Truth Magazine

By Gary Henry

The secular society in which we live is the result of influences that have come at us from several different directions. Of these various influences, none has been any more powerful than Hollywood. The fare served up to us by TV and the movies has been more destructive to the religious character of our culture than anyone can accurately measure. We have been hit hard by our entertainment.

Two excellent books have recently dealt with the corrosive social influence of the entertainment industry. Robert and Linda Lichter and Stanley Rothman have written Watching America (Prentiss Hall, 1991), a penetrating look at how TV has portrayed and changed American society since the 1950’s. The authors state: “During the past four decades, television has transcended its role as mere entertainment to become a potent force shaping everyday life. The average American now watches more than four hours of TV each day, and the average household keeps a set on more than seven hours a day. The full force of television’s impact is rarely felt in a single program or even a single season. It is the long-term result of exposure to an artificial reality so pervasive it has become a major part of the social environment” (3).

More recently, Michael Medved has written Hollywood vs. America: Popular Culture and the War on Traditional Values (Harper-Collins, 1992). Says Mr. Medved: “As a nation, we no longer view the show business capital as a magical source of uplifting entertainment, romantic inspiration, or even harmless fun. Instead, tens of millions of Americans now see the entertainment industry as an all-powerful enemy, an alien force that assaults our most cherished values and corrupts our children. The dream factory has become the poison factory” (3).

The secularization of America is damage done, in part, by the relentless assault of Hollywood on the public image of religion. For many years now, the movies and TV have tried to pretend that religion is nothing more than a relic from the past. Despite the fact that studies have repeatedly shown that around 50% of the U.S. population still considers religion an important part of their lives, a recent Gallup survey showed that only 5% of TV characters practice religion in any way. Mike McManus, a syndicated religion and ethics columnist, comments, “You’d never know by looking at TV that religion is a source of joy for so many people . . . It’s as if religion didn’t even exist.” And on those rare occasions when religious people do appear in movies or on TV, they are usually portrayed as unintelligent, maladjusted, and of questionable worth to society. No other group in society would stand for such misrepresentation of the facts, but the attempted obliteration of religion by Hollywood has gone unopposed for the most part.

The almost totally secular view of society in entertainment should not be surprising. As a group, the individuals who produce movies and TV programs are very much more secular in their own lives than the U.S. population at large. Regarding the personal religious convictions of those in the TV industry, for example, Lichter, Lichter, and Rothman write: “Television’s creative leaders have moved toward a markedly more secular orientation. Ninety-three percent had a religious upbringing, the majority (59 percent) in the Jewish faith. An additional 25 percent were raised in some Protestant denomination, and the remaining 12 percent as Catholics. Currently, however, 45 percent claim no religious affiliation whatsoever, more than six times the number of those who were not raised in any religious tradition. This is also greater than the proportion who currently profess to any particular religion. Defections have occurred from all faiths, so that only 38 percent now call themselves Jews, 12 percent remain Protestants, and 5 percent have retained their Catholic faith. Moreover, most of those remaining affiliations appear to be purely nominal. Ninety-three percent say they seldom or never attend religious services” (13, 14). What would we expect from a group that is so predominantly non-religious, if not a distortedly non-religious picture of American life in their “art

Whatever harmful effects their secular vision of America has done to our society, however, the TV and movie producers themselves deny any responsibility. They are quick to claim credit for any enlightening, uplifting effect entertainment has had on our culture  but they will have none of it when the public tries to hold them accountable for damage done. It does no good to point out the obvious connection between the glut of promiscuous sex and lawless violence in entertainment and the rampant growth of these things in our communities. Studio executives stoutly insist that the good messages they send out have a beneficial effect on America and the bad ones simply have no effect. Columnist Brent Bozell recently illustrated this vicious double standard by quoting an executive who had been involved in the production of Lethal Weapon 3, a movie full of brutality and violence. In one scene the stars fasten their seat belts, since it was thought that this would encourage young people to do the same. But what about the violence? Would not the young people imitate that too? No, said the executive: “If, when we send out any message that we consider good . . . people immediately imitate what they see. But when it comes to anything negative, anything destructive, no one imitates that.”

The truth is, however, nearly everything Hollywood does affects our culture, the bad as powerfully as the good. Homosexuality is a good example of how Hollywood can change public opinion for the worse on social issues. Who can deny that Americans in general have adopted a much more accepting attitude toward homosexual conduct as a result of “sensitive” movie and TV portrayals of homosexuals, the AIDS-related deaths of many popular Hollywood stars, and the frequent public appearances of entertainment figures with red “AIDS Awareness” ribbons conspicuously attached to their clothing? The simple, unpleasant truth is that Hollywood is systematically breaking down our social resistance to homosexuality. If the day comes (as by all appearances it likely will) when homosexual conduct is accepted as moral by the average American, we will in large measure be able to thank the entertainment industry.

George Gerbner, of the Annenberg School of Communication, is quoted as saying, “If you can write a nation’s stories, you needn’t worry about who makes its laws.” Art and entertainment are just that powerful in forming the character of a people. In a society like ours  one which is even more fascinated by entertainment and entertainers than most  citizens are even more vulnerable to the influence of things like television and movies. What is even more scary is that those who write our stories and those who make our laws consort together, and often are the same people! No aspect of the recent presidential election was more disturbing than the courting of Holly-wood movers and shakers by Bill Clinton. It makes a disturbing comment on the power of the entertainment establishment that a major presidential candidate felt the need to curry favor with it. During the campaign, the president is reported to have said in a speech on the West Coast that he wanted Hollywood to help “write the script” for a new America. Since his election, entertainment celebrities have had easy access to the corridors of power in Bill Clinton’s administration. Nothing should be more alarming to those who wish to preserve this country and the religious basis of its culture.

But we should not despair. The Christian is capable of literally turning off the secularistic influence of the entertainment business. When we have the courage to say “no” to anything that degrades rather than recreates, we will have a chance to make a difference in society. When it comes to TV and the movies, we can be “blameless and harmless, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation” (Phil. 2:15).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 3, p. 13-14
February 3, 1994

By Dick Blackford

After a twenty years’ nap, Rip van Winkle woke up to find he had slept through a revolution. I fear many Christians are sleeping through a revolution and are unprepared for conflict. While Nikita Kruschev will not get the satisfaction of seeing America buried “without firing a shot,” a philosophy similar to his has made successful inroads into the educational, legal, cultural, entertainment, and religious halls of our time and nation. This attack has been aimed at the foundation upon which western civilization stands  the view that this world was created by a God of justice and the moral teachings of the Bible (Prov. 14:34).

This is a call to battle. Not because of physical danger, but because of the danger to souls that have been and are being lost. It is not a battle of bullets and bombs but of ideas and concepts. “For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but mighty before God to the casting down of strongholds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that is exalted against the knowledge of God” (2 Cor. 10:4, 5). If anyone should be able to meet the arguments of humanists, it should be Christians. Since Christianity is of the heart (Matt. 22:37; Rom. 10:10; 6:17,18), we cannot coerce, but must convince. As the twentieth century comes to a close, a new day is dawning. For many, it will not be good.

There are very few areas in which Christianity and secular human-ism agree. We could say that secularism is the antithesis or opposite view of Christianity  every step of the way. Secularism is a godless religion that deifies man and is intolerant of its opposite, Christianity. Even the Humanist Manifesto calls it a “religious and moral point of view” (3) and “a growing faith” (24). (Note: all page references will be to Humanist Manifesto I and II.) This manifesto proports to be a sophisticated treatise designed to give dignity to the humanist philosophy. In reality, it is the most corrupt, vulgar and degrading piece composed in this century. It is designed to destroy the dignity of man, his beliefs, his values, his life, and his soul.

Secularism’s View Of This World

“Secular” (Latin, saeculum) means “age” or “time.” One who is secular is bound by time. He is one whose hope is confined to the here and now. We are told that “Religious humanism seeks its . . . fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist’s social passion” (9). And, “we strive for the good life, here and now” (17). This accords exactly with the view advocated by Charles Smith, former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Atheism in his debate with a gospel preacher in 1929, that “Our fourth fundamental is Hedonism, the doctrine that happiness here and now should be the motive of conduct” (Oliphant-Smith Debate, 27. Italics mine in all three quotes).

In short, the humanist philosophy is similar to the Epicureans who said, “Let us eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die” and this world is all there is. You only go around once. There is no judgment day. Jesus taught there are two worlds: the one that now is and that which is to come (Mk. 10:29,30). With humanism’ s view that there are no moral absolutes (“right” and “wrong”), it is easy to see the outcome of such a philosophy. It would amount to a free-for-all in the area of morality.

A “One-World Government”

When humanists say, “The separation of church and state and the separation of ideology and state are imperative” (19), they mean to exclude all ideologies except humanism. They say “People are more important than decalogues, rules, prescriptions, or regulations. We look to the development of a system of world law and a world order based on transnational federal government” (21).

In order to accomplish this “we urge that parochial loyalties and inflexible moral and religious ideologies be transcended” (23). This would make the government number one in the life of every citizen. The New Testament church would be secondary. In fact, the statement continues,

… commitment to all humankind is the highest commitment of which we are capable; it transcends the narrow allegiance of church . . . What more daring a goal … than for each person to become . . . a citizen of a world community . . . Humanism … is a moral force that has time on its side. We believe that humankind has the potential intelligence, good will, and cooperative skill to implement this commitment in the decades ahead.

It has been two decades since the Humanist Manifesto II was written. The perceptive observer of current events in the news is well aware of our government’s bowing to the United Nations, our “One-world Government.”

The advantage to humanism in a totalitarian government is the implementing, world-wide, of its philosophy of:

1. God and salvation. “No deity will save us; we must save ourselves . . . we begin with humans, not God” (16). “Traditional theism, especially faith in the prayer-hearing God, assumed to love and care for persons, to hear and understand their prayers, and to be able to do something about them, is an unproved and outmoded faith” (13). Consider these words from a dedicated humanist:

The Bible is not merely another book, an outmoded and archaic book, or even an extremely influential book; it has been and remains an incredibly dangerous book. It and the various Christian churches which are parasitic upon it have been directly responsible for most of the wars, persecutions, and outrages which humankind has perpetrated upon itself over the past two thousand years … I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith … These teachers must embody the same dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach . . . The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new  the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent in its promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of `love thy neighbor,’ will finally be achieved (John Dunphy, “A New Religion For A New Age,” The Humanist, January/February, 1983. My emphasis, db).

2. The Universe. “Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created” (8, emphasis added).

3. Man. “Man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as the result of a continuous process … we can alter the course of human evolution . . . Man is at last becoming aware that he alone is responsible for the realization of the world of his dreams” (8, 14, 10).

4. Morals. “We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is . . . situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction . . . neither do we wish to prohibit . . . sexual behavior between consenting adults. The many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves be considered `evil”‘ (17, 18). These “varieties” would include adultery, lesbianism, homosexuality, incest, and bestiality.

The Role Of Government

In A “One-World Government”

Since man rejected God’s form of government God has allowed (not necessarily approved) many forms. A totalitarian government could be allowed the same as many nationalistic governments. The danger lies in what philosophy controls that government. In a one-world government that has no fixed base (such as the Ten Commandments), law will be arbitrarily decided by what is good for society at the time and in its practical results (pragmatism). For example, since humanists deny God then life is not sacred. Therefore .aborting babies is no problem since over population and welfare children are not “good” (practical) for society.

Biblically, God has given government as an agent of justice to reward good and punish evil (Rom. 13:1-4;1 Pet. 2:13-17). This presupposes some absolutes. And we say without hesitation that any attempt to produce world peace that excludes the Prince of peace is doomed for failure.

Morality In A “One-World Government”

How many times have we heard humanists and those misled by them say, “You can’t legislate morality?” They mean only biblical morality. Actually, they have redefined morality and are already legislating it. Morality has to do with ecology and “this world.” Notice: “Ecological dam-age, resource depletion, and excessive population growth must be checked by international concord. The cultivation and conservation of nature is a moral value” (21, 22). This is why humanists can get so upset over rain forests and saving the whales and the snail-darter, but favor abortion, suicide, and mercy-killing. Again, “it is the moral obligation of the developed nations to provide . . . massive assistance, including birth control techniques (they would include abortion, db)” (22). Their morality would compel the redistribution of wealth. “Hence extreme disproportions in wealth, income, and economic growth should be reduced on a worldwide basic” (22). And, “we would resist any moves to censor basic scientific research on moral . . . grounds” (22). Thus, they see no problem with harvesting aborted babies for research and profit.

The Role Of The Church

In A One-World Government

One may think there is no role for the church in a godless society, but there is, at least in the transitional period. Humanism has infiltrated churches. “Many within religious groups believing in the future of humanism, now claim humanist credentials. Humanism is an ethical process through which we all can move above and beyond the divisive particulars . . . of past religions . . . ” (15) “Religion must work increasingly for joy in living” (9). They mean in the here and now, since they don’t believe in a hereafter. “All associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life” (9). “Certainly, religious institutions must be reconstructed as rapidly as experience allows … ” (10). The reason many churches have trouble deciding the simplest of moral issues is because they have been infiltrated by humanists and are in the process of reconstruction. “We believe … that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species . . . Some humanists believe we should interpret traditional religions and rein-vest them with meanings appropriate to the situation” (16). Humanists don’t mind if you give lip service to God as long as it doesn’t affect the way you act and live. This is why many politicians can invoke the name of God while making humanistic decisions diametrically opposed to God’s will.

Jesus implied religious division would cause the world not to believe (Jn. 17:20-23). Today’s professed believers have worked against the prayer of Jesus with their denominational creeds, councils, and dogmas and have played into the hands of humanists who claim they can unite all men. Most churches have lost their ability to influence society and are preaching a generic gospel that soothes itching ears (2 Tim. 4:3). Many have become clubs de-signed to entertain and meet our social desires and have become impotent to affect any real good in the battle for the mind against the highly organized and aggressive forces of humanism. Conclusion: Humanism’s means of accomplishing their goals is three-fold: the legal system (consider the work of the ACLU), the media (especially television and music), and the classroom (consider values clarification, evolution, sex education minus morality, etc.). I ask the reader, how well do you think they are doing?

The difference between communism and humanism could safely be said to be about 5%. The differences between Christianity and humanism are about 98%. That communism’s goal to bury us “without firing a shot” is the same as the humanists is expressed in these words: “The true revolution is occurring and can continue in countless non-violent adjustments” (23). What difference does it make what they call themselves if their goal is basically the same? If communism can accomplish most of its goals by changing its name and compromising on a few points, they are more than glad to do so and have done so many times in the past. Humanism bears far closer kinship to communism than to Christianity. They are like Siamese twins. I have always believed the optimism over the so-called “death of communism” was premature. A part of communism’s plan since its origin has been to zigzag as a means of throwing others off track.

One can be a Christian in any society, but it is far more difficult and dangerous in a godless society than a free society. My fellow Christians, it may be later than you think. Let us close with the words of the late Will Durant: “The greatest question of our time is not communism vs. individualism, nor Europe vs. America, not even the East vs. the West; it is whether men can bear to live without God.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 3, p. 2
February 3, 1994

By Nigerian Work

The gospel of Christ reached Nigerian in the year 1949, first at Ibibio land, now Akwa Ibom State, through the late brother C.A.O. Easien. It extended to Ibo land (now Abia State) in 1956. During that time, there was no knowledge of liberalism and conservatism. The liberals had their first Bible Training College at Ukpom Aba (now Akwa Ibom) in 1954. Their second Bible Training College was at Onitchs Ngwa in Aba (now Abia State) in 1956. In 1960 brother Leslie Diestelkamp came to the Onitchs Ngwa Bible College unawares that it was a “church organized institution.” After much effort to correct some errors proved abortive, he left them to move to the Lagos area where he started a new field of work. At this juncture, space may not permit us to tell the history of the church in Nigeria in detail.

In 1971, after the civil war in our country, brethren Ezekiel Akinyemi and Henry Karamu from the West were sent by their preaching congregations, Mokole at Ibadan and Sapale respectively, on having heard and known the erroneous teaching with positions of churches and preachers in Ibe land, to enlighten them on the truth of the more perfect way. First they conducted a six week Bible class with preachers at Enugu. They conducted a second six week class at Aba in 1972. As a result of these classes some of the preachers embraced the truth and were liberated from the error of liberalism.

Since then these preachers have been able to restore some churches, train other preachers and establish more churches. Though Aba has become the dustbin of the erroneous teachings of institutionalism, no classes, undivided assembly, one-cup, one loaf and the instrumental brethren, yet none of these faithful preachers or churches has fallen victim of them.

It is pertinent to note that the Nigerian economy is in shambles. It is also widely known that our rulers are misusing the public fund, thereby subjecting the entire populace to economic difficulty. Moreover, a majority of those who embrace the gospel in our area are poor and cannot support the gospel as needed. Some of the American brethren who have visited Aba area can bear witness to these facts. Though many of the American brethren have visited Nigeria from time to time, that not withstanding, they cannot fully identify the problems facing the work in Aba area because of their brief stay each time they come.

The churches though poor are supporting the gospel according to their ability but not sufficiently to sustain the preachers. Because of such a situation, the preachers also work with their hands to augment what they receive.

We must not forget to appreciate the efforts of the American brethren in their fellowship with us in the gospel.

Because of the foregoing, we are now emphasizing that the churches in the truth in other parts of the country are not of the same age with those in Aba area. We are appealing and pleading strongly that brethren continue to support the work here. It does not seem right to stop those who are receiving support but rather plead that if there are opportunities for new support, do not relent as long as Aba area is concerned. More support to the preachers will help them to give more time to the work.

We know you love the Nigerian work, we know you have been doing your best to support it, we pray that you add grease to your elbows. We are grateful for all you have been doing and will continue to do to the glory of God’s Holy name.

For contact sake write to: Rufus C.D. Akataobi, P.O. Box 1185, Aba, Abia State, Nigeria; Friday Odoemelam, P.O. Box 650, Aba, Abia State, Nigeria; Isaac O. Aku, P.O. Box 12587, Umungasi, Aba, Abia State, Nigeria; Alozie A. Wachukwu, Ampu Ntigha P.A., Via Mbawai P.0, Abia State, Nigeria; or Silas O. Okpuler, P.O. Box 12803, Umungasi, Aba, Abia State, Nigeria.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 2, p. 12
January 20, 1994

By Dick Blackford

In school we studied axioms. In math and logic an axiom is “a statement that needs no proof because its truth is obvious” (Websters New World Dictionary. 98). Euclids famous axiom was “things equal to the same thing are equal to each other” (Webster, 98). An axiom is a self-evident truth. We observed other axioms such as: “The shortest distance between two points is a straight line.” Who hasnt paraphrased this obvious truth by saying, “as the crow flies? Then there was the one, the sum is equal to the total of its parts.” We need this obvious truth to check our answers.

But there are some more truths which men, both secular humanists and halfhearted believers, need reminding of today. They would be obvious even without a revelation from God, though many of them are alluded to in Scripture.

1. Something Cannot Come From Nothing. In all of human experience no one has observed otherwise. A thing is universally accepted as true when no one can demonstrate that the opposite occasionally happens. It is on this basis that we conclude that the universe could not be self-existent, for it would have created itself from nothing. If there was ever a time when totally nothing existed then that situation would be locked in forever. There would just be a constant eternity of nothingness, for something cannot come from nothing. But this leads to another axiom.

2. Mind Is Superior To Matter. Left to itself, matter cannot choose to act on its own. Matter can be acted upon by mind (intelligence), but not the other way around. An enormous amount of planning and action (mind, intelligence and power) would have been necessary in order to bring this orderly universe and all life systems into being. We are forced to conclude that the First Cause was not lifeless matter but a highly intelligent mind. “Mind over matter” is an axiom. “Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, why didst thou make me thus?” (Rom. 9:20)

3, Creation Demands A Creator, For every house was builded by someone” (Heb. 3:4). We can all agree about the house. Shouldnt it be even more obvious that something which requires even more power and intelligence than a house was brought into existence by a more powerful and more intelligent being? The “logic” of unbelievers is woefully lacking at this point. The word create” is a verb, an action word. But a verb cannot show action unless there is a noun to do the acting.

4. Lift Demands A Life-giver. Something cannot give that which it does not have. No one has ever demonstrated the opposite. Scientists agree that “all life comes from existing lift (the law of biogenesis).” This is one reason the “Big Bang Theory” is not a sufficient explanation for a universe that is filled with numberless forms of life. Whoever” gave the abundance of life we see everywhere around us, had it to give and knows the secret to life that remains a mystery to man (Acts 17:25).

5. Law Demands A Law-giver. Many laws of nature exist motion, gravity, etc. They attest to the fact that there is a Lawgiver somewhere, Every effect must have an adequate cause. There has to he a Moving Force that brings the elements together in such a way as to make these laws dependable and useful. It would he terrible if each day was different and these laws went in and out of effect at random (Job 28:25; Eccl. 1:6,7)

6. That Which Is Being Sustained Demand A Sustainer. An enormous amount of energy is needed to keep the earth rotating on its axis and revolving around the sun, to say nothing about the energy needed that keeps all other heavenly bodies moving in their galaxies. For anything to continue functioning it must have sustenance. And what about the energy needed that keeps the earth providing fuel for man and machine? Jam the sustainer and maintainer of my automobile. It needs both sustenance and maintenance regularly. Concerning the universe, he upholdeth all things by the word of his power (Heb. 1:3; Acts 17:25). It is continuous action and not at all like the deist who believes in a one-time creation in which the creator has no further interest in his creation or its functioning.

7. Design Demands A Designer. Everything in the universe has design, even snowflakes. The fact that the earth tilts at the right angle to give us dependable seasons every year (Gen. 8:22), that it completes a rotation on its axis every day and a revolution around the sun every year so that we can set our clocks and make our calendars, that all living organisms have dependable systems (respiratory, circulation, nervous, etc.) these are but the hem of the garment of evidence of design in the universe (Psa. 139:14-18).

8. The Fact That Man Has A Conscience implies An intelligent Creator, Designer, Sustainer, Life-giver And Law-giver Who Has A Set Of Standards Of Right And Wrong. We have already shown the logic of an intelligent Creator. Everything that any being with intelligence does, has a point to it (or a reason for it). What other reason could there be for mans being given a conscience (a sense of “ought” and ought not”) if there is no standard by which to order and measure it? This implies a revelation of the will of the Law-giver.

There are other selfevident truths, hut there is a final one we want to observe in a moment. First, we need to consider the consequences of saying, as the humanist does. that there is no Creator, Designer, Sustainer, Life-giver. Law-giver or Moral Being. It is to say that each man is merely an animal and a law unto himself, that there is no meaning to life or the universe, you better put self first, get all you can and do all you want to do because here and now” is all you have. It is to invite a “free-forall” in morality. Do you wonder at the rapid increase in crime.- the drive-by shootings, car-jackings. that rape has increased by 70% since 1933. etc.? Brother Connie Adams recently observed that no nation has survived her own moral decline. That leads us to our final axiom.

8. You Will Reap What You Sow. No one has demonstrated the opposite. Experience tells us this truth in the plant world: sow cornreap corn. How terrible it would be if we couldnt depend on this. But it is also true in life. We need not fearthis self-evident truth if we are sowing the proper seed. However, he that soweth to the flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; hut he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap eternal life” (Gal. 6:7, 8).

Evidence is all around us- These truths are obvious. Those who ignore them or are half-hearted are without excuse” (Rom. 1:20). Are you ready for the Lord to take vengeance on “those who know not God and obey not the gospel?” (2 Thess. 1:7-9). Are you prepared to reap what you have sown? All humanists and indifferent believers who have not made preparation for the inevitable need to take warning. “It is appointed unto man once to die, and after this the judgment” (Heb. 9:27).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 2, p. 18-19
January 20, 1994