the War on Drugs is a larger national deficit and a massively expanded Gestapo-like federal police force (actually, this should probably be in the plural and is also another result of the War on Terror). We have poured mounds and mounds of money into the War on Drugs and drugs are still a problem today. Will the Empire ever learn that declaring war on abstractions has never worked historically? My “educated guess” (i.e., obvious observation) is no. The Empire has too much to gain from such actions, namely political influence and massive domestic expansion of our already over-centralized government. We are now seeing yet another indication that the Empire is so fiscally irresponsible that it does not even care about spending money it does not have (perhaps it is wrong of me to even remotely imply that the Empire has ever cared about such things – it hasn’t).

I am almost scared to research how much money has been poured into the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, and the like and the total proportion that these things have had on our national deficit. The Empire is spending money that it doesn’t have to expand its godless, secular, all-powerful police state and as such, I suppose the Empire doesn’t mind financing this war on behalf of our great, great, great, great, great, great grandkids. I like the way Mike Peroutka puts it: terror is not the enemy; it is merely the tactic of the enemy. Terror, unfortunately, will exist so long as men are depraved and wicked. Those who want a quick high will continue to take drugs, and spying on law-abiding citizens will not ameliorate drug abuse just like it won’t decrease “terror.” Communism will exist as long as there are liberals. So, these ideas cannot be attacked with any expectation of success; they are too broad and unfocused.

With the issue of the War on Terror addressed, I would like to look at the legality of the war. There was no formal declaration of war by the United States Congress, and the Constitution grants only Congress the power to declare war – Congress cannot transfer that power and no other branch of government may usurp it. Does anyone see why our Founders designed our government this way? It is to prevent a single person from having the power to engage in frivolous wars. We should, however, not be surprised about this because the Empire has burned the U.S. Constitution long ago and has been illegally operating ever since. I find it rather comical how most neocons focus solely on the illegal acts of the judiciary but overlook the illegal acts of the remainder of the Empire. Moreover, they desire to fix the problems by either usurpation of more illegal power or by adding a redundant amendment to the Constitution that would not have to be added if the Empire would simply constrain itself to the Constitution.

Of course, legality is not the only reason that we should not have entered Iraq. I am finding it quite meticulous to actually understand why we are currently in Iraq. It seems that the reason tends to vary depending on the amount of evidence that has exposed the problems with the previous reason. There is absolutely no evidence that Saddam was ever a threat to America. Sure, there has been massive speculation, but massive speculation and massive evidence are two completely different things. We have had high-ranking intelligence officials suggest that WMDs did not exist in Iraq – did the Empire expect Saddam to drive over to his nearest Fina station and pick up a few packs of nuclear warheads so they could confiscate them (and most likely add them to the Empire’s arsenal)?

Now that Saddam has been apprehended and the WMD excuse becomes more and more weakened as the days go by, we are hearing more and more talk of “spreading democracy.” This irritates me more than the whole issue of WMDs for three reasons. First, it shows how completely ignorant and naïve or willfully deceptive our leaders are concerning the form of government that the Constitution grants us. It is not a democracy; democracy is a hideous form of government, and our Founders rejected such a notion. There have been many cruel regimes that have existed under the premise that such a regime was a democracy. Currently, Europe is the modern socialist capital of the world. Europe is also a self-described democracy.

Secondly, it is not the job of the United States to police the world. Many neocons are completely against involvement in the United Nations; I too hate that organization with a burning passion and call for immediate and swift withdrawal. Yet, interestingly enough, the neocons fail to see that when we meddle in everyone else’s affairs, there will be a time when the U.N. will demand a chunk of our sovereignty. Also, I can’t help but wonder if these people seriously sat down to consider why it is that much of the world hates the United States? It has nothing to do with their usual excuses of God, prosperity, and “democracy” (ugh) and everything to do with imperialism. In fact, the idea that many of them even suggest God as a reason is scary. To which deity are they referring? They most certainly aren’t referring to Christ Jesus so it must be the state. In that case, the feelings of dislike and fear are mutual.

Finally, given the jargon that the U.S. is on a “democracy spreading crusade” I cannot help but ask whether the United States is really serious about giving the people of Iraq a democracy. If so, I find this to be one of the queerest forms of irony about the situation in Iraq. If we give the people a democracy, chances are fairly good that these people will vote themselves back into the same form of government they had to begin with; a good chunk (60-65-) of the Iraq population is Shi’ite Muslim. The other option would be that the Empire intends on giving the leaders that we leave there democratic powers, thus resulting in a form of government that would mimic an elitist form of democracy. Of course, we will have to institute a massive propaganda machine similar to the one we have here at home consisting of a large media and a government printing office; but this is another story.

We are now beginning to see large amounts of civilians being murdered. Such is the natural consequence when people stand in the Empire’s quest for GLOBAL DOMINATION—er, I mean “democracy spreading crusades.” I heard a story the other day of rockets that were fired into a Mosque killing many. Folks, this is wrong. Murder is murder no matter how the Empire attempts to justify it. There is a difference between shooting a soldier who is shooting at you and shooting a little kid or an unarmed civilian regardless of whether that someone is throwing rocks or not. How many U.S. casualties have died due to rock wounds?

Let’s try to reverse the situation here for just one second and stop buying into excuses that the Empire gives us for its irresponsible actions. What do you think would happen if American children or American civilians were being murdered here in the states (of course, we are talking about all “viable” life here – the Empire has been murdering its children for over thirty years now)? Folks, these excuses that are being thrown around are baseless. The Empire will not tolerate those who defend themselves from its tyrannical influence. Domestically, such was the case at Waco and Ruby Ridge. Why do you think that the Empire is not only working to perfect the ultimate police state with the passage of the (Un-) Patriot Act but is attempting to deny gun rights to its citizens? Folks, I would trust my fellow neighbor with a fully automatic M4 carbine with attachable grenade launcher more than I currently do the Empire – and the Empire has monopolies on all such weapons (why do you think that is?). Let us re-examine history and predict what the Empire will do to dissenters after it has taken their guns away. The preview of domestic coming attractions may be found in parts of Iraq – coming to a no-longer sovereign state near you.

I have not even touched the “tip of the iceberg” so to speak concerning the situation in Iraq – I haven’t discussed these issues in detail, let alone the loss of liberty through the (Un-) Patriot Act. I have only attempted to give a very brief outline concerning my objections to King George II’s War in Iraq (I could have just as easily put a III there, I suppose). So the question really is, what is the more conservative position concerning the War in Iraq? Well, that depends on what type of “conservative” you are I suppose. If you are a pre-Lincoln Jeffersonian conservative (the only type of Jeffersonian and true conservative, I would contend) then I would submit that the War in Iraq is legally, politically, and morally wrong.

However, because true conservatism is highly misunderstood due to all the neocons going around waving flags, giving blind allegiance to the Empire, and engaging in a dangerous level of pre-WWI nationalism, I have decided that I no longer wish to be called a conservative. I respectfully dissent.

P.S. For those of you who are interested in a true conservative this upcoming election, one who understands the implications in the Iraqi war and will end this madness, then I would suggest making a visit to Michael Peroutka’s campaign website. It may be the last chance we have.

April 27, 2004

Matt Gamel is a graduate student at Texas A&M and eventually desires to go to seminary to study to be a biblical scholar. He may be reached for comment here.

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

A Place at the Table

 David Alan Black

There is less than a month to go before our trip to Ethiopia to see my wife’s roots and to labor among the churches.

Three statements struck me this morning from 2 Corinthians 12 in this regard: “I myself was not burdensome to you” (v. 13), “the more abundantly I love you” (v. 15), and “we do all things, beloved, for your edification” (v. 19).

If there is one thing we are trying to avoid on this trip, it is being a burden to either the missionaries or the nationals we will work with. Short-termers are all too often just that. Then, too, our trip is not for sightseeing, though we will do enough of that. It is aimed at edifying the churches by using whatever gifts and talents (medical included) the Lord has blessed us with. The motivation, of course, is simply love, as Paul said, and I must say that I feel a strange sort of empathy with these people whom I have never met but whose lives played such an important role in my wife’s childhood.

“Making disciples” (Matt. 28:19) involves many things, but surely it requires the pouring out of one’s lives into others, just as Jesus poured out His life for His “friends,” the disciples. We realize that we are building upon the work of a great many others, including my wife’s parents, who laid a foundation of gold, silver, and precious stones – the quality of their work and their motivations for ministry none can doubt. It is now our turn to perform those “good works, which God prepare beforehand that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10), realizing that these works themselves are a gift, so that no one can take pride in them. We are simply “stewards” (another Pauline expression: 1 Cor. 4:1), administering the affairs of our Master’s household, managing the time, talents, and resources He has entrusted to us.

Thus amidst the turmoil and busyness of life without, and deep stirrings within, we prepare to leave for the Horn of Africa, ministers of a King who cannot abdicate because He is not enthroned by the votes of men. Alone the Kingdom of Christ stands, guaranteed by the Word of God. We are, then, in a strange sense, simply going home. In the beautiful sentiments of Malcolm Muggeridge:

A sense of homecoming, of picking up the threads of a lost life, of responding to a bell that had long been ringing, of taking a place at the table that had long been vacant.

September 18, 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

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

home

welcome

about dave

on the road

the book box

columns & essays

reading room

contact dave

The following are essays we’ve published from time to time on Paul’s letter to the Philippians. Look for this page to expand constantly!

Introductory Matters

Introducing Philippians

The Real Message of Philippians

Chapter Overviews

Lasting Lessons from Philippians 1

Lasting Lessons from Philippians 2

Lasting Lessons from Philippians 3

Lasting Lessons from Philippians 4

Paragraph Studies

God’s Better Way (Phil. 2:1-11)

Beyond Religious Infighting (Phil. 2:12-18)

Paul’s “Thankless Thanks” in Phil. 4:10-

Other Essays

Servants in Training

To Go On Living Is Christ

Howard Marshall on Christian Harmony

A Great Commission Marriage

The Joy of Volunteering

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Philippians 1:1-2: Saints Who Serve

 David Alan Black  

Christianity was a revolution that changed the attitudes and values of the ancient world. It was an entire way of living and not merely a set of dogmas. What made early Christianity so revolutionary? The salutation of Philippians (1:1-2) contains several answers to our question.

Bond-Servant Slaves

In the opening greeting of the letter we see that Philippians was written and sent by two of Jesus’ slaves, Paul and Timothy, men who worked side by side and shoulder to shoulder for the Gospel. Timothy is mentioned because he was with Paul when the church at Philippi was established and is now with Paul in Rome. Of all Paul’s churches, the church at Philippi was the church to which Paul was closest, and of all Paul’s companions, no one was as dear to him as Timothy was. The great contribution of Timothy to Paul’s missionary service was that he could be entrusted with any task. His one desire was to serve Christ. Paul could therefore send him to Thessalonica, to Philippi, and to Corinth with perfect confidence that Timothy would get the job done. Like Paul, he was simply a bond-servant, a slave of Christ Jesus, His absolute possession and the One he owed absolute obedience.

Only rarely in life does one find such a trusted friend as Paul found in Timothy. Becky and I are extremely blessed to have known and worked with many such “Timothies.” I’m not talking about people who merely put on a show of affection for others or who feign concern for the Gospel. I’m talking about believers whose sacrificial service for others in the name of Christ is exemplary, just like Timothy’s was (2:19-24). I must tell you, these radical Jesus-followers are a great encouragement to us. Our work in Alaba, in Burji, in Gondar, our work among the nomads, the animists, the Muslims, the Orthodox of Ethiopia – all this work would be impossible without the willingness of Timothies who work with us side by side and shoulder to shoulder.

Sometimes our closest Timothy is our own spouse. I know that’s true in my case. Jonathan Edwards’ last words before he died were those of gratitude to his wife Sarah for the “uncommon union” they had enjoyed by the grace of God. Whenever I think of the partnership between Paul and Timothy or between Aquila and Priscilla I think of the similar kind of relationship I enjoy with Becky. We have the opportunity to spend large amounts of time serving the Lord Jesus together both in America and abroad. We have set priorities for our marriage that elevate the kingdom to a place of precedence over everything else in our lives. I am not ashamed to say that God has used Becky tremendously in my life to draw me closer to Him and to nudge me toward greater Christian maturity. Hudson Taylor, the famous missionary to China, had a similar relationship with his life partner, Maria. J. C. Pollack, in his book Hudson Taylor and Maria (p. 102), writes:

Maria tempered without question his zeal, was largely responsible for the common sense and balance characteristic of Taylor at the height of his power…. Under the influence of her less mercurial yet gay temperament he shed those moods of melancholy; he would discuss every matter with her and forget to be introspective. He became more assured, grew up…. Her passionate nature fulfilled his warm-blooded yearning to love and be loved. She gave him full response, fostering and feeding affection so that together they had such a reservoir of love that it splashed over to refresh all, Chinese or European, who came near them.

If I could take you with me to Ethiopia, I’m sure you would be as blessed as I am to see Becky’s servant-style selflessness. She is a woman of great faith and prayer and an indispensable part of my work in the Gospel.

Notice how Paul elevates Timothy to his own level as a co-equal partner in the Gospel. Later he will tell the church, “I have no companion who has a spirit like Timothy does, no one else who is so genuinely concerned about other people, no one who lives so selflessly. He practically enslaved himself to me in the Gospel!” (2:19-24). Like Paul, I am a wealthy man because I have been blessed with such selfless companions in the service of the Lord Jesus. What makes my memories of Ethiopia so precious? It’s simply the people – people who join us in the work, who faithfully continue the job, and who hand it on to still others.

Saints Together

It is because such cooperation in the Gospel is essential if we are to reach the world for Christ that Paul wrote to all the saints who are in Philippi. As we have seen, Philippians is fundamentally an appeal for Christian unity. It is organized in such a way as to allow Paul to address tactfully two women who had quarreled badly and were endangering the church’s unity (see 4:2). It is because of the need to maintain the unity of the church that there arises in the very heart of the letter the great passage about selflessness and humility (2:1-11). Thus the words “to all the saints” (1:1) sets the tone of the whole letter.

The word “saints” here is not so much a reference to behavior or conduct as it is a reference to the Philippians’ position “in Christ Jesus.” Far from connoting otherworldly piety, it pictures a people who are set apart from all other people because of their commitment of follow and obey Christ. Believers in Jesus Christ are the “different ones” – different because they live in the sphere of eternity and in the encircling presence of God. They are, moreover, consecrated to Him because of their special relation to Jesus. Like Paul and Timothy, they too are bond-slave servants of Christ Jesus, set apart for a different and special function in life. As we shall see, this function is nothing less than full participation in the work of the Gospel (1:5). The Philippians had been drawn together by the grace of God, and when people are really touched by God’s unmerited favor their hearts begin to beat with the pulse of Christ and their love begins to go out to the men and women for whom He died.

The Philippians lived, of course, in two spheres simultaneously: “in Christ” and “in Philippi.” Christians must live out their sainthood in this world. But wherever they live in the world, and whatever outward circumstances they may face, they are always in Christ, enjoying His presence and purpose and power. My “Philippi” happens to be Southside Virginia. Yours is wherever you reside. My job happens to be teaching Greek. Yours is probably something quite different. But wherever we live and whatever we do, we can do it willingly and cheerfully, because we do all things as unto the Lord and in His presence.

When asked how he attained such great victories, Nelson said, “I had the happiness to command a band of brothers.” The church is a genuine church only when it has the quality of togetherness. The Philippian church had been just such a church, a group of saints whose first concern was to put their Christianity into practical action. That this togetherness was in danger of being torn asunder did not prevent Paul from addressing his loving thoughts to all of them rather than to some of them or most of them.

Leaders “Among,” Not “Over”          

In this opening salutation we also note that Paul goes out of his way to greet “the overseers and deacons” (so most translations). In the New Testament there are two Greek words that are used interchangeably to describe church leaders. The word presbuteros is usually rendered “elder,” while the word episkopos is usually rendered “bishop” or “overseer.” The uniform practice of the early church in the New Testament was to have a plurality of elders or overseers. This is because leadership by one person always tends to exalt one man over others, while the Bible clearly teaches that only Christ is to be exalted, for He alone is the head of the church (Col. 1:15-; Matt. 23:8-12). Thus, Paul does not greet the “pastor” (singular) or the “overseer” (singular) of the church in Philippi, but the “overseers” (plural). Though the churches we attend may have a “pastor,” this is not the teaching of the New Testament.

It is instructive that Paul describes these believers in Philippi, not as being “under” their leaders (in which case the Greek preposition would have been hupo), but rather “along with” (Greek sun) the overseers and deacons. This is not accidental. In terms of biblical teaching, every Christian is a minister. There is no separate class of those who minister while others stand by and watch. Though some ministers may devote more of their time and energy to the ministry, and some may even be paid for their ministry, all Christians are “in the ministry.” As Alec Motyer of Christ Church, England, writes: “Within the local church there was fellowship (all the saints) and leadership (the bishops and deacons). The leadership, however, was not an imposition upon the fellowship but an expansion of it. For the saints are not ‘under’ but with (‘in company with’) the bishops” (The Message of Philippians, p. 33). Motyer adds, “As is always the case in the Bible, the existence and activity of such ministries arise out of the needs of the church, and they can be exercised only in ways that are suited to what the church is. Thus, for example, the New Testament never speaks of any ministry as mediating between God and the church” (p. 35). Motyer is referring to the great New Testament doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, which is an essential part of the biblical idea of the church.  

It is also important to note that neither “overseers” nor “deacons” is used with the Greek definite article. This is highly significant. In Greek, the use of the definite article generally points out particular identity, whereas the absence of the article generally emphasizes qualities or characteristics. Apparently Paul uses this construction to emphasize the work these individuals do and not their titles. Evidence for this functional meaning of the terms comes from other Pauline epistles as well (see 1 Thess. 5:12-13; 1 Cor. 12:28-31; Rom. 12:6-8).  The clear impression we receive is that of local churches under apostolic authority with each church managing its own affairs under the leadership of men who oversee and serve the congregation.

The implications of this are tremendous. If you were to go into practically any Protestant church today, you would likely encounter a hard and fast clergy-laity distinction, and very often a church ruled by one man with an iron fist. Or you may find the leadership divided into pastors, elders, and deacons, or into ruling elders and teaching elders, with the ruling elders functioning more like administrators who are involved in very little pastoral ministry. None of these models is truly biblical. While some passages suggest the presence of an elder who became the spokesman for the leadership, there is no suggestion anywhere of one man who was viewed as “the” pastor. Such a person was always accountable to the other elders and never led in a hierarchical manner, as was the case with Diotrephes (3 John 9-11). Thus the church is never viewed as a one-man team with the “pastor” doing all the work while the “laypeople” watched. Because of the limited capacity of one man to lead the church, New Testament leadership was plural and equal, with no system of hierarchy. True, certain people will generally function as leaders among the leaders because of their wisdom and experience, but all are equal and accountable to each other.

Moreover, in the worship of the church the leaders are never seen as dominating. Instead, a pattern of multiple participation by the congregation seems to have been the mark of all apostolic churches (see Rom. 12:4-8; 1 Cor. 14:26; Eph. 4:11-16; 5:19; Col. 3:16; Heb. 10:24-25; 1 Pet. 4:10-11), regardless of their geographical location (see 1 Cor. 4:16-17; 11:16; 14:33). The New Testament teaches that the congregational meeting is to be a place where all Christians exercise their spiritual gifts and stimulate one another to love and good deeds. There is no division into two classes of people: clergy and laity.

In addition, the leaders in the congregation did not take upon themselves honorific titles that might set them apart from the rest of the “saints.” Alexander Strauch, author of Biblical Eldership, correctly notes (p. 259):

There were prophets, teachers, apostles, pastors, evangelists, leaders, elders, and deacons within the early church, but these terms were not used as formal titles. For example, all Christians are saints, but there is no “Saint John.” All are priests, but there is no “Priest Philip.” Some are elders, but there is no “Elder Paul.” Some are pastors, but there is no “Pastor James.” Some are deacons, but there is no “Deacon Peter.” Some are apostles, but is no “Apostle Andrew.” Rather than gaining honor though titles and position, New Testament believers received honor primarily for their service and work (Acts 15:26; Romans 16:1, 2, 4, 12; 1 Corinthians 8:18; 2 Corinthians 8:18; Philippians 2:29, 30; Colossians 1:7; 4:12, 13; 1 Thessalonians 5:12; 1 Timothy 3:1). The early Christians referred to each other by personal names—Timothy, Paul, Titus, etc.—or referred to an individual’s spiritual character and work: “…Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit…” (Acts 6:5); Barnabas, “…a good man, and full of the Holy Spirit and of faith…” (Acts 11:24); “…Philip the evangelist…” (Acts 21:8); “Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow-workers in Christ Jesus” (Romans 16:3); “Greet Mary, who has worked hard for you” (Romans 16:6); etc. The array of ecclesiastical titles accompanying the names of Christian leaders today is completely missing from the New Testament, and would have appalled the apostles and early believers.

In light of what we have said above, there is a great need for reformation within local churches in the way we view leadership. Traditional pastoral ministry promotes an unbiblical one-man model of leadership under the self-styled “pastor.” In contrast, the New Testament teaches oversight by a plurality of men called elders. Some elders might be gifted differently and may even excel in specific pastoral tasks, but there is no biblical warrant for dividing church leaders into separate “offices” with honorific titles. Traditional concepts of “pastor” are clearly unscriptural. The New Testament does not speak of two classes of Christians, as we do today. According to the Bible, all Christians are the people of God who through the exercise of spiritual gifts do the work of the ministry. Such is the teaching of Paul in Phil. 1:1. Once again, Alec Motyer summarizes it well (p. 40):

How is leadership to be exercised? What is the relationship between leaders and led? The one word with provides the answer: ‘…the saints’, writes Paul, ‘…with the bishops and deacons.’ The strong natural leader chooses the easy path of being out front, taking it for granted that all will follow; the low-profile leader ‘plays it cool’, submerges his own identify and takes the risk that the tail will soon wag the dog. The more demanding exercise, the sterner discipline and the more rewarding way are found in companionate leadership, the saints with the overseers and deacons.

This kind of leadership has many facets. It involves realizing that leader and led share the same Christian experience: both are sinners saved by the same precious blood, always and without distinction wholly dependent on the same patient mercy of God. It involves putting first whatever creates and maintains the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. It means that leaders see themselves first as members of the body, and only then as ministers. In this way they face every situation from within the local body of Christ and not as people dropped in from the outside (or even from above!). It involves patiently waiting for the Holy Spirit to grant unanimity to the church in making and executing plans. It involves open relationships in which the leaders do not scheme to get their own way or play off one against another, but act with transparent integrity. It involves willingness to be overruled, to jettison role-playing and status-seeking, to be ready to cast a single vote with everyone else. It involves putting the welfare of the body of Christ before all personal advantage, success or reputation and it involves co-equal sacrifice for the Lord and his gospel. It is the leadership of those who are content to stand among the saints as those who serve.

From Saul to Paul

Finally, I must say a few words about the author of this great letter, the apostle Paul himself, who is perhaps the best-known Christian in all of church history. We know from chapter 3 of Philippians that Paul had been proud of both his Jewish heritage and his zeal for God, so much so that he was responsible for the “blood of the martyrs” until the risen Christ had changed his life forever. Read Phil. 3:4-7 and you will see that Paul enjoyed every privilege a Jew could enjoy and how he willingly and deliberately abandoned it all for the sake of knowing Christ and making Him known. There are three things that stand out in my mind about the converted Paul.

The first is the landscape of his past. When I think of Paul’s conversion I get tremendous hope. I’m reminded that God’s love reaches even the terrorists of the world – the Saddam Husseins, the Osama bin Ladens, and the Sauls of Tarsus. It’s just like God to take a murderer called Saul and make him into an evangelist called Paul.

A few years back, I experienced the truth of God’s borderless love in an amazing way. I had been teaching at a college in Addis Ababa when I got news that a 19 year-old man had been murdered for his faith in a village south of the capital. So along with one of my Ethiopian colleagues I drove there to visit and pray with the parents of the deceased. I knew there was little I could do for that grieving family except to wrap my arms around them. It was a Saturday afternoon when my companion and I, accompanied by some of the local church elders, drove out to the family’s village along a long, dusty road. There we enjoyed sweet fellowship – not the superficial social fellowship that we are so used to in our churches here in America, but the kind of oneness, common love, and concern that Paul describes so wonderfully in Phil. 2:1-4.

As dusk approached we began to drive back to town. All of a sudden I noticed some lights off in the distance. I asked the men who were with me, “What are those lights?” “That’s the prison,” they replied. “Is Mohammed there?” I said. “Yes,” came the answer. (Mohammed was the young man who, for religious reasons, had murdered the 19 year-old Christian.) He had been tried and sent to prison. When I heard that Mohammed was there, the Lord immediately said to me, “Go and visit Mohammed in prison.” You ask, “What the voice audible?” No, it was deeper than that. I simply had a very strong impression that I needed to visit not only the victim’s family but also the murderer himself. When I asked the elders if it was possible for me to call on Mohammed, they stared at me as though I were out of my mind. “You want to visit the murderer?” they replied with open-mouthed astonishment. “Yes, if that’s possible,” I said.

Despite their misgivings, the elders were able to arrange a meeting between me and Mohammed for the next morning. When we arrived at the prison we were ushered into a meeting hall where I was asked to wait until Mohammed could be led to us from his cell. Slowly the hall began to fill with prisoners, all of whom were curious about this white-faced foreigner. When the hall was full, the warden turned to me and asked me if I would like to speak to the group. Of course I agreed, and for 15 minutes I shared with them the story of Jesus and how He loves them and how He died for them and how He can forgive any sin. When I had finished speaking, the prisoners began filing out of the hall. One prisoner, though, stayed behind. He remained seated, head in hands, weeping uncontrollably. It was Mohammed. Somehow he had been led into the room and I had not noticed it. I went up to him, introduced myself and the elders who were with me, shared a few words with him, gave him a blanket that I had purchased in town, and left. God had clearly done a miracle in arranging for Mohammed to hear the Gospel that day.

A few months after I first visited Mohammed I went back to see him again. In fact, I visited him wherever I was in Ethiopia (about every 6 months). One day Mohammed asked me for a Bible, which I gladly supplied. About two years after our first meeting, my wife and I were visiting Mohammed when he said to us, “I’m ready.” We asked him, “What are you ready for, Mohammed?” He said, “I’m ready to acknowledge Jesus as my Lord and Savior.” And in the middle of the prison he lifted his hands toward heaven and cried out in Amharic, “Yesus Getano!” (“Jesus is Lord!”). At that very moment the kingdom of God invaded that Ethiopian prison, the kingdom of forgiveness, peace, and joy. Like the apostle Paul, Mohammed was a murderer, but now he was forgiven. Suddenly Mohammed became very quiet. He looked at us in the eyes and said, “My family told me that if I ever became a follower of Jesus they would disown me. They would not visit me when I got sick or bury me when I died.” Then he said, “You are now my parents.” At that very moment Mohammed became our responsibility, along with eight other Ethiopian youth whom my wife and I care for. We tell people, “We have nine Ethiopian children, and one of them is in prison for murder.”

I’m happy to say that Mohammed led several prisoners to the Lord while he was in prison. Today he is a free man, training to be an evangelist. Yes, God can take a murderer and make him into an evangelist. God can take haters and make them lovers. And when we experience His love, we reciprocate our indebtedness to Him by spreading His love to others. There is no better example of this than the apostle Paul.

When I think of Paul, I reminded, in the second place, of his scholarship. No, I’m not referring to his academic achievements or his publications or his reputation as a graduate of one of the world’s leading universities. In fact, the term “scholarship” is completely redefined when we think of Paul’s missionary life. I’ve often heard Paul referred to as a theologian. I can’t dream of Paul ever using that term to describe himself. Paul wrote great theology, it is true, and he was a thinker of the first magnitude. But he thought of himself, first and foremost, as a preacher of the Gospel, a church planter, and a lover of souls. He was God’s “chosen instrument” to take the Good News to the Gentiles, and to that single task he was fully devoted. He was, as every Christian should be, “separated unto the Gospel” (Rom. 1:2), and whatever publishing he did he did for one purpose: to advance Christ’s kingdom and to build up the church.

Many years ago I came to a similar conclusion in my own life. Like many others before me, I had viewed my scholarship as an end in itself, as an entrée into the world of academic conferences, as a means of gaining recognition and affirmation. But as I read the New Testament – a novel thing for a New Testament professor to do! – I began to see that my priorities were terribly misplaced. The words of Kierkegaard spoke to my heart (Provocations, p. 201):

The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obligated to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined. How would I ever get on in the world? Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the Church’s prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Oh priceless scholarship, what would we do without you?

Today I seek to use whatever scholarly abilities the Lord has given me for His service. Simply stated, I practice serving. The opportunities are endless to model the Jesus walk to others. Don’t wait for politicians to bring about cultural renewal. Be the hands and feet of Jesus – evangelizing the lost, feeding the hungry, teaching the illiterate, caring for unwed mothers, rebuilding the broken walls of our culture.

Finally, it is significant that although Paul was Jewish, he was also very familiar with the ways and customs of the Gentiles. It should not surprise us that God would use such a man to be His primary spokesman for Christianity in a Gentile context. Down through the ages God has granted His servants skills that uniquely equip them for the service to which He calls them. Paul’s Roman citizenship, for example, came in very handy as he traveled throughout the Mediterranean world, not least when he arrived in Philippi. The city was a Roman colony, its magistrates carried Roman titles, and its residents were fiercely proud of their Roman citizenship. Little wonder, then, that Paul wrote to the Philippian church, “You are a colony of heaven” (3:20), or that he urged the believers there to “live out your citizenship in a manner worthy of the Gospel” (1:27). Paul was always one to choose his words carefully, and nowhere is this clearer than when he uses politically-charged language in Philippians.

I can well appreciate this truth in my own life. The fact that it’s extremely easy for me to minister in many different cultures owes a great deal to my birth and upbringing in the “melting pot of the Pacific,” Hawaii. Ethnic diversity was part of my growing up experience from day one. The same is true of Becky. Her childhood in Ethiopia has given her a refreshing adaptability wherever she goes. What a vast area of opportunity that opens up! It is not a little thing if you are able to live and work in a different culture and language. I often joke that one of my spiritual gifts is the “gift of eating.” For some reason I can consume anything set before me and not get sick. I’ve eaten dog meat in Korea, red-hot curried food in India, and who-knows-what in East Asia. Where did I get this ability? Perhaps it came from the multiethnic milieu of Hawaii, where I enjoyed Korean, Chinese, and Indian food on a regular basis as part of a mixed bag of colors, races, and languages. The lesson? God can use anything in our lives. He wastes nothing. He can use even the most mundane experiences in our past if we will let Him.

Conclusion

We have hardly exhausted the profound truths that are contained in these two short verses. But if we were to begin to implement them in our homes and jobs, I believe we would see a radical change in our lives.

• Serve Jesus.

• Serve Him together.

• Leaders, be teammates, not bosses.

• Let Jesus use your past history in His service. 

It really boils down to what you choose to think about yourself. Only you can decide if you will be a saint who serves. No one can force you to live unselfishly for the sake of the Gospel. Christian renewal begins locally, in every congregation, and personally, in your own mind and heart.

February 9, 2009

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

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Philippians, Missions, and You

 David Alan Black 

As everyone knows, I love teaching the book of Philippians in my Greek Syntax and Exegesis classes. It has become increasingly clear to me that this short (4-chapter) letter summaries many of Paul’s core convictions about Christianity. These include:

Christians are not just to study theology but are to follow the example of Jesus and live the way He lived, in selflessness and humility.

Followers of Jesus are to put the needs of others above their own.

Christianity involves ethics as much as theology.

Suffering is a normal part of the Christian life.

Believers are called to pursue a kingdom that is radically different from all versions of the kingdoms of this world.

This kingdom is always cross-centered and counter-cultural.

Above all, in Philippians we see Paul the missionary, a man who lived totally for the sake of the Gospel, a man for whom believing and behaving were never disconnected, a man who was committed to following Jesus in obedience and love unreservedly and unconditionally. More and more, it is this submission to the lordship of Christ that is being recognized as the core of Paul’s Gospel — an attitude of worldly renunciation matched by an eagerness to suffer for one’s faith, to death if necessary.

In Philippians, Paul invites all of us to embrace a more radical faith and more outwardly focused Christianity. Many years ago Jim Elliott went to Ecuador impelled by the same vision of radical discipleship. He fully embraced the Great Commission, could not keep quiet about his faith, and his legacy as a martyr continues to inspire many today to share their faith, plant new churches, and take the Gospel to the unreached and under-served nations of the world.  For the most part these radical emissaries of Jesus are ordinary, everyday Christians who have no formal theological training but who are obedient to the Spirit and not only understand the Bible but obey it. I work in the midst of a community of students and scholars where everybody is concerned with some aspect of the Christian mission, whether in North America, Africa, Asia, the Pacific, Europe, or Latin America. In such a community, everybody is a missionary. No place feels like home. The world itself beckons us. For the world’s problem is sin, and it is left in a worse state than ever when it is given anything less than the cure.

So who will apply the cure? Will it be me? Will it be you? There must be a radical turn in our churches from earth’s skubala (excrement, unspeakable filth) to heaven’s treasure (3:8). There is no place in the will of God for a lenient attitude toward what Paul calls “the only thing that matters” (1:27). Paul was committed to one thing (3:13). He had his priorities right.

So how about it? Will you join the cause of global missions? There is a two-way movement here. As we draw close to Christ, His love in turn impels us outward toward others. We have everything in Christ. Shall we not share this blessing with others? Our Lord had no place for middle grounds or halfway stations. He expects His people to “shine like stars in the world, holding forth the life-giving message” (2:15-16).

May the goodness of God lead us to Calvary-love and sacrificial service for His glory!

August 28, 2012

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

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Pessimist or Optimist?

 David Alan Black

A family had two sons. One was an optimist, the other an incurable pessimist. To see whether this was due to heredity or environment, the parents decided to perform an experiment. They placed the pessimist in a room full of brand new toys and left him there for half an hour. Then they left the optimist in the garage, where they had just unloaded a dump truck of horse manure.

Thirty minutes later they opened the door to the first room and saw their son crying his eyes out in the corner. “What’s the matter,” cried the mother, “can’t you see all those wonderful toys?” “Yes,” the boy replied, “but if I play with they Yo-Yo over there it might cut off the circulation in my finger, and if I play with that skateboard I might fall off and scrape my knee, and if I play with that football it might hit me in the eye!”

Then the parents went out to the garage to check on their other son. When they opened the door they saw him digging through the horse manure in an ecstasy of joy and delight. “What in the world are you doing?” exclaimed the surprised father. The boy looked up at his parents and, with a big smile, said, “I just know there’s a horse in here somewhere!”

Should we be optimistic or pessimistic about the future of America?

On the one hand, I am somewhat pessimistic. We have moved so far from being the republic our Founders intended us to be that the obscene politicking that takes place in Washington is not likely to subside any time soon. Then there is the concept of a living Constitution, which judges can and do change in order to meet what they think are “society’s needs.” As long as we continue to ignore and ridicule our Constitution, liberty cannot be defended. Mr. Bush even wants to start a government program to support “healthy” marriage – to the tune of $1.5 billion dollars – even though such spending would be completely unconstitutional and we would be spending money we don’t have. So in the short run I am pessimistic.

In the long run, however, I am optimistic that the neoconservative philosophy that currently runs Washington will ultimately fail. As many paleoconservatives have noted in recent years – from Lew Rockwell to Sheldon Richman to Ron Paul – the United States is insolvent. So it’s just a matter of time before we run out of money. That’s exactly what happened to another empire – the old Soviet Union. That empire collapsed from within. Any philosophy that promotes the warfare/welfare state always collapses eventually. When that happens, people will realize that neoconservatism has nothing to do with conservatism. Hopefully at that point we will return to constitutional principles of government.

It all depends on how quickly we return to our senses. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians, “Let no man deceive himself.” God has a very low estimate of man’s wisdom, including the “wisdom” of the present age. Professing ourselves to be wise we have become fools. Indeed, the heart is so deceitful that we live in a perpetual state of continuous deception. (If you don’t believe me, just tune in to the Democratic and Republican national conventions.)

The only way to lead an undeceived life is to trust and follow the Lord Jesus Christ. “He that believeth on him will not be confounded” (1 Peter 2:6). Such a man will not need to study counterfeiters and imposters. He follows the true Shepherd and ignores the voice of strangers. He is not a believer of the Lie but of the Lord who will make all things right, and so he can be an eternal optimist.

July 26, 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

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

The Persecuted Church: An Obstreperous Flower

 David Alan Black  

The persecuted church in China or Iraq or Ethiopia is like an obstreperous flower, pressing up inexorably through the cracks in pavement and flagstone, sometimes in the most inauspicious places, determined to burst forth into the sunshine. When someone comes along and trods on it, it quickly lifts its head again. Persecution, rather than being a plant killer, only makes the flower more obstreperous.

Paul, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and untold others accepted a life of suffering in a firm belief in the resurrection and eternal life in the next world. Paul was willing to die for the Gospel because he lived unashamedly for another world. How many of us today need to confess our adulterous relationship with the world? How about those parents who oppose Christian service when their children are about to give up everything for Christ? How about those of us who do everything we can to avoid sacrifice and suffering?

When our sons and daughters go off to war we honor them for their willingness to die in military service. But the minute our children tell us they want to give up career or marriage for the sake of Christ we spend countless hours trying to keep them from “going off the deep end.” Much of today’s popular pseudo-patriotism and flag waving is centered around a horrible distortion of Bible doctrine. It denies the very heart of the Gospel and says, “Self-denial for the sake of the nation is honorable, but before we follow Jesus we must bury our dead or bid farewell to our families or build new barns.”

Is there any hope for a people who have fallen so far from authentic biblical Christianity?

Would-be disciples put comfort, nation, family, and security in this world ahead of the kingdom. But Jesus will not allow it. You cannot soften His uncompromising demands of the cross. There is no place for those who are unwilling to accept suffering and uncertainty.

This Sunday, which is both Veterans Sunday and Persecution Sunday, our local church will be honoring police officers and fire fighters and military personnel who risk their lives for others. But we will also be honoring the untold thousands of simple, everyday Christians who are working for the kingdom in dangerous places, quietly and behind the scenes, risking their lives for the sake of the Gospel, as did Epaphroditus (Phil. 2:25-30). These are the real unsung heroes of today. Their names are known only to God. They are serving Christ as effectively as any frontline solider. I’m convinced that Paul had these people in mind when he wrote 2 Corinthians 4:7-8. The treasure of salvation, he said, is contained in earthen vessels. We must be willing to let our desires and wills be broken and smashed to pieces so that the treasure can be seen.

Jesus taught that unless a seed is planted and dies, there is no life. How then can we refuse to accept suffering as a normal part of our Christian life? No excuse is acceptable before God. We have no option. We must come to the place where suffering for the sake of the gospel is normal. We must arrive at a place in our lives where we learn to run to suffering and embrace it.

Nothing reveals the bankruptcy of the American church more clearly and quickly than our lukewarmness toward suffering. Because we have not yet comprehended the place of suffering in the Christian life we fail to see the terrible state of rebellion we are on. We have countless opportunities to trust God in the midst of persecution, yet it is rare to see Christians moving out in reliance upon God to the dangerous places of the world. I see dozens of famous Christian leaders preaching weekly from their pulpits who would never think of giving at least equal time to world missions. Yet we go on blindly — holding our annual missionary conferences and talking about reaching the world for Christ without ever going ourselves.

Unless we come to a place of personal involvement we can never truly understand missions. Unless we learn to place the needs of the world above our own, we are in danger of producing a twenty-first century baby boom of immature saints. We have not learned to live sacrificially, as Jesus taught us to live, until we relate the crying demands of the unfinished missionary task to our own everyday lives and work.

The Lord Jesus never intended for us to avoid persecution. Nothing in the New Testament hints at a cozy life of cultural acceptance. The first responsibility of every Christian is to extend the Gospel to every nation on earth. The Great Commission leaves us no option. There is one harvest and one Master of the harvest. And He calls all of us to prioritize the Great Commission and integrate it into every part of our lives.

Let us, then, work together with the persecuted church — that obstreperous flower — and support each other in the common task. There is no longer any excuse to live mediocre lives. No longer do we have to protect our comfortable way of living. Each of us has something to do in the great task of reaching a lost world with the love of Jesus, and this includes reaching even our enemies.

November 11, 2010

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

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

The Permutations of “Jesus loves John” in Greek

 David Alan Black  

I stopped at 96. Feel free to add some more!

’Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ ’Ιωάννην.

’Ιησοῦς ’Ιωάννην ἀγαπᾷ.

ἀγαπᾷ ’Ιησοῦς ’Ιωάννην.

ἀγαπᾷ ’Ιωάννην ’Ιησοῦς.

’Ιωάννην ἀγαπᾷ ’Ιησοῦς.

’Ιωάννην ’Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ.

ὁ ’Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ ’Ιωάννην.

ὁ ’Ιησοῦς ’Ιωάννην ἀγαπᾷ.

ἀγαπᾷ ὁ ’Ιησοῦς ’Ιωάννην.

ἀγαπᾷ ’Ιωάννην ὁ ’Ιησοῦς.

’Ιωάννην ὁ ’Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ.

’Ιωάννην ἀγαπᾷ ὁ ’Ιησοῦς.

’Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ τὸν ’Ιωάννην.

’Ιησοῦς τὸν ’Ιωάννην ἀγαπᾷ.

ἀγαπᾷ ’Ιησοῦς τὸν ’Ιωάννην.

ἀγαπᾷ τὸν ’Ιωάννην ’Ιησοῦς.

τὸν ’Ιωάννην ’Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ.

τὸν ’Ιωάννην ἀγαπᾷ ’Ιησοῦς.

ὁ ’Ιησοῦςἀγαπᾷτὸν ’Ιωάννην.

ὁ ’Ιησοῦςτὸν ’Ιωάννηνἀγαπᾷ.

ἀγαπᾷὁ ’Ιησοῦςτὸν ’Ιωάννην.

ἀγαπᾷτὸν ’Ιωάννηνὁ ’Ιησοῦς.

τὸν ’Ιωάννηνἀγαπᾷὁ ’Ιησοῦς.

τὸν ’Ιωάννηνὁ ’Ιησοῦςἀγαπᾷ.

’Ιησοῦς φιλεῖ ’Ιωάννην.

’Ιησοῦς ’Ιωάννην φιλεῖ.

φιλεῖ ’Ιησοῦς ’Ιωάννην.

φιλεῖ ’Ιωάννην ’Ιησοῦς.

’Ιωάννην ’Ιησοῦς φιλεῖ.

’Ιωάννην φιλεῖ ’Ιησοῦς.

ὁ ’Ιησοῦς φιλεῖ ’Ιωάννην.

ὁ ’Ιησοῦς ’Ιωάννην φιλεῖ.

φιλεῖ ὁ ’Ιησοῦς ’Ιωάννην.

φιλεῖ ’Ιωάννην ὁ ’Ιησοῦς.

’Ιωάννην ὁ ’Ιησοῦς φιλεῖ.

’Ιωάννην φιλεῖ ὁ ’Ιησοῦς.

’Ιησοῦς φιλεῖ τὸν ’Ιωάννην.

’Ιησοῦς τὸν ’Ιωάννην φιλεῖ.

φιλεῖ ’Ιησοῦς τὸν ’Ιωάννην.

φιλεῖ τὸν ’Ιωάννην ’Ιησοῦς.

τὸν ’Ιωάννην ’Ιησοῦς φιλεῖ.

τὸν ’Ιωάννην φιλεῖ ’Ιησοῦς.

ὁ ’Ιησοῦςφιλεῖτὸν ’Ιωάννην.

ὁ ’Ιησοῦςτὸν ’Ιωάννηνφιλεῖ.

φιλεῖὁ ’Ιησοῦςτὸν ’Ιωάννην.

φιλεῖτὸν ’Ιωάννηνὁ ’Ιησοῦς.

τὸν ’Ιωάννηνφιλεῖὁ ’Ιησοῦς.

τὸν ’Ιωάννηνὁ ’Ιησοῦςφιλεῖ.

’Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ ’Ιωάνην.

’Ιησοῦς ’Ιωάνην ἀγαπᾷ.

ἀγαπᾷ ’Ιησοῦς ’Ιωάνην.

ἀγαπᾷ ’Ιωάνην ’Ιησοῦς.

’Ιωάνην ’Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ.

’Ιωάνην ἀγαπᾷ ’Ιησοῦς.

ὁ ’Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ ’Ιωάνην.

ὁ ’Ιησοῦς ’Ιωάνην ἀγαπᾷ.

ἀγαπᾷ ὁ ’Ιησοῦς ’Ιωάνην.

ἀγαπᾷ ’Ιωάνην ὁ ’Ιησοῦς.

’Ιωάνην ὁ ’Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ.

’Ιωάνην ἀγαπᾷ ὁ ’Ιησοῦς.

’Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ τὸν ’Ιωάνην.

’Ιησοῦς τὸν ’Ιωάνην ἀγαπᾷ.

ἀγαπᾷ ’Ιησοῦς τὸν ’Ιωάνην.

ἀγαπᾷ τὸν ’Ιωάνην ’Ιησοῦς.

τὸν ’Ιωάνην ’Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ.

τὸν ’Ιωάνην ἀγαπᾷ ’Ιησοῦς.

ὁ ’Ιησοῦςἀγαπᾷτὸν ’Ιωάνην.

ὁ ’Ιησοῦςτὸν ’Ιωάνηνἀγαπᾷ.

ἀγαπᾷὁ ’Ιησοῦςτὸν ’Ιωάνην.

ἀγαπᾷτὸν ’Ιωάνηνὁ ’Ιησοῦς.

τὸν ’Ιωάνηνὁ ’Ιησοῦςἀγαπᾷ.

τὸν ’Ιωάνηνἀγαπᾷὁ ’Ιησοῦς.

’Ιησοῦς φιλεῖ ’Ιωάνην.

’Ιησοῦς ’Ιωάνην φιλεῖ.

φιλεῖ ’Ιησοῦς ’Ιωάνην.

φιλεῖ ’Ιωάνην ’Ιησοῦς.

’Ιωάνην φιλεῖ ’Ιησοῦς.

’Ιωάνην ’Ιησοῦς φιλεῖ.

ὁ ’Ιησοῦς φιλεῖ ’Ιωάνην.

ὁ ’Ιησοῦς ’Ιωάνην φιλεῖ.

φιλεῖ ὁ ’Ιησοῦς ’Ιωάνην.

φιλεῖ ’Ιωάνην ὁ ’Ιησοῦς.

’Ιωάνην ὁ ’Ιησοῦς φιλεῖ.

’Ιωάνην φιλεῖ ὁ ’Ιησοῦς.

’Ιησοῦς φιλεῖ τὸν ’Ιωάνην.

’Ιησοῦς τὸν ’Ιωάνην φιλεῖ.

φιλεῖ ’Ιησοῦς τὸν ’Ιωάνην.

φιλεῖτὸν ’Ιωάνην ’Ιησοῦς.

τὸν ’Ιωάνην ’Ιησοῦς φιλεῖ.

τὸν ’Ιωάνην φιλεῖ ’Ιησοῦς.

ὁ ’Ιησοῦςφιλεῖτὸν ’Ιωάνην.

ὁ ’Ιησοῦςτὸν ’Ιωάνηνφιλεῖ.

φιλεῖὁ ’Ιησοῦςτὸν ’Ιωάνην.

φιλεῖτὸν ’Ιωάνηνὁ ’Ιησοῦς.

τὸν ’Ιωάνηνφιλεῖὁ ’Ιησοῦς.

τὸν ’Ιωάνηνὁ ’Ιησοῦςφιλεῖ.

March 15, 2012

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

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Pearl Harbor and the Cycle of Fear

 David Alan Black  

Now that the “date which will live in infamy” is upon us again, it’s as good a time as ever to read John Denson’s essay about the deceitful activity of U.S. presidents. Denson’s article is entitled FDR, Pearl Harbor and the U.N. Commenting on George Victor’s The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable, Denson writes:

Victor mentions that subsequent presidents to Roosevelt have also deceitfully taken America into wars but provides no names. He could have cited President Lyndon Johnson and his lies about the Gulf of Tonkin incident to get Congress to authorize him to retaliate to get America into the Viet Nam War. He could also have mentioned our current president and the lies about weapons of mass destruction to get us into the war with Iraq. In both cases Congress accepted the lies of the president and unconstitutionally delegated the war making power to the president rather than declaring war itself, as the Constitution requires.

If you haven’t already, you should start feeling déjà vu about Iran. Remember that the established elites of today must depend on mass apathy for their cause to succeed, just as they did prior to Pearl Harbor. It seems to me that America, like so many other nations in the distant past, is caught up in the fatal cycle of fear, armaments, and then warfare. We do evil in the hope that good might come of it. We think we can organize the world for peace and good will, but our optimism is a gross underestimate of the latent force of national hubris. Everyone knows that there is far more fear in the world than there was in 2001, far more belligerence, and a nationalistic selfishness more stupid and arrogant than ever. The truth is that war achieves nothing, and “preemption” gets us nowhere but into more war.

It is strange to think now how far we have come from the humble foreign policy enunciated by candidate Bush eight years ago. Instead of making the world safer for democracy, the only important thing appears to be the discovery of something that will keep the dream of empire alive. This is as true today as it was back in 1941. Pieter Friedrich reminds us that

[T]he Japanese tried time and again to negotiate with the United States, and the U.S. government rejected every offer the Japanese presented. The reason it seemed useless to the Japanese to continue diplomatic negotiations was because the U.S. was diplomatically frustrating every step the Japanese took.

“Frustrating every step the Japanese took” is probably an understatement. Yet this is no excuse for an American public that allows itself to be lulled into war time and time again. It is clear that the Iraq War has “taken it out” of our generation, exhausting our capacity for emotional and moral reaction to events. For over four years – longer than it took us to defeat Nazi Germany in World War II – it has been a daily succession of knock-down blows, hopes deferred or hopes defeated. Even in 2003 I could not see, for all my sympathy with the victims of 9-11, that it was the duty of the United States to take up arms against a nation that had never attacked us. Like some stormy Elizabethan play, the visionaries of empire forbid the curtain to fall on the tragic circumstances of the Middle East. The play evolves into an eternal drama that is draining the life-blood out of the nation.

No one knows how much longer this situation can continue. All the devices of hampering, interfering, and restricting constitutional government – the cynical weapons of the neocon imperialists – are in use today just as they were in 1941. The ideological campaign to discredit Iran in the minds of the public goes on in the mainstream press and by means of every public medium of communication the state has at its disposal. Dissenters are made to feel the sinister weapons of government pressure. The legal machinery is already in hand, ready to be employed whenever the administration feels the time is ripe, for the elimination of even more of our constitutional liberties and for the restriction of public dissent.

We Americans do not like to look back. We are not interested in the past but the future. “Pearl Harbor was then, this is now!” Some content themselves in pottering about in gardens, others raise chickens, still others write letters to the newspapers about politics and philanthropies. There is, however, something salutary about an occasional backward glance, for we might have kept a straighter course as a nation had we more consistently applied the tragic lessons of the past.

December 7, 2007

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

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Peace and Priorities

Becky Lynn Black  

The cramp started in my left foot. It was in the arch. And it was firming up with each passing second. It was crying out for attention.

“DON’T MOVE!!!!!” The stern, authoritative, threatening voice of the technicians (all 4 of them!) resounded in my head. The huge x-ray machine rotated around me. I lay as still as a mouse.

It wasn’t just the warning of the technicians that was ringing in my ears. I knew that these x-rays were important…they were part of the calculations for the next 8 weeks of radiation for the cancer in my body. Any small move on my part could mess up the whole treatment.

I surveyed the room with my eyes. To my right hung a huge monitor with my personal data. I couldn’t understand a thing about all the formulas, but I understood my name and my picture.  To the left hung a similar monitor with large numbers, in different colors, some of which were blinking. Important things were taking place. This was no picnic in the park.

As my private battle between the cramping arch and the threatening instructions raged, the loudspeaker played another oldies song. “Let there be peace on earth….and let it begin with me.”

I thought how much that song and my private war are like Life. 

Life demands priorities….constantly affirming or rearranging priorities.

And if we are to have peace in our life, we must each make peace by choosing priorities that generate peace. The Apostle Paul wrote, “As much as is in you, be at peace with all men.” At Jesus’ birth, the angels exclaimed, “Peace on Earth…Goodwill towards men.” The Holy Spirit, sent by Jesus, resides in those of us who claim His Name and works out the peace of Jesus in our lives.

Having now attained some small measure of maturity in life, I’ve learned the value of just letting it go. In my younger years every little thing seemed so important. And small issues became mountains upon which to take a stand. There was no doubting my sincerity. I wanted to serve the Lord with all my heart. I wanted to be obedient to the Scriptures without compromise.

But I had not yet learned there are priorities, and much of the small things in Life will pass. My Grandmother, who lived to be 105, knew this. “It will pass” are comforting words of truth. And if we will attend to this truth, we will save much energy….and much destruction.

The Apostle Paul didn’t spend his energy on little cramps in the foot. He looked to the big issues, the important issues that dealt with the general health of the Body. He looked to Love, to Grace, to Purity. He didn’t waste his time and energy on passing fads or petty issues with people. He looked to the Gospel. 

As the song wound to its conclusion and the x-ray machine stopped its rotations, I realized the cramp had subsided. At some point in my meditations my foot muscles had relaxed and the crisis had passed.

How much that is like Life. When we meditate on the Lord, seemingly important little crises will pass. And the Body is spared a costly mess-up.

“Let there be peace on earth….and let it begin with me!”

December 21, 2009

Back to daveblackonline