Truth Magazine

By Robert F. Turner

Over-eating becomes an occupational hazard for preachers, especially for those in meeting work, so when our hostess asked if she might serve a late-night snack, I replied with emphasis, “I couldn’t eat a thing!”

“We have some rolls,” she coaxed. “Not a thing  not a thing,” I said with a firmness of which I was proud.

“What about a piece of pie? Cheese and crackers? A cup of coffee?”

And I became more obstinate, “Please, I do not want anything to eat!”

And then she said, “We have a big freezer of homemade peach ice cream!”

Well, everybody knows that homemade peach ice cream is not a thing  it is a spirit. He had some homemade peach ice cream.

Later, painfully reflecting upon my vices (resolutions come easiest following indulgence  a drunkard makes his finest resolutions while his head throbs and the “bite” lingers), I tried to analyze the situation. Where did I go wrong? How can I strengthen my defenses?

The hostess (very helpful now that the damage is done) says this points up the basic difference in the viewpoint of men and women: “A woman would just shrug her shoulder and say, `I have changed my mind; I’ll take some ice cream.’ But no! A man must rationalize. A man must justify his former position. All that stuff about homemade peach ice cream being not a thing but a spirit. Really!”

You will notice that with either sex she manages to get her way. They eat. the homemade peach ice cream.

On the other hand, maybe this (wouldn’t you know it) skinny little hostess has a point. The human race is filled with self-justifying individuals determined to satisfy their appetites for food, drink, pride, and their own way in the church, who would “bust a hame” before they would admit they were wrong or had changed.

There is no easy way to reduce or to solve other life problems. If they were easy to conquer they wouldn’t be problems. The church grows fat with worldliness because brethren think they can be Christian soldiers without fighting the good fight. Sunday resolutions are nullified by weekday snacks.

(Reprinted by permission from Robert F. Turner, Stuff About Things, pp. 79-80.)

TRUTH

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 16, p. 1
August 15, 1996

By Lewis Willis

Do you remember when Pilate was trying to release Jesus at the time of his trial? He found Jesus to be innocent and wanted to release him. But the Jews would not permit Pilate to do so. They created so much confusion that he washed his hands before them declaring, “I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.” The Jews answered, “His blood be on us, and on our children” (Matt. 27:24-25). They were ready to accept responsibility for the death of Jesus. Later, when they were confronted with their sin, they were not so ready to accept it (Acts 2:36-37; 7:52-57).

Today their children do not want the blood of the Savior to be on them, as their fathers had said. Radio City Music Hall was scheduled to present the show, Jesus Was His Name on June 2-13. The Akron Beacon Journal reported that the show was postponed “when religious leaders complained that the $24 million show implicates Jews for the crucifix-ion of Christ.” The blood of Jesus does not sit well on the children of those who had him crucified! However, the facts cannot be denied. One may not like the fact that his greatgreat-great-grandfather was hung as a horse thief, but he cannot change that fact. Neither can the Jews change the fact that they had their Messiah, our Savior, murdered!

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 15, p. 18
August 1, 1996

By Mike Willis

In last issue’s editorial, I presented quotations designed to demonstrate that the concept that a “false teacher” is an unscrupulous deceiver without regard to the content of his message is spreading among us. I paralleled quotations from the pen of Leroy Garrett to that of brethren among us for the purpose of demonstrating that the same principle is being taught by both groups of brethren. In this article, I wish to consider what the Scriptures teach about who is a “false teacher.”

We Are Agreed

Let me begin by emphasizing that we are agreed that a man who is immoral, covetous, lascivious, and dishonest is an ungodly man even though he may teach the truth. Such a man is unworthy of support and the fellowship of God’s people because he is out of fellowship with God. Nothing that follows in this material is to be judged as defending such men. I can join hands with my brethren in opposing all such men.

We are agreed that none of us agrees totally with any other brother. I do not charge my brother with being a false teacher because he disagrees with me. The Bible allows room for brethren to: (a) have different abilities (Rom. 12:4-8), (b) have unique areas of service (1 Cor. 12:12-26), (c) differ on judgmental matters (1 Cor. 8-10), (d) differ in practice in matters of authorized liberty (Rom. 14). We are agreed that no one has a right to expect everyone to be a clone of any individual among us. We are agreed that any brother who binds judgmental matters on other men has overstepped the bounds allowed by God and falls into the condemnation described in 1 Timothy 4:1-3.

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall de-part from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Pinpointing Our Disagreement

The point on which brethren are disagreed is this: Can a brother who is honest and sincere be labeled a “false teacher” because he teaches what is false? Our standard for determining the answer to this question must be the Bible.

The Precious Truth of Jesus Christ

The concern about false doctrines and false teachers stems from the positive good which the truth, the gospel of Jesus Christ, does for man. The truth (a) saves the soul from sin (John 8:32; Rom. 1:16; James 1:21; Pet. 2:20-21); (b) sanctifies (John 17:17; 2 Pet. 1:3-4); (c) reveals God to us (John 14:4-7); (d) contains precious promises (2 Pet. 1:3-4); (e) thoroughly furnishes us unto every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17); (f) gives spiritual light (Pss. 19:8; 119:105); (g) is the standard to be used at judgment (John 12:48).

The truth of the gospel is a precious deposit committed to our trust. Paul wrote,

… according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust (1 Tim. 1:11).

That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us (2 Tim. 1:14).

And the things that thou halt heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also (2 Tim. 2:2).

Paul uses language in these Scriptures with which we should be familiar. Even as a person entrusts a bank to safeguard his money, the Lord has entrusted the gospel to our keeping. This generation of Christians is responsible for passing down intact to the next generation the gospel of Christ. One has no right to add to or take away from that gospel.

Understanding the preciousness of the gospel of truth emphasizes for us the danger of false teaching. (a) False teaching leads men to commit sin (Matt. 15:1-15; 1 Cor. 15:33; 2 Pet. 2:1-22). (b) False teaching leads men to deny Bible doctrines (Col. 2:4, 8, 18, 21-23; 2 Thess. 2:10-12; 1 Tim. 1:18-20; 2 Tim. 2:17-18). (c) False teaching spreads like a leaven (Matt. 16:6-12; Gal. 5:9). False teaching has this effect and impact without regard to the sincerity of the ones who are teaching it. The false teacher can be as pure in motive, honest, and sincere as he can be, but if he teaches a person that he has a right to divorce his wife for some cause other than fornication and to remarry, the man who does this is an adulterer despite the sincerity of his teacher. The teaching that the man has done is a denial of the word of God despite the fact that the teacher was good, honest, and sincere. The leavening influence of the error will not cease just because its proponents are sincere. Those who love the truth hate every false way (Ps. 119:104). Therefore, to preserve the purity of the gospel, they must oppose every false teaching and that involves withstanding those who are propagating it.

No wonder Paul exhorted Timothy saying, “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee” (1 Tim 4:16).

Some Things That Are Not Adequate

Tests of a False Teacher

The Bible warns men not to use some things to deter-mine whether or not a man is a false teacher. Here is a list of some inadequate things to use to determine whether or not a man is a false teacher:

1. His heart. The heart would be one test of whether or not a man is a false teacher if man was qualified to judge the heart. However, Paul wrote, “For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him?” (1 Cor. 2:11).

But there also are men who appear to have a sincere heart who will not be saved. (a) Jesus spoke of those in judgment who would protest their being consigned to torment saying, “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity” (Matt. 7:22-23). (b) The blind guides were apparently good, honest and sincere, but nevertheless blind. Jesus said, “Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch” (Matt. 15:14). (c) Apollos was a sincere person who did not teach the truth (Acts 18:24-28).

To deny that there are men who have a sincere heart teaching a false doctrine that leads men to damnation, one must conclude that every teacher affiliated with any false system of doctrine in the New Testament was insincere and hypocritical, or else he was not a false teacher. Was every Sadducee, Pharisee, Gnostic, Judaizer, etc. of the first century dishonest and insincere? If not, were those sincere men who taught the Judaizing doctrine of salvation by works false teachers? The point is this: One’s heart does not determine whether or not what he is teaching is false.

2. Their audience. One cannot determine whether or not a man is a false teacher by his audience. False teachers are popular (Luke 6:26). Their message appeals to the flesh and attracts a large crowd.

3. The number of converts. Jesus warned, “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it” (Matt. 7:13-14).

4. Their age or number of years they have been preaching. One is not immune to temptation at any time in his life (Gal. 2:9-14).

5. Their friends. Just because a man has a number of prominent men as his friends does not make what he is teaching true (1 Cor. 4:6).

The True Test of False Teachers: Their Fruit

Jesus himself gave us the test for who is a false teacher:

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them (Matt. 7:15-20).

We cannot know a man’s heart, but we can know his fruit. Here are some of the fruit that false teachers produce:

1. Their doctrines contradict divine revelation. (a) They undermine God’s word, making worship vain (Matt. 15:8-9); (b) they bring “another gospel” (Gal. 1:8-9; 2 Cor. 11:3-4); (c) they do not bring sound doctrine (1 Tim. 1:3); rather, they bring the doctrine of demons (1 Tim. 4:1-3); (d) they deny plain Bible doctrines, overthrowing the faith of some (1 Cor. 15:33; 2 Tim. 2:17-18); (e) they teach a broad gate and wide way and that many will be saved (Matt. 7:7-12); (f) they keep people from obeying the gospel (Acts 13:9-12); (g) their heresies lead to damnation (2 Pet. 2:1).

2. Their doctrines, being inconsistent with divine rev-elation, are sometimes self-contradictory.

3. They trouble churches. “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ” (Gal. 1:6-7; 5:10-12; cf. Acts 15:24).

4. They cause division. “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple” (Rom 16:17-18).

5. They spoil the flock (Acts 20:29-32).

One should not conclude from this that one is not a false teacher until he has done each of the things mentioned above. If a man only did four out of the five, he would be a false teacher; if he did one of the five, his fruit would manifest that he was a false teacher.

One should also notice that those who are honest and sincere, but teaching false doctrine, can and do bear these fruit. They divide churches, deny divine revelation, and trouble churches.

Characteristics of False Teachers

1. They preach a popular message (Lk. 6:26). It is popular because it usually justifies a course of conduct in conflict with the word of God which men wish to follow. It attracts those living in sin who wish to be religious with-out giving up their sin (this is not intended to be a judgment of their heart).

2. They are self-serving (Rom. 16:17-18). For example, notice how many false teachers on the subject of divorce and remarriage have personal involvement in divorce and remarriage, children involved in unscriptural marriages, or close friends involved.

3. They appear as sheep (Matt. 7:15-17) and angels of light (2 Cor. 11:14-15). This makes them more dangerous. The more nearly these teachers resemble teachers of the truth, the more dangerous they are (illustrate: no one is deceived by “Monopoly” money, but many are deceived by the more skilled counterfeiters).

4. They persecute true saints (Gal. 4:21-30). False teachers undermine the influence of godly men by charges that they are “radicals” and “extremists” or “creed makers.” They belittle them as “guardians of the orthodoxy” or “keepers of the party.” This is the way false teachers have always treated those who oppose their error.

5. They appeal to the flesh (Phil. 3:18-19; 2 Pet. 2:10). Most doctrines have an appeal to the carnal lusts of men. The appeal may be obvious as in the loose doctrines on divorce and remarriage. However, sometimes it is more subtle. When the sponsoring church arrangement for the Herald of Truth was being preached, men who saw the “Lutheran Hour” and “Catholic Hour” wanted a “Church of Christ Hour.” Like Israel who wanted a king to be like the nations around her, spiritual Israel also wanted to be like the denominations around her.

6. They glory in that of which they should be ashamed (Phil. 3:18-19). Think of how the Corinthians gloried in their receiving the fornicator in their fellowship (1 Cor. 5). Many who should be ashamed of their conduct glory in being a church that emphasizes “grace” instead of “legalism.”

7. They raise foolish questions (1 Tim. 1:3; 6:5). Many foolish questions have the effect of diverting men’s attention from the clearly revealed truth. The clear teaching of Christ on divorce and remarriage (“Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery”  Matt. 19:9) is obscured by such foolish questions as the following: (a) If we withdraw from those who teach something different on divorce and remarriage, will we be forced to divide over every thing over which we disagree? (b) If you with-draw from those who disagree with you over divorce and remarriage, won’t you have to withdraw from those who disagree with you on the covering question and carnal warfare? If we answered this and a hundred other questions on other subjects, do you think those who are bent on teaching another doctrine on divorce and remarriage would change what they preach? Do you think they would change what they are determined to practice in the realm of fellowship? These questions simply divert men from giving their full attention to what the Lord has revealed!

8. They are arrogant (1 Tim. 6:1; both Jude 8 and 2 Peter 2:10 show that false teachers despise dignitaries). Many false teachers manifest an elitism among themselves with a condescending attitude toward the “less enlightened” who simply ask for “book, chapter, and verse” for what is being done.

Again, we emphasize that this list does not mean that unless a person manifests all eight of these characteristics he is not a false teacher. A man may manifest one or more of these characteristics but not another.

Furthermore, we see from this list that many of those who show the characteristics of the false teacher can do so while being good, honest, and sincere. A man does not have to be a lying hypocrite to be arrogant, raise foolish questions, glory in that of which one should be ashamed, preach a popular message, and such like things.

The Antithesis Shows What False Teachers Are

The opposite of a “false teacher” is a “true teacher.” What is a “true teacher”? Is he merely a man who is sincere and honest without regard to the content of what he preaches? If that is so, a good, honest, and sincere atheist would be just as certainly a “true teacher” as Jesus Christ. Who can believe this? The concept of being a “true teacher” demands that the content of the message be true.

To further demonstrate that a “false teacher” is one whose message is untrue, consider Paul’s opponents in Philippi. There was one group of men who taught the truth (a true message) but had a sinful attitude. Paul wrote of them saying, “Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds” (Phil. 1:15-16). With reference to these men, Paul said, “What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice” (Phil. 1:18). These men who had sinful attitudes were not false teachers. They were teachers of the truth who had sinful attitudes.

In contrast to these, there were Judaizers at Philippi who brought a message with a doctrinal content that was not true to God’s revelation. Regarding those who brought the false message, Paul wrote, “Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe. Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision” (Phil. 3:1-2). The content of the message was what made the difference in how the two groups were treated.

Conclusion

One does not have to know whether or not Billy Graham is dishonest, a liar, lascivious, and covetous to know whether or not he is a false teacher. However, if what one wrote is true (“Biblically, there is no such thing as a sincere, honest false teacher.”), he could not know whether or not Billy Graham is a false teacher without knowing this about his moral character. So far as I know, Billy Graham has not manifested the traits of dishonesty, lasciviousness, lying, or covetousness. Nevertheless, he is a false teacher because he teaches what is false. Sincerity does not keep one from teaching what is false or being a false teacher any more than it can save!

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 16, p. 2
August 15, 1996

By Darryl Treat

Is it morally wrong to hunt, kill and eat animals? This is the question that animal rights activists have been asking and trying to get America to answer in the affirmative. As a Christian and a hunter, I’ve set out to see if my passion for hunting, passed down through my family for generations, is acceptable in the eyes of the Creator. Were my pioneer and Cherokee ancestors justified in passing down this time-honored aspect of their American culture?

An examination of this ethical question begins by defining the word “moral.” Webster’s dictionary says morals “are or are related to principles of right and wrong and conforming to a standard of right behavior.” As a Christian, I have always derived my standards and principles of morality from the Holy Bible. I wonder where the animal rights activists get their standards and principles?

Does the hunting, killing, and eating of animals stand up to the litmus test of Bible-derived morality? Let me share with you what I have found.

Before we examine specific biblical evidence on this topic, it’s important to know what God says about his own book, the Bible. In the last chapter of the book of Revelation verses 18 and 19 and in Galatians 1:7-10, God reveals his severe displeasure with those who would distort, add to, or delete from his word. The apostle Paul wrote the young preacher Timothy in 2 Timothy 2:15-17, that all the Holy Scriptures were given by inspiration of God to make one completely furnished unto all good works.

For those who fail to understand the reasoning of the Almighty, remember what God said in Isaiah 55:8-9. “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are My ways your ways. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts.”

Now that God’s authority on the matter is established, let’s examine his revealed will. A proper discussion must begin in the book of Genesis. In the first chapter, God created the earth and all its inhabitants and God saw that it was good. The last statement is important to note, especially those who needlessly and recklessly abuse God’s creation. God created the earth and saw that it was good.

Let’s keep it that way.

Near the end of the first chapter of Genesis, God ex-plains that man was set apart from the animals, made in God’s image, and told to have dominion over creation. The command from God included the instruction to be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth. This has turned out to be a great responsibility for humans  one to be handled wisely and not emotionally. In Psalm 8:3-9, David repeated this theme by saying the Creator of all things made man a little lower than the angels and made him to have dominion over the works of God’s hands and put all things under man’s feet.

In Genesis 3:7 Adam and Eve covered their nakedness with fig leaves sewn together. Notice God’s response in verse 21. God, himself, made coats of skins and clothed Adam and Eve. If the Lord God could choose to clothe Adam and Eve with whatever he desired, but chose animal skins, what right do I have to protest another person’s desire to wear furs and leather products? Is wearing an elk robe morally wrong? Not if your morals come from the Bible.

God initially made man a vegetarian as we can read in verse 29 of the first chapter of Genesis. However, God gave new instructions to Noah and his family after the flood in Genesis 9:1-7. In these verses, God says the fear and dread of man will now be on every animal on earth and that every moving thing that liveth should be for food, with the exception of the blood. Remember, God destroyed the world, except for Noah and his family, because of their great wickedness. Now no longer would God require man to be a vegetarian. Is there a connection here?

Reading further, God even gave his chosen people specific instructions for hunters and the proper disposition of the blood of wild game (Lev. 17:13-14). To place a distinction between God’s people and the heathens, God also established food laws. In Deuteronomy 14:2-21, God listed the animals his people would now be allowed to eat, such as sheep and deer, and those forbidden, such as camels and eagles. These food laws remained for hundreds of years until the Christian age when God changed them again at the establishment of the New Testament.

We read of God’s change in the food laws in the book of Acts. In Acts 10:10-16 God tells the apostle Peter that he was no longer under the restrictive food laws of the old law and that once again all animals were clean to eat. The analogy was meant to show that as all animals would now be considered clean to eat, all people were now accepted into God’s family as had been the Jews. When the apostle Peter protested God’s instructions to “Rise, Peter, kill and eat,” God said that what he has declared clean to eat, do not call unclean. Are you going to tell God it’s morally wrong to hunt, kill and eat an elk, or that it’s wrong to raise chickens for our dinner table? I for one will not.

Not to be left out, the apostle Paul explained that no food is unclean unless it personally offends your conscience to eat it, or causes a brother to stumble (Rom. 14:13-15, 21-23). Paul says “Happy is he that condemneth not him-self in that thing which he alloweth.” I can second that statement as my family joyously partakes of the many culinary delights of wild game. Paul also explains in the same chapter in verse two that our vegetarian brothers are weak, and we should show the proper Christian spirit toward them.

Paul writes further on this subject in 1 Timothy 4:1-5. The apostle of God said every creature of God is good and nothing is to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving. This is a responsibility we should not take lightly.

Those of us who hunt elk or deer with a bow have our own set of antagonists who declare our methods to be cruel. What does God say? In Genesis 21:20, Abraham’s son, Ishmael, was described as an archer and God dwelt with him in the wilderness. When I too am in the wilderness hunting elk, I’m comforted to know that God is with me. However, only Nimrod received the title from God as “a mighty hunter before the Lord” in Genesis 10:9.

We all remember the famous Bible story of Jacob and Esau in Genesis 27. Isaac had plenty of livestock to eat, but had a special love for the taste of venison and commanded his son Esau to take his bow and arrows and hunt and kill venison and prepare it for his last meal before he died. I sure can’t think of a better last meal than venison. Under the old law, God specifically mentioned the native middle eastern deer as a clean animal to eat in Deuteronomy 12.

Just like Isaac, we today could find other things to eat besides animals. We could eat a strictly vegetarian diet and live, but as the Bible shows us, meat is a gift to man from God to be received and enjoyed with thanksgiving. This is explained in Ecclesiastes 5:18-19. The wise man Solomon, who had wealth and wisdom provided to him by God, had meals prepared consisting of both domestic animals and wild game (1 Kings 4:23). Able to eat anything on earth he wanted, King Solomon often chose venison. It was a blessing from God.

Do animals have the same rights as man? Some extremists say it is morally wrong to use animals for pets, in zoos, in agriculture, or as beasts of burden. We don’t have the space to examine the use of animals in the Bible as sacrifices, livestock, beasts of burden, and personal property, but anyone with even a passing knowledge of the word of God knows that these uses were a part of life in the Bible. Did Jesus as a Jew believe in animal sacrifice? Didn’t his heavenly Father initiate the practice?

The Bible doesn’t say if Jesus hunted or not, but we do know that he helped Peter catch fish and then recruited several fishermen to be apostles (Luke 5:1-11). When Jesus fed the 5,000 in Matthew 14 with only five loaves and two fishes, we see his nature revealed. He was not a vegetarian, but the perfect Son of God who followed all the commandments of his father. It’s becoming apparent, that the morality of the Bible and of the animal rights movement are at polar opposites.

In Matthew 6:26 Jesus proclaims the special place of man in the heart of God by saying that we are much better than the animals. After all, the animals were not created in the image of God, only we were. This contradicts the notion that animals have equal or greater rights than man, as some proclaim.

Finally, I’d like to temper our enthusiasm by remembering that God’s creation was created good from the beginning for the use of man, but not the abuse. To wantonly destroy God’s created plants and animals would be a violation of the responsibility God gave us when we were given dominion over creation. The apostle Paul says we can understand God’s creation from seeing it ourselves (Rom. 1:20). Standing high in the Colorado Rockies in pursuit of the majestic elk, I’m in awe of the power of God and his wisdom. Man-kind is so fortunate to have been granted dominion over this beautiful tapestry of life. To destroy it would be to deny future generations the ability to fully understand the greatness of God.

In Proverbs 12:27, King Solomon said the “slothful man roasteth not that which he took in hunting, but the sub-stance of a diligent man is precious.” I couldn’t agree more. Great care is taken in my household when taking the kill from the field to the pot. Our finest cuts of wild game are reserved for our most special guests.

In the same chapter of Proverbs Solomon made another observation, this time about those who own animals. The wise king said that “a righteous man regardeth the life of his beast, but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.”

Psalms 104 should be mandatory reading for those who study nature. Verse 24 says, “0 Lord, how manifold are Thy works! In wisdom hast Thou made them all, the earth is full of Thy riches.” No one who makes frequent trips to the deer woods or elk country could dispute that pearl of wisdom. The wise man in Ecclesiastes said there is a time to kill and a time to heal (3:1-8). This poetic truth from God stresses moderation and balance in the world. Extremism on either side of this important issue is out of step with God. I for one want to stay in step with God when I teach my children to hunt, to respect nature, and to practice wise conservation. That’s not too much to ask of oneself. After all, God is watching.

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 15, p. 20-22
August 1, 1996