restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Paul on Justification

 David Alan Black  

I was asked this week, by a prospective student, if we had a “policy” about the New Perspective on Paul on campus. The answer is no. Wright’s works are studied and discussed to be sure, both in and out of class. For myself, it seems to me that the Scriptures are astonishingly coherent and clear about forensic justification. I also think, as Udo Schnelle points out inthis interview, that Lutheranism has sometimes been caricatured. An even bigger gap, as I see it, is the failure of students of Paul to come to grips with Paul’s historical milieu — a point that Wright often makes. Kingdom ministry embraces sanctification, good works, and healing. It also has a strong communal element to it. All well and good. But wherever the Gospel is preached, and wherever the church is truly carrying out the work of the kingdom, there is an inner logic that places “repentance from dead works and faith toward God” (Heb. 6:1) at the forefront. In a word, personal, individual repentance and commitment to the King is required of all of us, Jew or Greek. In Christianity we have a new Law for a new people by a new Moses. And it is all by faith, from beginning to end (Rom. 1:17).

Paul’s use of skubala (also noted by Schnelle in his interview) is a most evocative image. In Phil 3:7-9 Paul writes:

As far as a person can be righteous by obeying the commands of the Law, I was without fault. But all those things that I might count as profit I now reckon as loss for Christ’s sake …. For His sake I have thrown all that away and consider it all as mere skubala (garbage, rubbish, dung, unspeakable filth) so that I may gain Christ and be completely united with Him, no longer having a righteousness of my own, the kind that is gained by obeying the Law, but the righteousness that comes by faith in Christ (and indeed, by His faithfulness on my behalf) — the righteousness that comes from God and is based on faith.

As Jesus put it, you cannot enter the Kingdom of the Righteous One without a righteousness even greater than that of the scribes and the Pharisees. Neither Jesus nor Paul had a quarrel with the Law and the Prophets. In fact, they validated them. But they were totally against the barrier of externalism that the scribes and the Pharisees had erected — “scribal righteousness” it has been called. The Great Commission calls for personal faith in Christ (Mark 16:15), but a faith that eventually issues in a kingdom lifestyle and obedience to everything Christ requires of us (Matt. 28:19). To follow Jesus demands a completely different way of living; it requires values and ambitions that are radically new and radically kingdom-oriented. And the good news is that this obedience, this kingdom way of living, is as much enabled as it is required. As Paul writes in Rom. 8:3-4 (verses I wish every Christian would commit to memory):

For what the Law could not do, weakened as it was by the flesh, God did. He condemned sin in the flesh by sending His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to do away with sin. God did this so that the righteous requirements of the Law might be fulfilled in us who live according to the Spirit and not according to the flesh.

Yes, God’s righteousness is imputed to us — thanks be to God! — but it is also to be imparted; and we are to desire the whole thing, complete righteousness, not just a part of it.

May 12, 2011

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

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

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

 David Alan Black

This week our Greek 3 class finished translating the book of Philippians. We went out with a bang. If anyone wants to know why I recommend Hawthorne’s commentary on Philippians, his discussion of 4:10- is a big part of the reason. He makes the following points about the passage:

1) Although Paul championed the right to be supported by those to whom he preached, he preferred to support himself by manual labor.

2) He insisted on doing this for three reasons:

a) He wanted to offer the Gospel free of charge.

b) He wanted to ward off any accusations that his mission was a pretext for greed.

c) He wanted to set the proper example for others.

3) Paul never hesitated to ask for money — for others!

4) The Philippians’ gifts to Paul were unsolicited and violated Paul’s strict principles.

5) Paul, therefore, must insist on his own financial independence even as he gratefully acknowledges their generosity towards him.

6) Paul is “self-sufficient” (the Greek word is autarkes) — completely independent of external circumstances, people, and things.

7) His self-sufficiency is relative, however. He can face any circumstance only because he is “in union with the One who infuses me with strength” (4:13).

It is evident that receiving gifts from others was a very sensitive issue for Paul. It was a matter that required both firmness and tact. Hence he thanks the Philippians without really thanking them. (Some have called Phil. 4:10- Paul’s “thankless thanks.”) The value of their gift was primarily as an expression of the work of Christ in them. Paul is, I suppose, the classic example of a tentmaking missionary. He does not seem to have been concerned about his finances. The Lord had indicated to him that he should work for his own living — something he is eager to exhort his fellow believers to do as well (Eph. 4:26; 1 Thess. 4:11-12). Yet he was humble enough to graciously receive unsolicited gifts. The only thing he would not do is ask for money for himself.

Most of us find conversations about Christian finances difficult, as did Paul. What on earth are we supposed to do when a close relative of ours asks us to support their summer mission trip? We, like Paul, must be in vital touch with the Lord. We must be prayerfully open to sensing His leading towards the individual He wants us to help. I am certain that I have missed many opportunities because I have been too distracted by my own agenda. But it is essential if we are to help other people that we follow the Lord’s leading. One approach that has occurred to me is this: When a loved one asks me to support their summer mission trip, I can say: “I’m happy to help you, but you must match every dollar I give you from your own savings.” When I give, I want to see that there is at least some effort by the recipient, if he or she is able, to add to the kitty out of their own savings and thrift. Serving Jesus is costly. Paul knew this very well. During the day he preached; during the night he plied his trade. The truth of the matter is that Paul, united with Christ, was able to face life confidently, irrespective of the aid of others. He was “untroubled by the vicissitudes of life” (Hawthorne). He lacked nothing. And this is true partly because he was willing to support himself.

I find that this principle is perfectly possible to operate in today’s world. And I am quite certain that the combination of a high work ethic with a generous spirit of giving (and receiving!) is a great attraction in proclaiming and demonstrating the Good News.

Wouldn’t you agree?

Happy working — and giving!

November 19, 2011

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

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

The Patriot Act Is An Assault Not Only On the Constitution But On God

 David Alan Black 

All propaganda must be so popular and on such an intellectual level that even the most stupid of those toward whom it is directed will understand it…. Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise.  Adolf Hitler

“Propaganda” is an interesting word. It includes connotations of deliberately distorting facts and appealing to the prejudices of an audience in order to win their support for an undeserving institution or cause.

As an example of this, consider John Ashcroft’s campaign to convince the American people that surrendering their God-given liberties for the sake of government-guaranteed “security” is in their best interest. The United States Justice Department functions with impunity, gradually curbing religious and other freedoms while imposing by force of law a totalitarian ideology on the populace. All this in the name of the Constitution, no less!

Once again, government has taken the place of God in our society. William Blackstone, who embodied the tenets of Judeo-Christian truth in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, confirmed that God is the source of all law, whether laws are found in the Scriptures or in nature. To Blackstone and the American Founding Fathers, the concepts of “right” and “freedom” were meaningless without their divine origin. Thus, the very word “rights” brought to mind the image of the divine Giver of all rights. Otherwise, Blackstone argued, rights would be the purely arbitrary decisions of men—as indeed they are today because the idea of divine law has been abandoned.

Statements by John Ashcroft and others in the administration illustrate the new view of the Constitution and the radical departure from the Framers’ intent. Today, the Constitution is no longer the unchanging bedrock of our society. Instead, it is whatever the judges say it is. This view of law is in dire contrast to the traditional American understanding of constitutionalism—that is, limited government under law.

It is this type of philosophy that has opened the door to the idea of the evolution of law and an evolving Constitution. What nobody in Washington seems to notice is that the actual structure of law, government, and other branches of the American political system are actually being destroyed. All of these sentiments find their logical and horrifying conclusion in the so-called Patriot Act, which legalizes the right of government to disregard the Bill of Rights—this in the same “justice system” that allows an individual to take the life of a defenseless infant!

My friends, we must realize that fundamental perceptions of normality are being so thoroughly undermined in America that it is becoming questionable whether a coherent social order can survive in the long run. What’s more, this unconstitutional assault on the rule of law is being supported by an American presidency that chooses to ignore the phenomenal risks that are being dismissed as weightless.

Many who voted for George W. Bush thought they were supporting a conservative politician. Yet those who surround the president today seem to think there’s no political profit in responding to the concerns of millions of Americans about their unalienable rights. Apparently Ashcroft & Co. think even less of the divine Giver of all rights.

September 18, 2003

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

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Patrick Cleburne, Confederate Hero

 David Alan Black 

Today, March 17, is Saint Patrick’s Day. Patrick was a Christian missionary who lived from the late 4th century A.D. to the mid 5th century A.D. and who is credited with converting Ireland from paganism. For many celebrants, Paddy’s Day has come to epitomize all that foreigners seem to think being Irish involves—wearing green, getting drunk, eating plenty of food, saying “sure and begorrah,” or dancing like a crazed idiot.

There are, of course, many good reasons to celebrate Irish heritage today, not the least of which is to commemorate the life of a true Irish-American hero, Patrick Ronaynes Cleburne, born this day in 1828 at Annbrook House, Glenmore, in County Cork. Enlisting in the 41st Regiment of Foot, Cleburne’s unit was charged with maintaining order in a country racked by potato famine. In 1849 Cleburne moved to America and practiced law in Arkansas. In 1862 he received a commission as brigadier general in the Confederate Army. He was only one of two foreign born officers to attain the rank of major general in the Confederate armed forces.

In a letter to his family in 1861 he wrote, “I am with the South in death, in victory or defeat. I never owned a Negro and care nothing for them, but these people have been my friends and have stood up to me on all occasions. In addition to this, I believe the North is about to wage a brutal and unholy war on a people who have done them no wrong, in violation of the constitution and the fundamental principles of the government. They no longer acknowledge that all government derives its validity from the consent of the governed.”

Saner words were never spoken.

Cleburne’s stellar military carrier brought him much-earned fame. At Chattanooga he repelled Sherman, despite being outnumbered four to one. Later he won the Battle of Ringgold Gap even though Hooker had three men for every one he had. During the Nashville Campaign he succeeded to the command of Hardee’s Corps. Cleburne was killed in the battle of Franklin, Tennessee, on November 30, 1864—one of six Confederate generals killed during that famous battle.

Cleburne’s military accomplishments earned for him the sobriquet “Stonewall of the West” (though some have insisted it is more accurate to call Jackson the “Cleburne of the East”). Despite fighting under less-than-capable officers, Cleburne repeatedly proved his military skill and bravery under fire.

Perhaps one event determined his military legacy more than any other. In January 1864, after the Confederate defeat at Chattanooga, Cleburne led a group of commissioned officers in proposing that the Confederate Army draft negroes in return for their emancipation. His reasoning seemed astute, both politically and militarily. Cleburne argued that in one stroke they could increase the size of the army and eliminate a reason for the Federals to fight. This proposal caused no little discussion in the South. When Confederate President Jefferson Davis decided to replace General Johnston during the Battle of Atlanta, he selected John Bell Hood over Patrick Cleburne—in part because of this proposal.

What led Cleburne to take the radical step of advocating emancipation for slaves who agreed to fight for the Confederacy? Thankfully, we have his thoughts in a letter he sent to the commanding general of the Army of Tennessee. The letter still repays careful reading 139 years after he penned it. Cleburne wrote these words:

“Moved by the exigency in which our country is now placed, we take the liberty of laying before you, unofficially, our views on the present state of affairs….We have now been fighting for nearly three years, have spilled much of our best blood, and lost, consumed, or thrown to the flames an amount of property equal in value to the specie currency of the world. Through some lack in our system the fruits of our struggles and sacrifices have invariably slipped away from us and left us nothing but long lists of dead and mangled. Instead of standing defiantly on the borders of our territory or harassing those of the enemy, we are hemmed in today into less than two-thirds of it, and still the enemy menacingly confronts us at every point with superior forces. Our soldiers can see no end to this state of affairs except in our own exhaustion; hence, instead of rising to the occasion, they are sinking into a fatal apathy, growing weary of hardships and slaughters which promise no results….

“Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late. We can give but a faint idea when we say that it means the loss of all we not hold most sacred—slaves and all other personal property, lands, homesteads, liberty, justice, safety, pride, manhood. It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision….

“The President of the United States announces that ‘he has already in training an army of 100,000 negroes as good as any troops,’ and every fresh raid he makes and new slice of territory he wrests from us will add to this force. Every soldier in our army already knows and feels our numerical inferiority to the enemy….Our single source of supply is that portion of our white men fit for duty and not now in the ranks. The enemy has three sources of supply: First, his own motley population; secondly, our slaves; and thirdly, Europeans whose hearts are fired into a crusade against us by fictitious pictures of the atrocities of slavery, and who meet no hindrance from their Governments in such enterprise, because these Governments are equally antagonistic to the institution. In touching the third cause, the fact that slavery has become a military weakness, we may rouse prejudice and passion, but the time has come when it would be madness not to look at our danger from every point of view, and to probe it to the bottom. Apart from the assistance that home and foreign prejudice against slavery has given the North, slavery is a source of great strength to the enemy in a purely military point of view, by supplying him with an army from our granaries; but it is our most vulnerable point, a continued embarrassment, and in some respects an insidious weakness….Like past years, 1864 will diminish our ranks by the casualties of war, and what source of repair is there left us?

“Our country has already some friends in England and France, and there are strong motives to induce these nations to recognize and assist us, but they cannot assist us without helping slavery, and to do this would be in conflict with their policy for the last quarter of a century, England has paid hundreds of millions to emancipate her West India slaves and break up the slave-trade. Could she now consistently spend her treasure to reinstate slavery in this country? But this barrier once removed, the sympathy and the interests of these and other nations will accord with our own, and we may expect from them both moral support and material aid….This measure will deprive the North of the moral and material aid which it now derives from the bitter prejudices with which foreigners view the institution, and its war, if continued, will henceforth be so despicable in their eyes that the sources of recruiting will be dried up. It will leave the enemy’s negro army no motive to fight for, and will exhaust the source from which it has been recruited. The idea that it is their special mission to war against slavery has held growing sway over the Northern people for many years, and has at length ripened into an armed and bloody crusade against it…. A bloody ambition for more territory, a pretended veneration for the Union, which one of their own most distinguished orators (Doctor Beecher in his Liverpool speech) openly avowed was only used as a stimulus to stir up the anti-slavery crusade, and lastly the poisonous and selfish interests which are the fungus growth of the war itself. Mankind may fancy it a great duty to destroy slavery, but what interest can mankind have in upholding this remainder of the Northern war platform?

“The Constitution of the Southern States has reserved to their respective governments the power to free slaves for meritorious services to the State. It is politic besides. For many years, ever since the agitation of the subject of slavery commenced, the negro has been dreaming of freedom, and his vivid imagination has surrounded that condition with so many gratifications that it has become the paradise of his hopes. To attain it he will tempt dangers and difficulties not exceeded by the bravest soldier in the field….The slaves are dangerous now, but armed, trained, and collected in an army they would be a thousand fold more dangerous; therefore when we make soldiers of them we must make free men of them beyond all question, and thus enlist their sympathies also….

It is said that Republicanism cannot exist without the institution. Even were this true, we prefer any form of government of which the Southern people may have the molding, to one forced upon us by a conqueror….It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.”

Ultimately, a number of Confederate leaders, including Robert E. Lee, advocated the enlistment of blacks. But it was not to be. The war had already been lost, and the tragic era of Reconstruction lay just around the corner.

Today we live in a humiliating time when civilization should be red-faced with shame. But there is a balm in Gilead and a hope from the Lord. John 8:36 says, “If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.” Our Lord Jesus Christ offers emancipation to every slave of sin. He has redeemed us out of the market place of sin and purchased us at the price of His life—a Declaration of Independence signed in His own blood! As a result, we enjoy that freedom from fear and worry and all the evils that would enslave us.

It is only when we become God’s captives that we are truly set free.

March 17, 2003

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

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Pastors As Shepherds

 David Alan Black 

Today there are some in the body of Christ who would deny the need for leadership in a local assembly of Christians. They are disturbed that many leaders act, not like servants, but like kings. They also point out that the earliest followers of Jesus were strangely silent about leadership and authority. In all of Paul’s letters, for example, only once are leaders mentioned in the opening salutations, and then only in passing (Phil. 1:1).

But we must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The New Testament presents a clear picture of how the early Christians viewed themselves. They understood each church to be an extended family (an institutionalized church was unimaginable) that practiced plural male leadership. This eldership was non-hierarchical (each elder was equal in authority to all the other elders) and arose from within those churches the elders would lead. Because the Lord Jesus is the head of the church (Col. 1:18), the elders led by example, not by “lording it over” the church (1 Pet. 5:2). An elder’s authority lay solely in his ability to “persuade” with the truth of the Word of God (see the use of peitho, “persuade,” in Heb. 13:17).

Jesus told the apostles, “You are all brothers” (Matt. 23:8). By this He meant that His followers comprised a brotherhood, a family in which there are no classes of people. The church has only one class of members: blood-bought, born-again believers. Jesus thus explicitly forbade honorific titles among His people, emphasizing instead the truth that “Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted” (Matt. 23:12). Likewise, Paul taught that overseers are part of the whole body, not separate from or over it (see the use of sun, “with,” in Phil. 1:1).

Nothing hinders the growth of the body more than a false clergy/laity division. Making unbiblical distinctions such as separating the “pastor” from the eldership can only result in a structure that undermines the headship of Christ and usurps the individual believer’s right to minister in a spiritual way. If we are honest, we must confess that the tradition of a solitary “pastor” is a gigantic obstacle to the participatory dimension of body life found in the New Testament (see 1 Cor. 14). There are at least 58 commands in the New Testament detailing our “one-another” responsibilities but not one command about the pastor taking upon his shoulders the whole weight of the order and edification of the church.

Let us realize, then, that the New Testament knows nothing of a “pastoral office” as traditionally conceived, nor is there any evidence to support the idea of one professional minister leading a congregation. In Eph. 4:11, for example, Paul mentions apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers, but one would be hard-pressed to identify a New Testament “pastor” by name. The New Testament calls Paul an “apostle,” Agabus a “prophet,” Philip an “evangelist,” Manean a “teacher,” but it never identifies anyone as a “pastor.” Indeed, the word translated “pastors” in Eph. 4:11 is a metaphor rather than a literal term denoting an ecclesiastical office. Note the following occurrences of poimen in the New Testament:

Matt. 9:36: But when He saw the multitudes, He was moved with compassion for them, because they were weary and scattered, like sheep having no shepherd.

Matt. 25:32: All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats.

Matt. 26:31: Then Jesus said to them, “All of you will be made to stumble because of Me this night, for it is written:
       ‘I will strike the Shepherd,
       And the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’

Mark 6:34: And Jesus, when He came out, saw a great multitude and was moved with compassion for them, because they were like sheep not having a shepherd. So He began to teach them many things.

Mark 14:27: Then Jesus said to them, “All of you will be made to stumble because of Me this night, for it is written:
       ‘I will strike the Shepherd,
       And the sheep will be scattered.’

Luke 2:8: Now there were in the same country shepherds living out in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night.

Luke 2:15: So it was, when the angels had gone away from them into heaven, that the shepherds said to one another, “Let us now go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has come to pass, which the Lord has made known to us.”

Luke 2:18: And all those who heard it marveled at those things which were told them by the shepherds.

Luke 2:20: Then the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told them.

John 10:2: But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.

John 10:11: “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep.

John 10:11: “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep.

John 10:12: But a hireling, he who is not the shepherd, one who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf catches the sheep and scatters them.

John 10:14: I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own.

John 10:16: And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.

Eph. 4:11: And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers….

Heb. 13:20: Now may the God of peace who brought up our Lord Jesus from the dead, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant….

1 Pet. 2:25: For you were like sheep going astray, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

In light of the consistent usage of poimen in the New Testament, it is ironic that the term most frequently used today to describe church leaders – “pastor” – is found only once in the entire New Testament to refer to followers of Christ, and then only in the plural! The word itself simply denotes a “shepherd.” It is a most appropriate image. One of our Lord’s favorite metaphors for spiritual leadership was that of a shepherd – a person who tends God’s flock. In Jesus’ day, shepherds were without status. Theirs was a lowly, humble occupation. Thus the metaphor is fitting, for our Lord said, “Let him who is the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as the servant” (Luke 22:26).

In a similar vein, the apostle Peter wrote:

The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock; and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away (1 Pet. 5:1-4).

When Peter wrote these words, most people were thoroughly familiar with sheep and shepherding (as they are today in places like Africa). Elders, he says, are undershepherds who guard the flock under the tender supervision of the Chief Shepherd. They feed the sheep with God’s Word and lead them by example. They keep the sheep from wandering off into pastures that might harm them. Theirs is an enormous task, but faithful elders will reap the reward of an unfading crown of glory, awarded by the Chief Shepherd Himself.

Let us now sum up. The present-day concept of “the” pastor as a figure of authority is far removed from the mind of God. There is not a scrap of evidence from the early period that Christian leaders were ever organized into an official “pastorate” or that they were ever referred to as “pastors.” It was only later that the church adopted an Old Testament-based religious system, replete with an altar, a Christian sanctuary (church building), and a special priesthood. Contrariwise, the New Testament doctrine of leadership is based not on a clergy-laity dichotomy but on the complementary truths of the priesthood of all believers and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. In my opinion, there is as much evidence in the New Testament for an “office of elder” as there is for an “office of younger”!

Genuine Christian leadership is always based on truth and trust, not on power. In the New Testament we find functional distinctions between the leaders and the led but no hierarchical divisions. The New Testament church was “shepherded” by elders, local men of wisdom and maturity who had earned the respect of others.

Christian shepherds, may the Chief Shepherd help you to tend the sheep in humility and love!

February 28, 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

Pastors, Join the Black Regiment!

 David Alan Black 

If there is a decay of conscience, the pulpit is responsible for it. If the public press lacks moral discernment, the pulpit is responsible for it. If the church is degenerate and worldly, the pulpit is responsible for it. If the world loses its interest in Christianity, the pulpit is responsible for it. If Satan rules in our halls of legislation, the pulpit is responsible for it. If our politics become so corrupt that the very foundations of our government are ready to fall away, the pulpit is responsible for it.  ~ Rev. Charles Finney

Why does it seem that Americans are the only people on earth who are blind to the truth and ignorant of their history? Wherever you look, we can see the vision of freedom that once deluged our shores being swept away. We have to wonder how much longer our American Republic can survive.

Our government has become a great candy machine spewing out an endless stream of treats to lucky people, and we have to pay the bill for it! I’m talking about trillions of our hard-earned wages every single year, and the government’s appetite just keeps growing and growing, getting bigger and bigger and bigger.

What we need in this nation of ours is a political revolution, just like the one we had in 1776. Above all, I believe we need pastors and other Christian leaders who are willing to stand up to our current batch of spoiled secular bureaucrats, pastors who read and understand such great patriots as Noah Webster, who in his History of the United States wrote:

Almost all the civil liberty now enjoyed in the world owes its origin to the principles of the Christian religion…. The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His apostles, which enjoins humility, piety, and benevolence; which acknowledges in every person a brother or sister and a citizen with equal rights. This is genuine Christianity, and to this we owe our free constitution of government.

We need pastors who reject the lie that our national ideals stem from the influence of the French Enlightenment rather than from the Bible and Christianity, pastors who, with John Wingate Thornton, understand that “To the Pulpit, the Puritan Pulpit, we owe the moral force which won our independence.” We need pastors who realize that our independence today stems from one thing and one thing only: from the biblical concept that all men are created in the image of God, and because of this all men are entitled to equal treatment and unalienable rights.

In short, we need pastors who are willing to join today’s “Black Regiment.” The Black Regiment was a group of clergy who were fierce opponents of British tyranny and a driving force in the decision of the colonies to seek independence. King George had provoked many of these men to leave England by demanding that they submit to licensing by the crown. He called them the Black Regiment because of the black robes they wore when preaching.

These men of God staunchly opposed the divine right of kings. Their cry was, “Restore the crown rights of King Jesus!” Many of them wrote impassioned pleas for freedom, and some even joined the Continental Army. When George Washington asked Lutheran pastor John Muhlenberg to raise a regiment of volunteers, Muhlenberg gladly agreed. Before marching off to join Washington’s army, he delivered a powerful sermon from Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 that concluded with these words:

The Bible tells us there is a time for all things and there is a time to preach and a time to pray but the time for me to preach has passed away, and there is a time to fight, and that time has come now. Now is the time to fight! Call for recruits! Sound the drums!

Then Muhlenberg took off his clerical robe to reveal the uniform of a Virginia Colonel. Grabbing his musket from behind the pulpit, he donned his Colonel’s hat and marched off to war.

Pastor friend, will you join this patriotic host? Are you willing to say, “I will fight for the truth. I will be beholden to no one (whether a Democrat, Republican, or Other) except Jesus. I will stand up to the despots who are seeking to enslave us all by sending our children to their deaths as they build their New World Order and as they tax us into poverty. I will seek to bind our politicians with the chains of the Constitution. And I will do this for the glory of God and the advancement of Christian liberty.” Yes, the dues are high (radical obedience), but your treasure in heaven will more than amply repay.

May God give you the courage to join today!

January 26, 2004

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

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Passionate about The Passion

Lee Justice

Am I passionate about The Passion? You better believe it. In recent weeks many people have asked me what I think about the movie, obviously expecting me to be just as thrilled as they were. At first I was amused at the shock and horror caused when I shared my thoughts, thoughts based on fairly in-depth research into the content of the movie.

Then I became annoyed at the ignorance of the many naive Christians who wanted me to jump on the bandwagon with them and rave about how many people were going to be saved by watching the movie. 

Ashamed at my, perhaps, arrogant attitude, for a while I just kept my mouth shut about what I really thought, mumbling lamely to anyone who asked that my Latin was so rusty I thought I wouldn’t get much out of it.  I have to admit I enjoyed their shocked expressions, “Latin, what do you mean Latin?” But because the Lord clearly commands us to have an answer, and always be ready, I finally took the time to think through what I think about The Passion. Now when someone asks me about it, I can give an answer without being patronizing and without being afraid of hurting their feelings.

Most Christians say the obvious benefit of the movie is that many non-Christians will see it and be saved.  “Thousands will be saved,” crowed a popular radio evangelist. At the very least, as I’ve heard over and over again, non-believers will be made to think. They’ll become more “spiritually sensitive.” They’ll start asking questions. My answer to these claims is, well, maybe. But my question to these hyped up Christians is, is this how the Lord commands evangelism to be done? 

Look at any of the commissions given to believers in the Gospels and Acts. Matthew tells us that Jesus said to make disciples. It is certainly not God’s plan for large masses of people to become Christians in an environment in which there is absolutely no provision for discipling these “thousands” of new believers. Mark reports that we are to preach the Gospel. Can the Passion even be said to present the Gospel, as Mark’s Gospel commands us? 

The crucifixion, important as it is, does not equal the Gospel. Luke tells us that we are to proclaim repentance and forgiveness of sins. Where in the movie is any call to repent for our sins?  How does the crucifixion provide for forgiveness? In the Gospel of John, Jesus said “As the Father sent me so I send you.” God sends people to share the Gospel, not movies. And don’t tell me about the Jesus Film, etc. Typically churches or missionaries share these films with individuals or groups of people. Clearly the provision is there for personal witnessing and discipleship in those situations. The book of Acts tells us that we are to be witnesses of Jesus, of all that He said and did, not just one thing, i.e. the crucifixion, important as that one thing is.

In what way does The Passion qualify to be called biblical evangelism? Are we arrogantly assuming that we know better than God?  What about Paul’s example? He was certainly cutting edge when it comes to evangelism. Did he jump up on the stage in that theater in Ephesus and re-enact the crucifixion in front of that rabble, hoping that people would be saved?

Why are people so interested in The Passion? Is it because they are seeking to know the Lord, or is it more likely that they are seeking to see some realistic blood and gore? A person who is sensitive to spiritual things and is seeking God does not go to a movie that is being advertised as the most bloody and realistic portrayal of the crucifixion ever. I hear it said that people will be so stunned and emotionally affected that then they will want to know the Lord. All I can say is, we’ll see. They won’t be going to see the movie in the first place because they want to draw near to God and, as His Word says, “Draw near to God, and He will draw near to you.” God’s word never says, “Gawk at the crucifixion and you will be saved.” Clearly, a person can see the crucifixion and not be saved, like the one thief on the cross. 

Aha, you say, what about the other thief? He was saved just by seeing Christ crucified.  My answer to that is he was saved because he repented and confessed that he was a sinner and that Jesus Christ was sinless. He understood not just that the crucifixion happened but what it meant. The unsaved thief obviously believed the crucifixion happened, but he had no concept of what it meant.

When Paul spoke about the cross, as of course he often did, did he ever stop at just the cross? No, Paul spent much more time talking about the meaning of the crucifixion and the resurrection, and relatively little time talking about the details. 1 Corinthians 15 is a good example.  Paul mentions that Christ died and gives the reason for His death immediately (He died for our sins). This takes half a verse.  He then spends the rest of the chapter, over 50 verses, talking about the resurrection and interpreting its importance for the believer. 

Here is the key question:  what does the cross mean to the person who does not know that he is a sinner? Paul gives the answer in 1 Corinthians1:18. The word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing; it is a laughingstock; it means nothing. 

And to be honest, I’m a little concerned about those poor people who actually do take the time to ask Christian questions about the movie. The modern evangelical church is not filled with theologically knowledgeable people, panting for the opportunity to share the Gospel. In fact, a huge percentage of people who attend evangelical churches on a regular basis and consider themselves Christians have no clue what the Gospel is, and couldn’t explain it coherently if their lives depended on it. 

Well, lives do depend on it, so I have also considered the possible benefits of seeing The Passion for that other segment of the population that will be seeing the movie in vast numbers, that is, Christians. Might seeing the movie encourage the luke-warm Christian in his faith? God’s word tells us that a luke-warm Christian catches fire for God by repentance, not by dwelling on the gory details of the crucifixion. Maybe knowing that someone might ask questions could prod some lazy Christians to dig into God’s word and get ready to answer. As I overheard an older lady say, “I don’t know about all those questions. I’ll just give them a tract.” She had zero interest in expanding her understanding of the Gospel. 

Some may ask, isn’t meditating on the crucifixion God’s will for the Christian. In fact it is His will for us, but knowing the sinful tendencies of the human heart, He did not leave it to us to come up with a way, rather He has expressly ordained a way for believers to focus their attention on the cross. It is called the Lord’s Supper, and we are supposed to do it every time we gather as the body of Christ. According to God’s Word, the way we meditate on the crucifixion is not by exalting the gory details, but by pondering the meaning behind the event, examining ourselves for sin.

I’ve heard many people expound the benefits that they foresee from The Passion, and I could probably make up a few more that I haven’t mentioned here. The problem is that all of these so-called benefits are directly contrary to how God commands us to do things, (i.e., personal witness, the Lord’s Supper) and they are also contrary to the example given in the New Testament by Paul, James and the apostles. Just because my fallen, sin-soaked mind can come up with a thousand reasons why this movie might be a good thing, does not give me leave to go directly against Gods commands regarding, for example, evangelism and keeping the Lord’s Supper.

And don’t even get me started about the much vaunted “accuracy” that Mel Gibson claims to have achieved. The fact is that Latin was not the lingua franca at the time of the crucifixion, Greek was. The entire New Testament was written in Greek. While Aramaic was the language of Palestine, Latin was not a common language that everyone in the entire Mediterranean region knew. If the highly publicized fact that the movie is in the “original languages” is a lie, what else in the movie is untrue?  (Hey, I said don’t get me started.)

March 3, 2004

Lee Justice is a student at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina. She may be reached for comment here.

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

The Passion and Troy as Medieval?

 Sidney Cundiff 

It ought to be worthy of some comment that the West’s two foundational cradle documents, The Bible and Homer, are both, in the spring of 2004, subjects for popular cinema: The Passion of the Christ and Troy. The West has not one but two Golden Ages: Greco-Roman antiquity and the Biblical-Medieval ages, or put simply, Athens and Jerusalem. The conflict and dynamic between Athens and Jerusalem have given to Western culture the power to rejuvenate itself repeatedly in a renaissance after a period of jejune desiccation and stale petrifaction. Are our own times just so jejune? Are we witnessing the rebirth of the medieval period, a swing to Jerusalem?

Consider the top ten domestic grossing films as of 11 April, taken from http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic.htm:

Rank

Title(click to view)

Studio

Lifetime Gross

Year

1

Titanic

Par.

$600,788,188

1997

2

Star Wars

Fox

$460,998,007

1977

3

E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial

Uni.

$435,110,554

1982

4

Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace

Fox

$431,088,301

1999

5

Spider-Man

Sony

$403,706,375

2002

6

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

NL

$375,628,000

2003

7

Jurassic Park

Uni.

$357,067,947

1993

8

The Passion of the Christ

NM

$354,877,000

2004

9

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

NL

$341,786,758

2002

10

Finding Nemo

BV

$339,714,978

2003

Now just consider these movies: No westerns, no spy thrillers, no detective mysteries, no war movies, no comedies, no horror films, no slice-of-life, no Bambi and no Flipper –  all that was the pop-cinema of the 1950s. Not even any political correctness. Numbers 2, 3, 4, and 7 are sci-fi versions of the Medieval Chivalric Quest-Romance. Number One is oriented toward women (and The Woman as Lady is a discovery of the 12th Century) and may be considered a Medieval romance in the literal meaning of romance. Numbers 6, 8, and 9 are from the hands of Tridentine Ultramontane Catholics. Numbers 6 and 9 are neo-medieval epics, composed by two medievalists at Oxford – Tolkien with C. S. Lewis’encouragement and critique – both building on the work of the third greatest English medievalist: William Paton Ker (cf. his Epic and Romance). The Medieval-ness of #8 needs no comment.

Is the 21st Century, at least in its pop-entertainment, becoming a re-tread of the Middle Ages –  both Catholic Christian and Germanic-Celtic pagan? By Medieval I have two meanings, lower and upper case. By medieval, I am drawing on the work of the Japanese economist Taichi Sakaiya, The Knowledge-Value Revolution. A medieval period, Sakaiya argues, has two characteristics: the consumption of ideas (or other mental states) rather than material things, and a detachment from the imitation of reality. Consider the Doryphoros by Polykleitos from circa 420 B.C. (I use the copy in the Archaeological Museum of Naples), and the St. Francis by Berlingheri, circa A.D. 1230, in Santa Croce, Florence (and painted shortly after the saint’s death, and with possible knowledge of his actual appearance):

Which work has more bits of information? When considering the relation of head to body, which work comes closer to empirical reality? And to which style and content do the films above approach? The answers are obvious. Even science fiction (a genre that may be fading) is ultimately nothing more than plausible fantasy – the incredible that a scientific age can somehow believe in. Do critics who charge The Passion with sado-masochism simply prefer the spiritual vision of Polykleitos to that of Grünewald?:

With Medieval, on the other hand, there has been since my own school days a paradigm shift (to use a popular term). Rather than thinking of the end of antiquity as A.D. 476, Peter Brown’s The World of Late Antiquity has extended our understanding of the period from circa A.D. 200 to 800.  For myself, Late Antiquity is both medieval and proto-Medieval, and thus we can think of the period from the Arch of Septimius Severus until the contest for the doors of the Baptistery in Florence (A.D. 1401) as the Middle Ages. I should add, the term Dark Ages has long been abandoned by historians as a prejudice of the Enlightenment.

Current cultural events also raise questions about history itself. Instead of a Hegelian “pastness of the past” or a Marxist material determinism, is Fernand Braudel’s concept of the longue duree true: that history is the study of how things don’t change? Braudel in the mid-th Century went to the south of France and studied peasants, only to find that despite their having cell phones, computers, cars, and cable-access (to use contemporary terms), these peasants haven’t changed in the past 900 years. To use a metaphor, instead of the past passing, is it just buried by later construction — construction that is periodically razed, or removed as the buried is excavated in an act of cultural archaeology? Are German Romantiker and other Counter-Enlightenment intellectuals the precursors of an age just now dawning?  Will the Enlightenment and the Age of Progress be only ephemeral events, to be discarded by their longer enduring predecessors?

And now that ne plus ultra of war stories, and the summation of the Athenian ideal, The Iliad, is about to be medievalized by the film Troy, due in the theater 14 May –  complete with Brad Pitt as Achilles. Look, and laugh:

As Diomedes? Maybe. As Patroclos? Perhaps. But Achilles? I don’t think so. Homer it ain’t – more The Spirit of Romance than the spirit of epic. Will we soon see Odysseus redone resembling that Other Man of Sorrows?  Someone pass this on to Michael Medved for his judgement. (The counter-argument: Was Homer himself in a position as Malory, looking back to a past and mythic medieval age?)

However disloyal to The Iliad the movie Troy might be, we can expect no outcry from our cultural elite about Troy the way we witnessed their general excoriation of The Passion – most likely because this elite is Athenian, at least in the tradition of the Sophists or of Alexandrian decadence; and also because this elite notes the shift to Jerusalem, fears it, and seeks a Titus to raze the holy city to the ground and sent its citizens into a Diaspora. Whether Troy will make the Top Ten remains to be seen.

In short: Are our cultural Marxists as in touch with our real culture as Lucretius would have been in the court of St. Louis?  Will the nay-sayers to The Passion be seen as out of touch as Pliny’s letter on the Christians?  Is it time for someone to write history of the 20th Century as The World of Late Modernity or The Autumn of the Modern Ages?  Should we now anticipate the passing of Cartesian rationalism; the revival of both paganism and Christianity; the decline of that ultimate modern invention, the centralized State; the rise of the decentralized Medieval polis? Will that quasi-martyr (for daring to worship publicly Someone other than the emperor), Judge Moore, laugh all the way to Elysium? After some future Edict of Milan, will a pilgrimage church be built over his tomb, and his icon and relics venerated?

Get ready for St. Mel’s.

April 20, 2004

Sidney Cundiff is president of the Piedmont Chapter of the North Carolina League of the South. He may be reached for comment here.

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Passing the Buck

 David Alan Black

We’ve all done it. I know I have. It’s endemic to our sinful nature. It started in the Garden and we’ve been passing the buck ever since.

Adam blamed Eve and Eve blamed the serpent. Aaron blamed the people for the golden calf. The unprofitable servant blamed his master. 

We seem to be experts at alibis. In the end, though, have you noticed that it’s easier to accept the buck than to pass it? The unprofitable servant used many times more words explaining his failure than did the faithful servant explaining his success. The prodigal son could have thought up a list of excuses a mile long in that pigsty, but his salvation began when he resolved to say, “I have sinned.”

Today we blame our sins on everybody and everything but ourselves—heredity, environment, complexes, too much of this, too little of that. The principle is the same on the national level. Except the Lord build the (national) house we labor in vain who build it. These are dreary days when the temptation is strong to get by with shoddy building materials and build a cheaper structure. It takes rugged tenacity to say “No” to cheap substitutes. It is often at the peak of success that we find ourselves likely to dream up alibis rather than turning to God and humbling ourselves under His mighty hand. There is no greater peril, whether with the individual, the nation, or the church, than the menace of thinking we are strong when we are weak.

How the old nature wants to make alibis when we should be making amends! Would that Christians knew the simplicity of confession exhibited by the prodigal when he said, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and against thee.” Today, perhaps more than ever, we need a spiritual miracle to help us see ourselves as we really are.

July 25, 2003

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

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Partners in the Gospel

 David Alan Black  

Becky and I have received several wonderful, emotional emails from Ethiopia lately. To be honest, we’re homesick for Ethiopia. We long to see our friends face to face. We have a great driving love for them, just as Paul did for Israel (Rom. 9:3-4). We have found our relationship with them to be enormously enriching and life-enhancing.

Spiritual priorities have become preeminent in our life as a married couple. I think I am discovering a bit of what Paul meant when he wrote to the Corinthians, “The time is short, so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had none” (1 Cor. 7:29). I too am feeling the same sense of urgency. In the same book Paul says that an apostle has authority to take with him “a sister, a wife” (1 Cor. 9:4). Note the order: first sister, then wife! There is great wisdom here. Becky and I are deeply in love with each other. We are more crazy about each other today than we have been in 30 years of marriage. But just as importantly, and even more importantly from an eternal perspective, we are brother and sister, fellow workers, and fellow soldiers for Christ.

Just before his execution, John Perry wrote a letter to his wife from the Tower of London and signed it: “Your husband for a season and your eternal brother, John.” The happiest couples I know are those who are dedicated to something much bigger than themselves. This is the work of the Holy Spirit. It cannot be taught inmarriage enrichment seminars. It is learned in the crucible of life. It is a lesson Jim Elliott learned. He put it this way: “He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.” Such a keen sense of dedication to the cause of Christ!

To put it another way, Christian marriage is about Christ. It is not about self-fulfillment. It will involve more than a cursory relationship with one’s spouse. Can you pray and serve together for the needs of others? Do you help each other discover and develop your gifts? Becky and I have developed a “no-nonsense” approach to our marriage. We count the effectiveness of everything we do in terms of the expansion of the Gospel. We are learning how to spend our time. We have set aside time for ministry – whether it’s entertaining guests at Bradford Hall or taking mission trips abroad. Our prayer is, “Lord, make us saltier so that we might make others thirstier!”

My friend, will your marriage count for eternity? It can. Don’t buy into the gospel of self-fulfillment. Find your fulfillment in living for others and in partnering together for the Gospel.

September 23, 2006

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

Back to daveblackonline