restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

My Academic Journey:

Confessions of a Limping Greek Teacher

 David Alan Black  

Dedicated to all the hypocrites and fools … like me. May God help us to find the Way.

At the Foot of the Cross

Recently, I shared on my blog a little about why I teach Greek. Although the purpose of this essay is a little different (I’ll tell you more about this as you read along), allow me to share with you what I wrote.

Why do I teach Greek?

It is simply this. God has a plan for individuals. And He has communicated this plan to us in His Word. Our God is a communicative God, and He has made known His will to and through His spokesmen who penned the Scriptures. Biblical truth is just that: truth that is communicated in and through the Bible. It is truth that is at once “inspired by God” and “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that the man [or woman] of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

It is clear that biblical truth is not given for knowledge’s sake alone. I therefore emphatically agree with the old Scottish proverb that says: “Greek, Hebrew, and Latin all have their proper place. But it is not at the head of the cross, where Pilate put them, but at the foot of the cross in humble service to Jesus.” The ultimate reason for teaching and learning New Testament Greek is that, properly applied, it can issue in a “readiness for every good work” – that is, a life that is equipped to do God’s will and go God’s way.

What all this implies is that if we are to move from the classroom to real life we will have to prize what we learn and view it as a life skill and not merely as an educational attainment. Of course, this is not easy. Almost all of us feel tremendous ambivalence as we wrestle with the question of just how to apply what we learn in the classroom to the real world. Obviously, knowledge of Greek is essential if we are to have a firm foundation upon which to build our exegesis of the New Testament. On the other hand, I must say forcefully that facts, no matter how brilliantly taught or diligently acquired, are nothing more than the raw building blocks of life. How we put them together, and for what use (and whose glory), is another matter altogether.

I went on to share in my blog post that I am not so much a teacher as a guide and an encourager. In class, all of us (myself included) have but one Teacher. In class, together, we look to Him and Him alone for the help we will need both to excel in class and to excel for His glory. I wrote those words after more than 35 years, years you could call an “academic journey.” I could not have written them without these years. The reason is not so much because of all of the time I have spent in the classroom as a student and a facilitator for learning (i.e., teacher). Instead, the reason is because of how that one Teacher has used these years in my life. Behind each one of the years is a host of individuals, ministry opportunities, turning points, trials, investment, sweat, tears, and joy.

It is my hope and desire that this peek into some of the milestones of my personal academic journey will be an encouragement to you—wherever you are in your own journey. I have no idea how the Lord might use this, but I am entrusting it to Him and hoping it will be a blessing.

My Learning Juices Start Flowing

Where and when does an academic journey really begin? I was born on June 9, 1952 in Honolulu, Hawaii. Of course, my journey started there. But, my academic journey really began a few years later. Whenever I think about this journey, I think of certain people who were influential and very special to me. For example, at the age of eight a man named Rudy Ulrich arrived in Hawaii. In the late 1950s he planted First Baptist Church, Windward. It was he who led me to the Lord when I was eight years of age. Eventually he returned to the mainland and we lost contact. But I will make a beeline for him when I get to heaven. I also thank God for my fifth grade teacher at Kainalu Elementary School. One day she began class with the strange words “¿Cómo está usted?” It was my first introduction to a foreign language (other than Hawaiian Pidgin). I knew then and there that language learning would be fun and interesting. You could say the seed was planted. I’m also really grateful for my Kailua High School civics teacher, Mrs. Saranchuk. She helped me look at the world through fresh and insightful eyes. I look back with appreciation for the way she allowed me and a couple of friends to produce a creative slide show about current issues in Hawaii and present it to the entire student body. She really got my learning juices flowing, and they haven’t stopped since.

Surfing to Church

God still had a lot to do in this young man’s heart before heading off to seminary. Remember that single purpose that I mentioned above? On the beaches of Hawaii, the Lord was already preparing me “for every good work” (2 Tim. 2:21). Prior to turning sixteen, I can remember paddling in from the surf to “attend church” on Sunday morning before paddling right back out again to hit the waves. I used to attend a worship service in front of the Hilton Hawaiian Village Hotel sponsored by the Waikiki Beach Chaplaincy (a popular para-church organization at the time). “What happened to First Baptist Church Windward?,” you ask. Nothing. I had become involved with the Jesus Movement. This movement was marked by our utter rejection of the institutionalized church, which we all knew was filled with nothing but hypocrites of the worst kind. But for all its strengths (which included going to church on a surfboard), for all its proper emphasis on Jesus, the Jesus Movement was eccentric and off-kilter. And so was I. It wasn’t until I was about 16 that I realized I was just as much a hypocrite as anyone else at First Baptist Church Windward. It was a life changing lesson. When I plugged back in at FBC Windward, I did much more than was required of me.

From Biola Student to Biola Instructor

When I finally went to the mainland for college, it was to Biola University in California. Half the advantage of going away to school is, well, going away to school. You’re off on your own, making your own way in the world. For me, arriving at Biola in 1971 meant migrating from the balmy climes of Hawaii to the invigorating intellectual atmosphere of Southern California. I was doing, literally, what no one in my family had done before. I had gone to college. I became captivated in school by the biblical languages, the wisdom of the church fathers, the skepticism of the skeptics and the theology of the theologians. My Greek professor in college, of course, did his best to weed me out, but little did he know that I was destined (divine passive!) to be a lifelong student of New Testament Greek. At any rate, he eventually hired me to teach 11 units of Greek at Biola, which meant that I could indulge in my favorite pastime and even get paid for it.

Boy Meets Girl

At Biola I met many people who were influential in my academic journey. One of them has been and continues to be more influential than any other in my life. We actually met in the cafeteria line at the university. I remember offering her a chocolate-covered macadamia nut, and the rest (as they say) is history. I graduated from Biola in 1975, and in 1976 I married a beautiful Southern lady, Becky Lapsely, in her home church in Dallas, Texas. When we met, Becky was studying nursing, while I was a Biblical Studies major. Marriage was not an easy decision for me. I had come from a broken home, and I knew that God’s original blueprint for marriage was seldom followed or modeled, even in Christian homes. The picture is one of total unselfishness, two persons actively and joyfully fulfilling their duties to their partners. It involves mutual love and respect, a unity of purpose and goals. Is anyone ever ready for that step? Ready or not, we said our “I do’s” on September 11, 1976, in a beautiful ceremony at Grace Bible Church, where Dwight Pentecost was pastoring. Becky was glowing in her lovely traditional wedding gown, while I wore a simple white shirt and trousers with a maile lei—the usual wedding garb for a man in Hawaii. Needless to say, a few eyebrows were raised in tradition-loving Dallas. While Dr. Pentecost participated in the service, our pastor from California (Robert Hakes of the College Church) performed the actual ceremony.

Marriage, as Peter Marshall once said, is not a federation of two sovereign states. It is a union of lives, the confluence of two tributaries that, after being joined together in marriage, flow together in the same channel, sharing the same joys and carrying the same burdens. This is the wonderful goal of a Christian marriage, but it comes at a high price. When two strong, independent people flow together, a lot of power is generated. The current can be very strong and difficult to handle. Rare is the husband who can come into a marriage understanding his wife’s needs. He tends to think his job is to provide a living instead of sharing a life. He lacks the tenderness and care that a deeply satisfying relationship requires. In our marriage Becky and I have had to continually adjust, continually adapt, continually grow. But God has honored our commitment to each other. If I talk about my marriage it’s not because it’s perfect but because it’s the only marriage I know deeply. For 35 years we have learned how to survive and thrive, flex and forgive, using the principles of God’s Word. Our only claim is God’s amazing grace that enables us to keep on flowing together in an ever-deepening unity of heart and purpose.

The Sturz Imprint

When I was hired to teach Greek at Biola it was a dream come true. I was like a boy taking his first theology lesson and saying that he would like to be a Karl Barth. The salary was microscopic, but in those days very little could be expected if one was a humble instructor. This was during my second year of seminary at Talbot School of Theology. It was the same year that I married Becky. We used Chase and Phillips’ classical grammar for beginning Greek. It was designed to be covered in one semester at Harvard but we scraped by in two. Students were obligated to translate and parse and endure quizzes and exams. I was closely supervised by the head of Biola’s Greek Department, Dr. Harry Sturz, a textual critic of the New Testament. No one was kinder to me, or more encouraging. I was bent, grimly and ferociously, on mastering every secret of Chase and Phillips. I must have succeeded, as I was hired again in 1977. I think my chief intellectual adventure in those days was my interaction with Professor Sturz. His noble features showed little trace of the burden of years, and he had already been a legend for years on campus as a symbol of excellent teaching. “He taught as one having authority, and not as the scribes.” All of us recognized his immense intellect. Yet he was never dogmatic, never over-bearing. It was there at Biola in the 1970s, under the tutelage of this gentleman scholar, that I honed whatever skills I possess as a Greek teacher. He left his imprint on my life.

Less Is More

It was during this time at Biola that I started thinking about pedagogy. It is said that the best teachers have an intuitive understanding of the learning process. For me, understanding the learning process has not been very intuitive; I’ve had to enroll in the school of hard knocks. For example, here’s one lesson I’ve had to learn the hard way: Whenever we simply ask our students to fill in their notebooks while we lecture, education tends to be curtailed and genuine learning retarded. This is because of what I call the First Law of Paid-agogy. My pattern of lecturing was the one my teachers at Biola had used. As a student I called it the “You Sit Still and I Instill” method. That is to say, I was under the impression that my job as a teacher—what I was getting paid to do (hence the title First Law of Paid-agogy)—was to disseminate information. The more information, the better. As the years went by, however, I couldn’t help saying to myself, “I wonder just how many of these facts my students will remember after they’ve graduated?” Then I had a brain trickle. “Why not allow the students to get all the hard facts by reading the textbook before coming to class? If I did that, could I perhaps spend class time focusing on more relevant (and intrinsically important) material?” The more I pondered these questions, the more it seemed obvious to me that the principle of “less is more” works in the classroom as much as it does in any other venue of life. To be sure, I still felt it was my duty to see that my students learned the hard facts of the discipline they were studying—New Testament Introduction, for example. My only question was, “Why spend valuable class time lecturing over this material when the students can get it in one fourth the time by reading it in a textbook, especially a well-written one?”

Almost a Missiologist

After graduating from Talbot in 1980, Becky and I had the opportunity to move to Switzerland for my doctoral studies. Here’s a bit a trivia first which you may not have known about me: I once considered becoming a missiologist. In fact, in 1978 I met with the great German missiologistPeter Beyerhaus in Tübingen where we discussed the possibility of me doing a Ph.D. under him in the area of missions. My dissertation topic was going to be on the history of Christian missions in the Hawaiian archipelago, a fitting topic for someone who was hatched and raised in the Islands. Dr. Beyerhaus very kindly informed me that he was willing to work with me should I decide to enter Tübingen as a doctoral student.

Mixing Greek and Missions

Another piece of trivia: Today I am becoming the missiologist that I have always wanted to be. Not in any professional sense, of course. I have neither the time nor the patience to pursue another doctorate, nor do I feel it’s necessary to be credentialed to serve Christ as an educated “layperson.” If a cobbler could become a missions catalyst, why not a student of ancient Greek? And if I should occasionally give up the comforts of the U.S. for the hardships of Alaba or Burji, this is nothing to boast about: it is the way of the missionary to be willing to do whatever, wherever. A point that Andrew Walls makes in his The Missionary Movement in Christian History is that missiology should not exist for itself. It is impossible, he argues, to separate missiology from the other academic disciplines. The biggest obstacle is institutional: we have compartmentalized and professionalized “missions studies” instead of seeking to cross-fertilize our thinking about missions with the other theological disciplines (thus developing, for example, a missiological Christology, a missiological ecclesiology, etc.). I don’t want to give the impression that I am against sub-disciplines such as New Testament, Evangelism, or Church History. The problem, as I see it, is that our colleges and seminaries have lost sight of where they ought to be heading. (This is also true of many of our churches.) There has been no setting of priorities along missiological lines. Our sub-disciplines have therefore taken on a life of their own. It ought to be apparent that missions is central to the biblical revelation. Then why should it be marginalized? The devil cannot stand it when we get rid of our hidden academic pride and prejudice and make a real commitment to doing what God wants us to do with our lives.

Getting Ready for Switzerland

Before we left for Basel in 1980, Becky and I went on a short-tem mission trip to West Germany. I’ll never forget it. The year was 1978, and we had been married only 2 years. Our orientation took place in the hallowed halls of Wheaton College in Illinois, which Great Europe Mission used for training purposes. Not a single one of us short-termers begrudged our time in Wheaton. The goal of our orientation was 3-fold, as I recall: to reduce the stress upon our arrival in Germany, to help us avoid making needless cultural gaffes, and to bind us together as a team. My own team of missionaries (I played trumpet on a brass octet that did evangelism) needed to be reminded that shoddiness was unacceptable. Hence we practiced and practiced until we could play our music almost flawlessly. Some of us who could speak German also practiced our testimonies with each other. I memorized mine. It began, “Hat die Musik Ihnen gut gefallen?” That line was, hopefully, the entrée into a discussion about Jesus and the Gospel. The team’s tuba player and I eventually developed a very close friendship. Our team also discussed the do’s and don’ts of German society. All this to say: do not overlook preparation when it comes to missions. And the most important preparation of all is spiritual.

Life in Basel

When we finally arrived in Basel, Becky and I lived in a one-room apartment. To be more exact, we lived in the Parterre, which was about as low as you could get (both spatially and in terms of societal status). You might say that our life was primitive enough to have satisfied Rousseau. We were not permitted to shower or bathe after 10:00 pm (a city ordinance). Nor we could control our own heat (that was left to the landlord). We often had to take hot baths to stay warm during the winter. We had a tiny bathroom and an even smaller kitchenette. But happiness does not depend on physical furnishings. We had youth and vigor. Most of all we had the Lord. Life was very simple. I toiled over my dissertation while Becky kept busy with her hobbies, including her piano practicing. On occasion, we entertained. One day Becky worked feverishly to prepare our table for the arrival of some much esteemed dinner guests—none other than Professor and Mrs. Reicke. The latter was a bit taken aback when she entered our humble abode. After all, most of her husband’s students hailed from Princeton and Harvard, not from a non-descript seminary called Talbot. Our low “social status” had no effect on the way my esteemed professor treated me. Professor Reicke was extremely kind to me. He gave me access to his personal library, and we enjoyed many pleasant conversations together—something perhaps unusual in a day and age when a student’s chair was not supposed to be cushioned with any intimacy. I took far too little recreation in that era. Still, we did a good bit of walking, despite the ease with which we could have traveled “mit ’em Dram.” Naturally I discovered many reasons for preferring Basel above the UK universities. It scarcely occurred to us Doktoranden that we should go anywhere else.

By the way, my “office hours” with Professor Reicke consisted of time spent like this. Typically speaking, in the United States students meet with their professors on campus. Not so in Switzerland. Neither my major professor nor any other professor at the university had an office on campus. So, if one wanted to discuss anything with them one had to meet with them in their homes. I was frequently a guest of Bo and Ingelisa Reicke and an occasional visitor at the home of Oscar Cullmann on the famous Birmannsgasse. One time I had the privilege of sharing a meal with Professor Markus Barth and his wife at their villa in Riehen, just outside Basel on the German border.

The Lecture Hall in Basel

When I was matriculated at the University of Basel I registered for seven courses. In those days we did not have to attend lectures unless we wanted to. Your professor simply signed your Testatbuch at the beginning of the semester and again at the end. For all he knew, you might actually be taking a course at a different university. The system worked well—if you were a self-starter. I studiously attended every lecture. I will never forget my first classroom experience. As Jan Milic Lochman entered the lecture hall we students ceased our chattering and rapped our knuckles in applause. For 60 minutes Professor Lochman poured forth a torrential stream of eloquence about his hero Comenius, that great Czech theologian. As the hour struck, he stopped and walked out amid a tumult of cheering. And so it was with most of my lectures. Occasionally a visiting lecturer would offer public lectures in Basel, and in 1980 this included none other than Francis Schaeffer. As a fellow American I cheered him vociferously, but most of his audience was lukewarm at best, probably because the good doctor was highly critical of Swiss society at the time. A handful of other Americans were attending the university at the time (the names David Moessner and Donald Verseput come to mind). I recall standing out as the only alkoholfrei American in the group, nor did I smoke a pipe as did so many of the other doctoral students at the time. (Markus Barth’s seminars were filled with so much pipe smoke that I am certain I will succumb to lung cancer one day as a result.) I once accepted an invitation to attend Bernard Wyss’s course on reading ninth century Greek minuscule manuscripts, the reward for which was a visit to the sub-basement of the University Library, where an original 1516 edition of the Erasmus Greek New Testament was physically placed in my hands—a rare volume that I greatly desired to steal, as improper as such an act would have been for a Basel Doktorand.

“What about exams?,” you ask. There were no exams at all, save the orals at the end of my program and the inaugural Greek and Latin orals. The theory was, of course, that doctoral students were highly self-motivated and loved to work independently of extrinsic motivations. I wish that as an undergraduate I could have experienced this kind of freedom, but in college we were treated like glorified high school students. At any rate, I still possess the love of learning that I mastered while a student in Basel, and I got some inkling of what the Germans meant by that mysterious word Innigkeit. Eventually I graduated (with high honors) and life returned to normal, but the radiant happiness and excitement of those old days along the Rhine have never left me.  

Basel Outside the Classroom

I was often invited to coffee by other ex-pat students, mostly Germans or South Koreans, to discuss theology in one of the local Stuben. As perhaps the only inerrantist among the Doktoranden I was assaulted mercilessly, but I managed to stand my ground, and no friendships were broken over our disagreements. (I never did become a Barthian.) When I was not in class I was researching my dissertation topic in the University Library which, as you may know, allows no access to the shelves. It often took an hour or more for an attendant to find a book. As a matter of fact, the Theologisches Seminar had its own theological library to which we doctoral students were granted unlimited access night and day, and it was there that one could usually find me during the afternoon and evening hours.

That winter of 1980 in Basel was the coldest I have ever experienced. Even the Swiss were commenting on how frigid the temperatures were that year. But our social life suffered little as a result. Once a month Becky and I would take in a free organ concert at one of the city’s cathedrals, and every Friday evening we treated ourselves to the one and only MacDonald’s restaurant in town. (She ordered a Big Mac, while I insisted on my Filet-O-Fish.) Once we attended a symphony orchestra concert, where we happened to run into the Reickes. Because of our close association with the Baptist community in the city (we had joined die Baptistengemeinde Basel), we were frequently invited to eat with one of the church families, either in their home or in a local restaurant. A very good time was had by all, I do believe. Friendships such as these made our stay in that city on the Rhine a richly rewarding one.

Becky and I found Basel a fascinating city. The ancient buildings and narrow streets had scarcely been altered since the days of Erasmus and Calvin. The Great Minster afforded a spectacular view of the Rhine, while the ruins of Kaiser Augst (“Caesar Augustus”) took one back in time to the Roman occupation of “Basilea” some 2,000 years ago. Sometimes we dined in a restaurant overlooking the Middle Rhine Bridge (a local landmark) and watched the barges on their way down the river to Rotterdam. I frequently patronized the local bookshops even though I had no money to buy anything. On Sunday mornings we faithfully attended the Gottesdienst, where there were never more than 30 or 40 people in attendance. If I recall correctly, I preached 4 or 5 times there (in High German) before we returned to the States.

Sometimes Becky and I would tramp together in the Black Forest or the Vosges, and I clearly remember one day standing on the exact spot in the middle of the Rhine where Germany, France, and Switzerland meet. We also managed a trip to Greece during this time, where, believe it or not, I fell in love with okra (which I had previously detested).

Meeting My Doktorvater

I remember my first meeting in Basel with Bo Reicke. The prodigal son couldn’t have had a warmer welcome. I can still remember how he shook my hand and said how glad he was that I had come to Basel. I knew immediately that I was glad too. My experience was amazing. Of course, that was all the Lord’s doing. He knew I would benefit from studying under Bo Reicke. A kinder man never graced any university campus. No one could know the man without having his or her life touched permanently. I will be forever grateful to God for that wonderful experience.

One seminar I took with Professor Reicke entailed translating the Greek and Latin Fathers. We were asked to come to class each week prepared to recite and translate without any notes whatsoever. After two semesters of these grammatical drills we were expected to sit for our Greek and Latin orals that were personally administered by our Doktorvater. Since I had already been teaching classical Greek at Biola I fared well in the seminar, through Latin was a bit of a challenge as I had merely taught myself the language out of a textbook. I enjoyed everything Professor Reicke did in his classes, but in this seminar his wit and humor seemed to evaporate, and there was only grammar and dull recitation. I obeyed strictly the rules forbidding the use of translations, though more often than not “I found out the Latin by the meaning rather than the meaning by the Latin” (to paraphrase Samuel Johnson). At any rate, Professor Reicke evidently felt it his duty to examine me after only one semester, and I received a passing grade in both languages. I disliked the drudgery of rote translation intensely, but today I chalk that up to boyish folly. Since then I have been associated with grammars my entire academic career, and have toiled hard over the grammar of many languages. The irony is that I am absurdly ignorant of the formal rules of English grammar and often have to rely on the English majors in my classes to resolve points of controversy.

Passing Through the Linguistic Fires

As a student in Basel I was expected to speak German fluently, unless incapacitated by sheer terror, or by immovable obstinacy. Personally I owe my speaking ability in German to a Mr. Paul Mittmann of Anaheim, California, who had emigrated to America after WW II, in which he had served as a German soldier. Even now I have flashbacks to the hours we spent in his living room practicing German together. On Sundays he let me preach a few times in his church (a Lutheran Brethren congregation) in order to improve my diction and confidence. The real difficulty arose in Basel. I had not been informed that the Swiss have their own particular dialect of German. I had no practice in Swiss German and was terrified of it. Fortunately, I managed to find a Basel German grammar in a local bookstore. All at once, things began to fall into place. The vowels were easy enough, but the consonantal shifts were perplexing. I soon found myself guessing, and of course I guessed wrong. Back to the grammar, I told myself. One could not help but be aware that learning Basel German made High German look like child’s play. I formed the habit of speaking dialect whenever the opportunity arose, though I was overwhelmed at first by the pressure it put on my tired brain. My French was even more problematic. On outings into the Vosges I tried my best to speak the language, but I took some pretty hard knocks. Was I a philologist, and could I ever become one? My French interlocutors, I’m afraid, would have answered that question in the negative. On visits to the Reickes I would sometimes hear them speaking on the phone. The conversation often took place in Swedish (their mother tongue) but just as often in English, French, German, or even Italian. I imagine they felt sorry for me because I was so linguistically challenged. As I said before, on Sunday mornings we would attend the German-speaking Baptist church in Basel, and I preached there on several occasions. I know no one who did not sincerely appreciate my efforts at communicating in German. My accent left something to be desired, however. In Switzerland I was often mistaken for a German, and in Germany for a Swiss. As a result I began to work very hard on my enunciation and, for the most part, have succeeded in passing myself off for a German in Germany—which still surprises me.

Blessings in Basel

I can hardly fail to mention how grateful I am for our friends in Basel who took us under their wings while we were “sojourners and exiles” in a foreign land. I think, for example, of Frau Schaub of our church there, who tutored Becky weekly in German. As a result, within three months Becky was speaking the language. What a sacrifice of love. Perhaps this is why Becky and I have so much room in our heart for international students to this very day, even having our dear son, Nigusse, from Ethiopia now living with us on the farm in Virginia while he works on his studies at Southeastern Seminary. While in Switzerland I had the great honor of meeting Professor Oscar Cullmann. Although he was retired by the time I arrived in Basel in 1980, I was privileged to meet privately with him several times in his home in the Birmannsgasse. He was known in Basel for his outstanding theological exegesis of Scripture. Indeed, I still think his Christology of the New Testament is the best book ever written on the subject. Blessings like these are divinely orchestrated parts our academic journey.

Putting Pen to Paper

I was never trained in the science of linguistics. To tell the truth, I had no interest at all in the subject until I began my doctoral studies. I spent long hours, like graduate students today, in discussing Greek pedagogy with my peers. But I was more interested in pursuing my dissertation topic, which involved biblical theology. I wanted just then to grapple with ideas rather than any more grammar. Though I knew that a “D.Theol.” was a pleasant ornament to one’s name in a college catalog, I desired other things much more. There was at this time, however, no diminution of my love for languages. I was spending long hours reading Greek, Latin, French, and, of course, German. What is more, I began reading what linguists were saying about language, and about how it works, and then applying this knowledge to my exegesis of texts. I was interested in allowing the author to be his own interpreter as much as possible. Thus it was that I began writing my book on linguistics, hoping fervently that someone more qualified would do the job instead.

Upon graduation from Basel in 1983, I revived my courses in Classical and Koine Greek. I craved for myself as well as for my students a greater mastery of exact terms, and I worked away at my book until Baker agreed to publish it in the late 1980s. Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek was an immediate success, though I fear that linguistics professors objected to my infringement upon their traditional rights. All of us at Biola, I think, gained something from that training in acute observation and accuracy of description that linguistics affords. In the meantime, my essays were being accepted for publication in such journals as Biblica, New Testament Studies, and Novum Testamentum. More books shortly followed. It is pleasant to remember now my first contacts with my editors at Zondervan, Baker, B & H, and Eisenbrauns. These were men who were willing to take a risk with a young buck. I grew very fond of writing, and am still at it today, though my interests have shifted considerably from the day I published my dissertation in 1984.

“Why So Many Greek Books, Dave?“

Recently I was asked why I’ve written so many books on Greek. The answer is, “I don’t know.” I certainly never set out to write books on this language. Writing about Greek doesn’t mean that one has mastered the subject. It doesn’t even mean that one is a successful classroom teacher. The Greek books I’ve written have all been written by a learner for learners. I well recall when B & H Academic asked me to write a beginning Greek grammar for them. My response was a polite but firm, “No.” That’s all we need — another Greek grammar, I said to myself. But when they asked me to pray about it I agreed to do so. A week later I consented, and within 4 months the book was written. I had a similar experience with my intermediate grammar It’s Still Greek to Me. When asked by Baker Books to write it I again demurred, knowing full well that my friend Dan Wallace was at the time writing such a grammar for Zondervan. When Dan’s work was eventually published, my editor at Baker called me and asked me what I thought of it. With tongue slightly in cheek I replied, “It’s the best third year grammar I’ve ever seen.” “Well,” he said, “Will you write a genuine intermediate grammar for us?” “Yes,” I replied, “as long as I can keep it under 250 pages.” Greek is a broad subject. No single textbook can claim to “get it right” in every respect. I know mine can’t. For better or for worse my books have been written for the average student—Harvard has yet to approach me about using any of my grammars in their classes! They are also written, to a great degree, from a linguistic perspective. However, let it not be supposed that I have done anything other than scratch the surface. It is hoped that through reading my books the next generation of Greek students will produce their own texts that will far exceed mine both in quality and depth. That said, being a Greek student is one of the most rewarding and joyous avocations possible; and my only prayer is that my few books on the subject might make it even more so.

By the way, since I first published Paul, Apostle of Weakness way back in 1984, the church has seen many changes. Many of these involve technology. My dissertation was typed on a machine called a typewriter. Today the typewriter is a museum piece. Today we enjoy so many advantages I lacked when I was a student: the internet, Twitter, Face Book, blogging. These changes have all been for the good, and I embrace them.

The Intermediate State

So what happened after my doctoral program? When I returned from Basel I picked up my teaching mantel again at Biola, though it was not long before I would be wooed away. In Long Beach an effort was underway by Grace Seminary in Indiana to establish a West Coast Campus. My appointment as academic dean at Grace Graduate School (a ministry of the Grace Brethren Church of Long Beach) was to be the first step in making that a reality. Eventually, Grace West opened its doors as the fully-accredited extension campus of Grace Seminary in Winona Lake. I was not so keen about the commute this involved from my home in La Mirada, but the opportunity to reach students with a non-traditional schedule was too good to pass up. Our goal was never to compete with what Biola was doing; our courses were targeted at those students who could only attend classes in the evenings or on the weekends. We were working hard to reach out to the ethnic minorities in Southern California, and were seeing some success. How idealistic I was then! I was brought back to earth sharply. Political dissention on the main campus in Indiana led to the closure of Grace West after only three years of operation. It was an intensely difficult time for me. I saw my vision collapse for what I saw as no good reason.

Back to Biola I went, and there I remained until 1998, though I was also moonlighting at other institutions such as Simon Greenleaf University and Golden Gate Seminary’s Brea campus. Personally I owe Biola much—and not merely because it offered me my first chance to earn a living. It was there that I cut my eye teeth as a classroom teacher under the watchful supervision of Dr. Harry Sturz, one of the finest Greek professors who ever graced the halls of academia. He watched me, with those glittering eyes, incessantly. In my classes I was left free to do my work in my way. In the evenings I worked steadily at my writing and tried to keep current with the latest scholarship. It seems to me now that in my early thirties I had more intellectual curiosity and energy than I do now, but in those days the world of academia meant more to me than it does today.

Landing Between Honolulu and Basel

In 1998 I was called to Southeastern Seminary, then under its new president, Dr. Paige Patterson. I had no great desire to leave the West Coast, but since several eastern institutions were courting me I decided to write Dr. Patterson and send him my resume. In November of 1997 Becky and I were flown out to Wake Forest for an interview. I must say it was love at first sight. We were made at home in the spacious Lion House and feted night and day by various members of the faculty. There were many interviews, of course. In the one with the president I was able to ask any question I wanted to. I recall inquiring about office protocol. “How many office hours do you require for your faculty each week?” I asked. I will never forget Dr. Patterson’s answer. He smiled at me and said, “Dave, around here we have only one rule: We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ. Act accordingly.” I thought to myself, This is where I’d like to work! Perhaps the most attractive feature of Southeastern for me at that time was its fledgling Ph.D. program in Biblical Studies. I knew that if I ever relocated it would be to a place where I could mentor doctoral students. Thus it was that in the summer of 1998 we moved our horses and goats and settled down in the tobacco fields of Granville County, North Carolina. Some of my work at the seminary, like that of every teacher, is of the grindstone variety, but by no means all. One is almost given carte blanche as to courses and hours, and overloads are usually available. I began teaching the Advanced Greek Grammar course as well as a Ph.D. seminar in Greek Linguistics. I have been able to host two major New Testament conferences on campus, a place of keen enjoyment of academic debate. I have found both the physical climate and the spiritual atmosphere of Southeastern to be more than congenial. I still miss the deserts of the American West, but I have found the pace of life here to be relaxing and soothing after the frantic hubbub of Southern California.

Global Missions: Will You Go?

At the conclusion of my interview with Paige Patterson in 1997, I was asked a most unusual question. “Dave,” he said, “if I were to send you to a level-three security nation on a mission trip, and you knew there was a strong possibility you would not come back alive, would you go?” As you can well imagine, I had never been asked that question in a job interview before. I requested a minute to think about it, and then I replied, “Yes, sir, I believe I would.” I can see clearly enough now what Dr. Patterson was trying to do. I had endeavored, it is true, to be involved in missions prior to coming to Southeastern Seminary. Never before, however, had I been asked to risk my life for the sake of the Gospel. The supreme importance of the Great Commission struck me for the first time in my life. Today, many come to me with questions about how to prioritize the Gospel and integrate it into the rest of their lives. I often ask them the same question I was asked by Dr. Patterson.

Today, Danny Akin has maintained and deepened the commitment at Southeastern to the Great Commission. “Every classroom a Great Commission classroom” is our motto. This is one of the biggest reasons I love teaching at SEBTS. No longer do we have to protect our pet doctrine or our departmental turf. We have a greater responsibility. I believe that 2 Cor. 5:14-21 teaches that we are all to be Christ’s ambassadors. We have been given the ministry of reconciliation. This means that every activity, every effort, every program, every project is to be evaluated in terms of how it contributes to the ultimate mission of the church and of the seminary — global evangelization. The Great Commission leaves us no option. Jesus makes no apology for demanding obedience in this area. Global missions is to be the task of every individual Christian and every church and every Christian organization. It is the Lord’s final charge to us before He ascended to the Father’s right hand. Measured against that, can anything else be more important?

In my book The Jesus Paradigm I told about my life-changing encounter with this Jesus who loved lost souls so desperately that He was willing to spend His ministry reaching out to sinners of all kinds. He saw what was of ultimate importance in life. No wonder He could live for others as a selfless servant. This is also, I believe, the acid test of any seminary that claims to honor Christ. Does what we do square with the Great Commission? Or is our institution just another tangent that detracts from the other-centeredness of the Gospel? It is when we realize that we are building the kingdom and not our own little ministries that the great growth really begins in our lives. When we stop focusing on ourselves, we are free to act on the really important questions. Plainly, I did not always view the purpose of graduate theological education in these terms!

My Desire for My Students

I began teaching Greek at Biola University in 1976. This means that I’ve sat through about 35 years of graduation exercise as a faculty member. That calculates to some 70 commencements! I’ve enjoyed every place I’ve taught, but there’s something special about Southeastern. Jesus invites His followers to join Him in basin ministry. This call to an active ministry permeates the campus. We’re asked to love, teach, serve, and go. The hallmark of Jesus’ earthly ministry was His willingness to forego what was rightfully His. And that is exactly my prayer today for our grads. Like a Space Shuttle about to be launched, our graduates are sitting on the launching pad about to be propelled into space by thousands of pounds of thrust. The analogy breaks down, of course. In Christianity, the way up is down. Only in defeat do we know victory. Only through weakness do we experience strength. Only as we are on our knees can we ever hope to stand. We do not worship this world. We serve a New King and sing a New Song. We pledge allegiance to Him alone. Our only desire is that His kingdom come, His will be done—through us. In this kingdom, even the least is greater than John the Baptist. This includes even those who do not earn academic honors. Even those who have no idea where God wants to use them. Even those without the trappings of “success.” In fact, especially those.  I want for my students exactly what Jesus wants for them—and from them. He is calling His disciples, saying, “You might not have much, but you can give everything you have to the Cause of Causes. Don’t just skim off the top of your abundance. Don’t store up for yourselves treasures on earth. Strive for the kingdom and God’s righteousness. Then you will have everything.” Students, if you hear and obey the biblical message, which urges us to place everything we are and everything we have under the reign of Jesus Christ, you will be truly blessed. You will have an academic journey that you will truly never regret.

Conclusion: The Way Up Is Down

I never set out to become a professional Greek teacher. I “slid” into my teaching career, no doubt with more than a touch of foible about me. I suppose my public reputation is one of a Greek scholar, as far as the academic public is concerned. But my main interests do not catch the public eye. When I began to teach the New Testament documents I was not mature enough to grasp all of their implications. I have no doubt that, like my Doktorvater in Basel, I was drawn to Gospel studies. To me his lectures on New Testament history were intensely stimulating and made a deep impression on me at the time. I had no doubt that Bo Reicke was on the right side of the synoptic problem. I still think so. It is curious, then, that my dissertation dealt with a problem in Pauline lexicography. It was not until the year 2000 or so that I had the courage to publish my views about the historical origins of the Gospels. But interest is not the same as what God intends for the gospel to do to our lives. I discovered, in reading the Gospels for myself, that a deep and subtle change was taking place in my life. I had the impression of being in the presence of a great man. In school I had been taught about Christianity; the Gospels were teaching me how to be a Christian. It stole my heart to see such a man as Jesus stoop down and wash His disciples’ feet, as if it were a matter of supreme importance to Him. It suddenly increased my own sense of hypocrisy. To discover that you are a professor of New Testament and Greek without possessing the self-effacing mind of your Savior—well, that is life-changing.

The way up in the kingdom of God is down. I fear my published attempt to recount the dramatic shift that took place in my life—The Jesus Paradigm—is not my best work. But it is as good as I knew how to make it. To my disappointment, Learn to Read New Testament Greek outsells The Jesus Paradigm by a hundredfold. I do not pretend to be able to explain this. There is certainly less attention in Greek classes to costly service for Christ than the rules and exceptions as set down in the grammars. But who can gaze into the pages of the Gospels and not have his or her life turned upside down? It is as if an old lion has turned in his cage to look at you, only that all the bars have magically disappeared. Life, for me, was undeniably barren until I encountered Jesus. Oddly enough, one can be a fulltime seminarian (on either side of the desk) and not realize this. So, we are back where we began—at the foot of the cross. The question is whether or not you—and your academic goals and accomplishments—have been placed there for the King to use as he sees fit.

Well?

March 1, 2012

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

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Muggeridge and Me

 David Alan Black 

Who in heart not ever kneels/Neither sin nor Saviour feels.

George Herbert, The Temple.

Dear DBO reader:

Permit me, if you will, to engage in a little introspection for a moment. Whether in fact I am following the truth of Christianity I must leave in God’s hands to judge. But I try to follow it, and if He somehow were gracious enough to think that I am doing so, I would be delighted. But the main question is always, Shall I walk humbly with my God, and go wherever He leads?

C. S. Lewis noted in his Transposition and Other Essays: “The work of a Beethoven, and the work of a charwoman, become spiritual on precisely the same condition, that of being offered to God, of being humble ‘as to the Lord.’” My brief time on this earth (52 years so far) has made me realize just how little I know and how important it is to be humble “as to the Lord.” It has also made me keenly aware of the difference between our man-made Gardens of Eden and the true Heaven. Christians have always been rightly suspicious of utopias, but the tendency is to fall for them when things get really bad.

I have never been as concerned about the state of the church as I am today. And so I have begun to write a new book to be called Unleashing the Church: A Call for Radical Obedience. I know perfectly well that I do not have all the answers to the problems that are plaguing our churches today. The only thing I know for sure is that the Scriptures are God’s Word and are therefore sufficient for us to know His design for His beloved Bride. And I must say that the more I read the New Testament – and I read it quite a lot – the more I’m struck by its clarity and simplicity – two virtues that, I sense, the modern church is in danger of losing. Through the New Testament alone we know God’s plan for the church, and therefore it is the only source of knowledge that we have.

Each time I read the Book of Acts it seems to be more enriching. The extraordinary wisdom of our God about His church! John Bunyan, in his Pilgrim’s Progress, described it beautifully:

Pliable: “Come neighbor Christian, tell me now further what the things are, and how to be enjoyed, whither we are going?”

Christian: “I can better conceive of them with my mind, than speak of them with my tongue: but yet since you are desirous to know, I will read of them in my Book.”

Pliable: “And do you think that the words of your book are certainly true?”

Christian: Yes, verily, for it was made by him that cannot lie.”

I intend in my little volume, then, to be true to this Book that cannot lie, trying to be fair to differing viewpoints whenever they clash. Unlike my autobiographical Why I Stopped Listening to Rush: Confessions of a Recovering Neocon, a book that reflects my deeply held convictions about civil government, this book will be an exegesis of the Scriptures, and I will undoubtedly sound like a fanatic to some because I will seek to defend the doctrines of the apostles (again, as I understand them) against all human notions of “doing church.” As an incurable Muggerophile, I will attempt to question traditional concepts at every turn. I do so not because I have become soured on life. Malcolm could be acid-tongued, but he was no kill-joy. He laughed a lot, and his love of the truth never turned him into a grumpy ascetic. But he cared deeply for the truth and trounced anyone who dared to corrupt it. Simply put, he was never prepared to sacrifice truth on the altar of charity.

In ten lifetimes I could never be the sage that Malcolm Muggeridge was, but I have learned from him that to be a pilgrim though this confused and wonderful world one must often take risks, must occasionally stray into controversy, and, above all, must be willing to walk humbly with God, wherever He leads.  

Might I request, then, your prayers for me as I begin this new journey? However oddly I might express myself (from the point of view of accepted formulations), I pray that I might articulate the central truths of Christianity in such a way that will edify the church and, more than anything, bring glory and praise to the great author and subject of the New Testament, Jesus Christ.

I have never before made this sort of request of an audience prior to publishing a book, but I suppose that had I done so, my previous writings would have been far better. For what it is worth, I can only place on record the tremendous relief a writer feels when he knows that his work is being supported by the prayers of God’s people.

God bless you, and thanks for all you do for Christ and His Kingdom.

Dave

P.S. If you do decide to pray for me, perhaps you would let me know in an email. Thank you.

January 18, 2005

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

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Mr. President: The Buck Stops With You

 David Alan Black

President Bush said last Friday “I want to know the facts” about any intelligence failures concerning Saddam Hussein’s alleged cache of forbidden weapons, and today he is calling for an independent investigation. Don’t get too excited, though; it may be another attempt to deflect responsibility. Perhaps the president could learn a lesson from American history.

In July of 1863, General Robert E. Lee unexpectedly found himself engaged with the Federal Army near the town of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, and had to fight. For three days he tried his utmost to produce one decided simultaneous attack on the whole line, without success. Ewell failed to act with decision. Longstreet and Hill could not be gotten to act in concert. The Federals were able to oppose each of the Confederate Corps, or even divisions, in detail.

Reflecting on the outcome of the battle of Gettysburg, Lee wrote a letter to President Jefferson Davis and asked to be relieved of command of the army. He said:

The general remedy for the want of success in a military commander is his removal. This is natural, and, in many instances, proper. For, no matter what may be the ability of this officer, if he loses the confidence of his troops disaster must sooner or later ensue.

I have been prompted by these reflections more than once since my return from Pennsylvania to propose to Your Excellency the propriety of selecting another commander for this army. I have seen and heard of expression of discontent in the public journals at the result of the expedition…. I therefore, in all sincerity, request Your Excellency to take measures to supply my place. I do this with the more earnestness because no one is more aware than myself of my inability for the duties of my position. I cannot even accomplish what I myself desire. How can I fulfill the expectations of others?

President Davis, of course, did not see fit to relieve Lee of command—“Where am I to find that new commander who is to possess the greater ability which you believe to be required?”

After the war Lee commented little on Gettysburg and never went further than to say if the assault had been coordinated success could have been attained. Though many were quick to blame General Longstreet for the disaster in Pennsylvania, Lee himself concluded that it was mainly the absence of Stonewall Jackson, not the presence of Longstreet, that made the Army of Northern Virginia a less than effective fighting force at Gettysburg than at Chancellorsville. One day, while taking a ride with Professor White of Washington College, he said quietly, “If I had had Stonewall Jackson with me, so far as man can see, I should have won the battle of Gettysburg.”

Ultimately, however, Lee blamed no one but himself for the defeat. When he said, “It is all my fault,” he meant it. As Douglas Southall Freeman wrote in his prize-winning biography of Lee, “[Lee] was in command. If his orders were obeyed, the fault was with his plan; if his orders were not obeyed he was culpable for permitting them to be disregarded—so he must have reasoned.”

Let us contrast Lee’s reasoning with the attitude of Bush and Blair on the matter of the alleged Iraqi WMD. On July 10, 2003 in The Times (UK), Simon Jenkins described British Prime Minister Blair’s artful dodging of any responsibility for the WMD fiasco: “Play for time. Delay, bob, weave. Leave the opponent no chink, never retreat, feint, jab, deflect blame, force the enemy into error, deny non-existent accusations with passion. Never apologise. The arts of political spin are as old as Demosthenes. But they have rarely been deployed more effectively than by the present British Prime Minister, as witnessed before the Commons Liaison Committee yesterday.”

He concluded with these words: “The Prime Minister is a legal perfectionist. He will make no Mother of All Apologies. There will be no ‘closure’ on weapons of mass destruction. They will be found in Iraq if Hell has to freeze over first. Mr Blair knows something nobody else knows.”

Last year while in South Africa on an African tour, President Bush was equally artful in ducking questions over a White House admission that he used flawed intelligence on Iraq’s nuclear program while insisting he was right to oust Saddam Hussein. Facing reporters for the first time since the White House admitted he had overstated Iraq’s alleged efforts to procure uranium, Bush deflected a question on whether he regretted highlighting the allegation in his January 2003 State of the Union address.

“There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the world peace and there is no doubt in my mind the United States along with our allies and friends did the right thing in removing him from power,” he said. “I am absolutely confident in the decision I made. I’m confident that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.”

Where do the top Republican lawmakers stand on Bush’s admission that he used flawed intelligence? They accused opposition Democrats of exploiting a “relatively minor issue.”

How much longer can George W. Bush maintain his denial of responsibility? While President Kennedy took personal responsibility for the Bay of Pigs disaster, even though he easily could have blamed the mess on his predecessor or on the intelligence community, it seems unlikely that Bush will ever assume responsibility for the intelligence fiasco prior to invading Iraq, independent investigation or not.

It’s high time that someone in this country remembers that the buck stops with the Commander in Chief.

February 2, 2004

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

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Mr. Michael Peroutka: His Face Is Set

 David Alan Black

Isaiah wrote, “Therefore I have set my face like a flint” (Isa 50:7). The prophet is speaking of God’s Suffering Servant who has resolutely embarked upon an irreversible course. The New Testament says that our Lord “stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem” to endure the cross (Luke 9:51). Scholars tell us that the phrase “set one’s face” is a Hebraism implying fixedness of purpose, especially in the face of difficulty or danger. I imagine this is the mindset of our brave sons and daughters in Iraq as they set out on a dangerous convoy through the Sunni Triangle.

As for Jesus, He had chosen to enter upon the path before Him—a path of humiliation, suffering, and death in order to accomplish the divine plan of salvation. He knew the time had come when, after His suffering and resurrection, He would again be taken up and reinstated in His former glory with the Father and vested with the new glory He had won as Son of Man.

This Saturday, fully aware of the path awaiting him, Mr. Michael Peroutka will announce his candidacy for President of the United States. The decision to run for public office was not an easy one for this soft-spoken man. In his statement of candidacy he notes:

To say that I did not feel qualified to take on such a massive task is to engage in gross understatement. After prayer and serious consideration, I am convinced that the question of my qualification and competence is not solely within my power to judge. The uniqueness of this undertaking and the special demands that it requires, make it necessary to rely upon the judgment, experience and counsel of men who have trod this path before me. In short, if men like Howard Phillips and Jim Clymer are convinced that I can adequately represent the Constitution Party in such a fashion, then I must weigh their opinion and their vision as well as my own knowledge of the task and of my own strengths and shortcomings. In light of these considerations, and despite previous misgivings, I believe God has given me this duty to perform.  

Mr. Peroutka entertains no illusions that his path will be easy or “successful” in the world’s eyes. He is simply carrying out to the best of his ability the will of God as he understands it:

[T]here are at least two distinct tasks against which competency must be judged. One is the running of a legitimate and appropriate candidacy. The second is the serving in office in the event that God would grant the victory. About the first I know almost nothing except that it will be a challenge that will test my knowledge, patience, energy, and stamina. I expect to take punches and I need to do so with equanimity and maintain the course despite attacks and setbacks. I am committed to this. Regarding the second, I feel a little more qualified. Although I am not well-schooled on every important issue, I do feel that I have an overall grasp of what a Constitutional Republic of Sovereign States based on Biblical principles would look like and I think, with practice, I can express this clearly and concisely. Applying these principles to every question of current events in a rapid-fire interview with good sound bites may not be my forte but I think I could actually do the work of the office if God gave it to me to do. Moreover, I am confident that if He gave it to me He would give me the resources and the help to carry out His will for me.  

What does this mean for you and me? As voters, we are now faced with a viable alternative to the two-party monopoly that dominates American politics. And, like Mr. Peroutka, it is time to make a choice. Pastor Mark Dankof put it this way in a recent email:

What are your other voting options in the first Tuesday of November this fall?  One will be a liberal Democrat, quite clearly the reincarnation of another Dukakis candidacy.  The other will be Rockefeller Republican George W. Bush, who has given us 1) a Congressionally undeclared and preemptive foreign war in Iraq on the basis of fraudulent claims and evidence; 2) a never-ending and disastrous occupation of that country which continues to siphon billions of tax dollars and American lives with no end in sight; 3) a Leviathan federal budget of 2.3 trillion dollars with 500 billion dollar + deficits; 4) a catastrophic immigration policy which has given blanket amnesty to an additional 12 million illegal aliens in the United States; 5) a continuation of America-Last trade policies as outlined in NAFTA and GATT, designed to destroy the manufacturing base and sector of the American economy; and 6) ongoing capitulations in the Culture War to the anti-Christian, pro-abortion, and homosexual lobbies active within his own Party.

If you like these policies, Mr. Bush and/or his Democratic opponent are just for you. I accept this. But if you share my own anxiety about the future of America and the direction either King George or John Kerry of the People’s Republic of Massachusetts will set in the four years that follow this November’s election, please prayerfully consider Michael Peroutka as worthy of your vote as the next President of the United States. And tell as many of your friends and family members as you can of this important option I commend to you. There is indeed a viable alternative available. And let’s Reclaim our Republic.

A friend of mine recently asked me, “But I’ve never heard of Michael Peroutka. How in the world can a man without name recognition, personal connections, and access to resources be considered a viable candidate for president?” This is a legitimate question. But it has been answered by Mr. Howard Phillips, one of the founders of the Constitution Party. In an interview with Mark Dankof on World Net Daily, Mr. Phillips said this:

Christians, conservatives, Constitutionalists, will only be effective in politics when they begin with the standard, rather than beginning with the man. If you begin with the standard of God’s word, the Bible, if you begin with the political standard of the Constitution, and then assess the degree to which those who seek your support identify themselves with that which is required by the Bible and the Constitution, you are less likely to err. But there is no such thing as perfect discernment—we just do the best that we can.

In other words, not only does the Constitution Party put principle above politics; it puts principle above personality. This is as it should be.

Personally, I like the determination and humility I see in Mr. Peroutka. It reminds me of what the apostle Paul said in Acts 20:24. Although aware that bonds and afflictions awaited him, he declared, “But none of these things move me.” Paul had set his face. In Philippians 3:13 he tells us, “This one thing I do,” not “These many things I dabble in.” Yes, there are “those things which are behind,” and Paul is forgetting them. But there are also “those things which remain before,” and Paul is reaching forth unto them with every ounce of his God-given strength. All the land that remains to be possessed, all the service that remains for us to accomplish, all that is ours in Christ both as individuals and as a nation—let us reach for these while there is still time.

Today is the day to make up our minds on “this one thing.” It will help bring all other things in their proper relation to that. This is what Mr. Peroutka has had the courage to do, and that is what we must do.

Set your face like a flint and you, too, shall never be ashamed.

February 19, 2004

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

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Mr. Bush, Tear Down This Wall!

 David Alan Black

Exactly 42 years ago today, Berliners woke up to find themselves living in a divided city. Troops in East Germany had sealed the border between East and West Berlin, thus shutting off the escape route for thousands of refugees from the East. Barbed wire barricades up to six feet high were erected during the night, train services between the two sectors of the city were cut, and all road traffic across the border was stopped.

Thousands of angry demonstrators quickly gathered on the West Berlin side of the divide. The West German Chancellor, Konrad Adenauer, appealed for calm, saying in a broadcast to the nation: “Now, as always, we are closely bound to the Germans of the Russian zone and East Berlin. They are and remain our German brothers and sisters. The Federal Government remains firmly committed to the goal of German unity.”

The erection of the wall was, of course, a flagrant violation of East-West agreements and therefore illegal. For 28 years it stood as a stark symbol of the Cold War. When then-President Ronald Reagan traveled to Berlin on May 12, 1987, his mission as a life long anti-Communist was clear. His memorable speech contained these lines: “General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

No one could imagine how quickly Reagan’s challenge to the Soviet President would be realized. The wall “came tumbling down,” its pieces ending up in museums and safe deposit boxes worldwide (including mine).

It seems clear to me that America today faces a political crisis every bit as serious as the one facing West Germany in 1961. President George W. Bush has erected a wall of distrust between himself and the American people. Mr. Bush told us that Iraq was a nuclear threat and that it was trying to purchase uranium. “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa,” Bush said in his State of the Union address last January. Of course, his statement was technically correct, since it accurately reflected the British position. But the bottom line is that the White House knowingly included in a presidential speech information its own intelligence agencies had explicitly warned might not be true. They dropped their objections only when Bush promised to state explicitly that the intelligence came from the British.

As the British paper the Guardian Unlimited reported, on July 11, Gregory Thielmann, who was a director at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence until his retirement in September, held a press conference to accuse the White House of misusing intelligence to build a spurious case for war. Thielmann, who had access to classified information, said, “I believe the Bush administration did not provide an accurate picture to the American people of the military threat posed by Iraq.”

If making false statements about sex became the grounds for the last presidential impeachment, how much more serious is the mishandling of evidence leading to an invasion that has cost hundreds of American lives. Moreover, for the first time in history, the United States embraced a doctrine of pre-emptive war. The rationale cited by Bush for the invasion was that we were threatened by WMDs, even though the U.S. intelligence agencies and United Nations weapons inspectors found no hard evidence that they still existed in Iraq, let alone that Iraq intended to use them against us or its neighbors. As a Washington Post story on June 7 stated, “senior administration officials, including President Bush, expressed certainty in public that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons, even though U.S. intelligence agencies were reporting that they had no direct evidence that such weapons existed.”

The fact is that neither Bush nor British Prime Minister Blair had any solid proof that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The public in both nations therefore has the right to demand a truthful accounting of whether or not the intelligence agencies provided a truthful analysis of Iraqi WMDs or whether the estimates were cooked for political purposes.

In Ezekiel 13:14 the Lord said, “I will break down the wall,” referring to the deceptive vision and lies of the false prophets who had announced peace when there was none. The tools of God’s wrath against the wall— whitewashed though it was—were rain, hailstones, and a stormy wind, resulting in the laying bare of its foundation and the destruction of those who had erected it. In the terrible words of Ezekiel 13:15, “The wall is no more, nor those who daubed it.”

Mr. Bush, it’s time to come clean about Iraq. A wall of distrust exists between you and the American public, and whitewashing it will only aggravate the problem. There is only one thing to do, and that is to tear down this wall.

August 13, 2003

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

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Moving from Orthodox Medical Treatment to “Alternative” Treatment

Becky Lynn Black  

Some preliminary thoughts…

To “acclaim” means to praise a truth; to “disclaim” mean to say “it’s not true.”  Let me start with one acclaimer and two disclaimers.  The acclaimer is this: my God has promised in His Word that if any of us (who are following Him) ask for wisdom, then He will give it to us (James 1:5).  We are trusting that He has led us in this way of thinking, because we have asked Him for wisdom, and we trust His promises.  Somewhat adjoined to this thought is that great verse in Hebrews 11:6   “Without faith, it is impossible to please God….for the person who comes to God must believe 1) that He exists (i.e., He’s not just a “higher power” or “the man upstairs” or some distance cosmic entity), and 2) that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him (i.e., He’s a responder; He hears and answers; He communicates; He relates).  These are two elements for the foundation of living by faith with an unseen God.

For Dave and me, we have affirmed for many years that our God is a personal being, One who actually exists, both in spirit and in body (through Christ Jesus), and we have enjoyed a back/forth, dynamic relationship of communication and understanding with this personal God for many decades.

So from the outset of explaining our shift in medical care, we want to acknowledge the joy of following our Lord, of relying upon His Person and of communicating freely with Him.  For His reasons, He led us through 3 ½ years of the standard medical care (surgery, radiation, chemo), with its attendant costs (physical as well as financial).  We do not worry about the “why” of His leading; we rejoice in His faithfulness to us in providing all that we needed during those 3 ½ years.

And now we sense that He is leading us to a new route…a route that is different from the medical route in which I spent 30 years as an intensive care nurse.  This alternative route is less familiar to me; it has a high learning curve.  But I rejoice in His Spirit that has nudged us in this direction, and in His gift of reason which allows us to comprehend and analyze the rationale of these treatments.

And now for the disclaimers.  There are two disclaimers.

First, we do not in any way claim to understand all the ins/outs and ramifications of these alternative treatments.  That lack does not worry us.  Even when we were in the medical model, no one completely understood all the ins/outs of the chemo and radiation….conclusions were founded upon limited studies, and there were always new studies coming out that enforced or discredited the previous understanding.   Reality is that the universe is much too complicated for us to completely understand.  At best, we can use our brains and observations to come to tentative conclusions.  So we make decisions on the basis of limited knowledge.  There is an aspect of faith to any decision we make, whether for Orthodox Medicine or for Alternative Treatment.

Second, we do not in any way claim that this Alternative Treatment will cure the cancer that currently resides in my body.  If you have been following our journey these past years, and if you know me personally, you know that we are not seeking healing…..we are seeking faithfulness to the End (whenever that comes).   We want to show forth the Lord’s glory, to live in the reality of His Person, to use the cancer platform to declare His Gospel.  Healing is not something we are seeking.

Our medical oncologist has informed us that there are no new treatments available in radiation or chemotherapy.   If we aren’t seeking healing, why don’t we just quit all treatments?  It’s called stewardship.

You see, since yielding to the salvation offered through Jesus Christ, a great switch of ownership happened.  I am not my own.  Jesus owns me.  His own, personal blood paid the price for me…lock, stock and barrel!  That includes not only my soul, but also my body.  Do I always live in the reality of that ownership?  No.  Many times I’m seeking my own agenda instead of His.  But that failure on my part does not change the reality of His ownership.

It’s similar to my marriage to Dave.  When I said “I do”, my life was no longer my own.  We became “one” person.   Do I always reflect that one-ness in my decisions and behavior?  Of course not.  But the reality of our one-ness remains.  And the goal of my life is to live more and more in the reality of my one-ness with Christ, and my one-ness with Dave.

Because Christ owns my body, my time, my money, my energy…I must make stewardship decisions that yield the best results for His purposes.

At this point in my life, we feel that we cannot just quit all treatments for this cancer without rationally exploring alternative treatments.

An explanation of the Alternative Treatments we have chosen.

There are “Alternative” Treatments (which are done independently of orthodox medical treatments) and there are “Integrated” Treatments (which are done concurrently with orthodox medicine, usually to deal with the side-effects of chemo or radiation).

In light of the horrendous and serious side effects that I have suffered at the hands of the chemo these past 6 months, we have decided to discontinue the chemo that we were on, even though it was keeping the cancer from growing.  So we are not doing the Integrative Treatments.  Our oncologist is very supportive of our choice to discontinue orthodox medical treatments, and do exclusively Alternative Treatments for a period of time.

An “Alternative Treatment” is any treatment idea that has not met the rigid (and expensive) testing requirements of the FDA.   The testing (proving) requirements of the FDA are so extensive and costly that few proponents of Alternative Treatments can afford it, so these treatments remain in the “Alternative” (“unproven”) camp instead of in the Orthodox Medicine camp.

There are hundreds of Alternative Treatments.  I’m certain that many of them have little if any science reality to stand on; these could legitimately be called “quack” remedies.  The blending of psychological hope with physical healing is deep topic for consideration.   I told Dave from the beginning that if the Alternative Treatment doesn’t make sense to me, with my medical background, then I would not consider it.  Picking a treatment out of a hat, based purely on testimonials or very broad statements or unfounded claims was not good stewardship.  I felt that we needed to understand the framework of the treatment, and it needed to make sense to the reality of science as we know it.  How thankful I am for my nursing background and all those years in advanced medicine!

The Alternative Treatment that we have settled on is called electromedicine.  It is predicated upon the theory that cancer is caused by microbes, which enter weakened cells and then monopolize the metabolic system within the cell, further weakening the cells, damaging cellular DNA, etc.   If we accept this theory, then there seems to be a 3-pronged approach to treatment: 1) kill the existing microbes, 2) strengthen the cells, and 3) bolster the immune system (so that it can better deal with future microbes).

So in addition to fortifying my diet to strengthen cells and the immune system, I’m adding electro-medicine in an attempt to kill the existing microbes.  You can research this if interested.  Just Google “Royal Rife” (the initial developer in the 1930s), or “Bob Beck” (who rediscovered it in 1980s while searching for a cure for HIV), or “GB-4000” (the machine most like the Rife machine and the one I will be using).  This is a home treatment, and we expect to be focused on this avenue for most of this year.

Conclusion….

And so we begin another little leg in this Journey.  We’re trying to be good stewards.  I’ve done some baseline medical testing, and we’ll repeat these tests after some months.  In addition to these testings, I’m looking for a general strengthening of my body (which has been blasted pretty strongly these past months)!

All of this is placed in the hands of the God we serve.  If He chooses to bless me through this Alternative Treatment, then all praise goes to Him, and I ask Him to make me to serve Him more with whatever health and strength He gives.   If He chooses to let my cancer advance, then we will cross that bridge when we get to it.  As stated above, our goal is not healing…..our goal is good stewardship.

December 16, 2012

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Mountain Climbing in 3G

(Alps Report #3)

 David Alan Black 

If you’re going to climb the Alps someday, you’d better have these three “Gs.” They are:

1) A great goal. You need to think big when you climb. Ask yourself: What is my personal Everest? Of course, make sure your goal is physically possible. Otherwise, now is not the time for small goals. Life is way too short for that. Go for it!

2) A great God. It’s time to go from afraid to courageous. Make a list of all your climbing fears, write a big “X” over them, and then crumple the paper up and throw it away. Behind all fear is the question: “Can I really depend on God’s unconditional love?” The answer? Of course you can! If you are a Christian, didn’t you trust in Jesus as the one who died for your sins and rose again? And by trusting in Him (rather than in your own “righteousness”), didn’t God give you the greatest gift of all — Himself? When we live in fear, we limit the impact of what God wants to do through us. God created each and every one of us to do something unique for His glory. So don’t put Him in a box. The more we focus on the bigness of God, the smaller our fears will become.

3) A great guide. I once met a couple who had tried to summit a very tall mountain. They tried and tried but kept getting lost on the giant peak. When I suggested to them that they might want to consider hiring a certified mountain guide, they scoured, “We don’t need a guide!” Friend, when you’re climbing a peak like the Matterhorn, you have to be über-prepared. For me, an essential element of preparedness was hiring a professional mountain guide. But be careful who you get. In my book, a great guide is someone who:

• Cares more for you than for himself or his business.
• Knows when to push and when to hold back.
• Makes safety his number one priority.
• Gives more when others give up.
• Shares your dogged resolve to accomplish big goals.
• Rolls with the punches (that is, is flexible and resilient).
• Is personable and outgoing.

My mountain guide, Walter Rossini, was all of the above — and much much more! I can’t recommended him highly enough. (His website isRossini Guiding.)

So there you have it — the 3Gs of mountaineering: A great goal, a great God, and a great guide. 

Above the gates at Delphi, Greece, stands a brief inscription:

Know thyself.

Before attempting to climb the Alps, my friend, you have to understand yourself. Your dreams. Your strengths. Your weaknesses. This is your life, not somebody else’s. Live it with a purpose. Be bold with it. On each of my climbs in the Alps I felt God’s presence with me in a supernatural way. I was in tune with myself. I was in tune with the mountain. And I was in tune with the one who created the mountain. I found myself exploring my personal limits — and loving it. William Blake once wrote:

Great things are done when men and mountains meet. This is not done by jostling on the street.

And the greatest mountain you will ever face is the mountain of the mind.

Climb on!

Dave

July 23, 2016

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

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Mother’s Day Reflections

 David Alan Black

This Mother’s Day my eldest son, who lives in his own house on our farm, had no fancy greeting card for his mother. Yes, he did buy her a Cappuccino on the way back from our outing to her favorite Abyssinian restaurant (she was raised in Ethiopia). You think this might bother her? No way. As my wife put it, the best gift she could ever receive was the consistent love, care, and Christian testimony of her son 365 days a year. 

According to Feathers, the publication of the California Poultry Industry, the Federal Aviation Administration has a unique way of testing the strength of windshields on airplanes. The device is a gun that launches a dead chicken right at the plane’s windshield at approximately the speed the plane flies. The theory is that if the windshield doesn’t crack from the carcass impact, it will survive a real collision with a bird during flight.

The British were interested in this technique and wanted to test a windshield on a brand new high-powered locomotive they were developing. They borrowed the FAA’s chicken launcher, loaded the chicken, and fired. The ballistic chicken shattered the windshield, went right through the heart of the engineer’s chair, smashed the instrument panel behind him, and imbedded itself in the back wall of the engine cab. The British were stunned and asked the FAA to recheck the test to see if everything was done correctly. The FAA reviewed the test thoroughly and had only one recommendation. “Thaw the chicken,” they said.

The point is that there’s a right way of doing things; and when you do things the wrong way the result is usually chaotic. In the book of Ephesians Paul writes: “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. Honor your father and mother (this is the first commandment with a promise), that it may be well with you and that you may live long on the earth” (Ephesians 6:1-3). This is not some kind of psychobabble such as you might find in a secular book on parent-child relationships. Paul does not say, “Children, obey your parents.” He says, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord.”

The key to the command is “in the Lord.” As in the case of the wife who is to submit herself to her husband as unto the Lord, so it is with the child to the parent. Children are to obey their parents for Christ’s sake. They are to obey, not simply because this is what their parents want, but because this is what the Lord Jesus wants. This is their responsibility to Christ.

The Greek word Paul uses for “obey” here means “to be under another’s authority.” It is the same word that would apply to a soldier in obeying the orders of his superiors. In short, Paul is telling children, “Do what your parents say.” In Proverbs a lengthy section is devoted to child-raising, and its theme is this: A child must learn obedience. This is far more than accomplishing the wishes of the parents, whatever they may be. Obedience itself is the issue.

Wise parents want their children to learn that the important thing is not merely to do what they ask, but that obedience is the important thing. If a parent says to the child, “Do so-and-so” and the child procrastinates or refuses, the parent does not say, “Honey, I told you to do so-and-so.” He says, “Do what daddy (or mother) says.” The important thing is not the specific request but the issue of obedience to a parent.

Paul adds a reason for his command: “Obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.” Paul does not merely appeal to custom or mere tradition. He is pointing out a basic law of life. He is saying, “If you do this, everything will turn out right; and if you refuse to do it everything will go wrong, because it is a violation of one of the fundamental laws of living.”

Proof of this claim is seen in our daily newspapers. Today we suffer from rebellion because a generation has been taught they need not obey, that there is nothing important connected with obedience. As I pointed out in my book The Myth of Adolescence, many teenage emotional disturbances stem from an attitude of rebellion toward a parent. Furthermore, rebellion always leads to folly. When we are rebellious, we make terrible mistakes. We do things that we would never do otherwise. Thus it is absolutely essential that children learn to obey their parents willingly. Nothing is more important. Paul says, “This is the right thing to do, and it’s the only way to make your life run right.”

Paul also notes that this was the first commandment with a promise: “Honor thy father and thy mother that it may be well with you and that you may live long on the earth” (Exodus 20:12). Paul is reminding us that sullen obedience is really resentment and bitterness, and there is nothing more destructive in a human heart than that. Doctors agree that a bitter heart can produce ulcers, indigestion, allergic reactions, and other physical ailments. But willing obedience is a benefit to children who obey. That’s why God promises that honoring father and mother will actually mean a lengthening of life and will make life more enjoyable.

Not long ago I was watching a Christian father and his little four-year-old son during a worship service. The little boy was standing up and walking around during the service. The father motioned to him to sit down, but the boy simply shook his head, indicating his willful disobedience. The father pleaded with him but finally gave in to the little boy’s desires. What was saddest of all is that you could see in the child’s eyes the words, “Daddy, please make me obey!” This child has no security, for a lack of proper discipline will create insecurity in a child more than anything else. The child without discipline feels terribly unhappy.

On Mother’s Day, a card might be a nice gesture, but loving obedience makes a better Mother’s Day gift for most of the world’s women.

May 13, 2004

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

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

The Most Important Thing in the Next Two Months

 David Alan Black

There are exactly two months before the general election of 2004. Once again, Americans have been brought to the point where we both can and must get our priorities straight.

From current Christian publications – from World Magazine to Christianity Today to World Net Daily – you might think that the most important issue for a conservative Christian today is to support the president. Of course, it is not that. It is truly tragic that, in paying attention to these mouthpieces of statism, so many in our day seem to have been distracted from what will always be the true priority for every true Christian – bowing the knee to King Jesus.

This is what Peter and John proclaimed in Acts 4 and 5. Jesus had commanded, “Be My witnesses.” The authorities had said, “You may not be His witnesses.” Hence the apostles’ response (Acts 5:29): “We ought to obey God.” There is no other option for the genuine Christian.

When any authority commands what God has forbidden or forbids what God has commanded, the Christian must obey the Author of all authority, God Himself. There is no authority apart from God. So when human authority rejects God’s authority, it loses its right to compliance.

Let us call a spade a spade. The name of the game we are playing if we go along with the compromising crowd is disobedience, pure and simple. In other words, we feel obligated to break the First Commandment just a little for some ephemeral political pottage. Serving mammon is a whole lot easier than wholehearted obedience to Christ. This, at bottom, is what is wrong with us. We are afraid to stand for truth because we are unwilling to accept the authority of Christ.

Lack of wholehearted commitment is an undeniable thing in religion. It is also an accursed thing.  Perhaps there is a word for us in the famous hymn in which Daniel refuses to bow the knee to the almighty state:

Standing by a purpose true,
Heeding God’s command,
Honor them, the faithful few!
All hail to Daniel’s band!

Dare to be a Daniel,
Dare to stand alone!
Dare to have a purpose firm!
Dare to make it known.

Many mighty men are lost
Daring not to stand,
Who for God had been a host
By joining Daniel’s band.

Refrain

Many giants, great and tall,
Stalking through the land,
Headlong to the earth would fall,
If met by Daniel’s band.

Refrain

Hold the Gospel banner high!
On to vict’ry grand!
Satan and his hosts defy,
And shout for Daniel’s band.

Refrain

Daniel “decided not to defile himself.” It is no less our duty to follow his example on November 2.

September 2, 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

Moore’s Meanderings

 David Alan Black

Michael Moore’s latest motion picture, which I saw last Friday, is nothing if not a reminder of the utter bankruptcy of the mainstream news media.

The factlets you will not get on America’s network and cable blabfests? Iraqi civilians needlessly killed by the dozens; Mr. Bush actually saying to the camera “He tried to kill my daddy”; interviews with disillusioned U.S. solders on the frontlines; the terrorism hoax that keeps Americans panicky; Bush’s limo being pelted with eggs during his inauguration; the $1.5 billion in profits the Bush family has made from Saudi oil interests; the White House allowing 142 Saudis out of the country after all aircraft in the U.S. were “grounded”; Mr. Bush dining with the Saudi ambassador while the Pentagon burns in the background; the president welcoming the Taliban to the State Department; a six-man U.S. police detail protecting the Saudi ambassador in DC; the Patriot Act passing without anyone in Congress reading it; the ineptitude of a president bereft of his handlers; and much, much more.

Is Fahrenheit 9/11 devoid of stereotypes? Of course not. But neither is CBS, NBC, ABC, or Fox. The vignettes in Moore’s film serve only to even the odds and balance the perceptions. Those who work in mass media consider themselves objective reporters who make no value judgments. This is, of course, a total fiction. In my book Why I Stopped Listening to Rush I have written about the “myth of neutrality,” that way of thinking by which New Right conservatives deceive themselves and others about the nature of their own beliefs. Their “my country right or wrong” perspective is often a red herring, a convenient excuse for muzzling undesirable opinion rather than a real concern to advance truly conservative (i.e., constitutional) causes.

I came away from the movie thinking that the greatest danger we Christians face in this era is from ourselves, not the opposition – liberal or conservative. We have abandoned our constitutional savvy and, by default, have lost our ability to be the salt of the earth in terms of politics. Michael Moore is no more biased than any other film-maker. He has the right, as does every citizen, to engage in political and other human activities. He also has the right to agitate for change like everyone else. The sad thing is, Christians should be the ones exposing fraud and deception wherever it is to be found, and yet it takes a Bush-whacking left-winger to do it when it comes to our warmongering.

This must change. But it won’t, and the reason is because we know we will be rhetorically drawn and quartered if we speak out against the media and their cherished views. The fact is that the press can both stimulate public opinion and miseducate it. But as long as superficiality remains the psychic disease of the twenty-first century, an in-depth and truly balanced analysis of any problem will remain anathema to the mainstream media.

Two cheers, then, to Mr. Moore for exposing the cynicism, the greed, the ineptitude of the U.S. government. The truth always hurts, even when it comes from Balaam’s donkey.

July 19, 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