Truth Magazine

By Connie W. Adams

Paul assured Timothy that “all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived” (2 Tim. 3:12-13). Notice that there is a connection between the increase of wickedness in evil men and the persecution of the godly.

In the face of it all the Christian cannot give in to the notion that says, “if you cant whip them, join them.” Paul instructed Timothy to “continue thou in the things thou hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; and that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:14-17). As evil men worsen, as society becomes more ungodly, the Christian must adhere closely to the God-breathed Scriptures which will help us meet every contingency. They are relevant to human need in good times and bad.

Peter, who himself had weakened and denied the Lord in the face of a hostile courtyard crowd, later, in his maturity as a veteran in the Lords service, said some things to help us all in difficult times for the righteous. 1 Peter 4 deals with the servant of God in bad times. Look at verse 3. (Go ahead, get your Bible.) They had already lived long enough in ungodliness. That belonged to the past. In verse 4 he instructs them as to how their former companions may regard them. They are “strange” to these people. Verse 5 points to the judgment to which all, the good and the evil, must come. Verses 6-11 urge the saints to cling to the hope of deliverance from the Lord, to remain sober and watchful, to show their love for each other, using hospitality and ministering to one another. Christians always need each other, but especially in times of stress from a corrupt society. Through it all there is to be a faithful devotion to “the oracles of God” (v. 11) as they glorified God in using the abilities which he gave them.

Verse 12 admonishes them not to be surprised at trials. It is not really unusual for the godly to be persecuted by the ungodly. Verses 13 and 14 show that suffering identifies us with our Lord who suffered so much for us. He is now glorified and glory awaits us.

Verse 15 urges the righteous not to join in the evil of the age and suffer for wrong doing. But, in verse 16, if suffering comes from doing right, there is no shame in it. God is glorified. Verses 17-19 point to final judgment when both the righteous and the ungodly shall give account. If the righteous are to be saved through their suffering, what shall be the end of those who are described as “ungodly” and “sinner(s)”? Let the godly sufferer entrust his soul to his Creator.

The Days Are Evil

For many years subtle changes have taken place in American culture. Now the changes are blatant and occurring with such rapidity and in such magnitude that many are baffled. In a nation where marriage was once held in honor, disdain for this holy estate is abundantly evident. Laws have encouraged sin in this regard. From Social Security payments which penalize the married, to aid for dependent children so structured as to discourage marriage, to proposed tax laws which place a much heavier tax burden on a married couple than it would on two single people just living together. The message being sent from the government is that the married will be penalized. This constitutes discrimination against those who honor Gods marriage law.

Since the infamous Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, nearly 30 million unborn children have been killed legally in their mothers womb. The “Freedom of Choice Act” now before Congress would end waiting periods, parental consent, “in-formed consent” for women about to have abortions and would overturn every abortion law in every state in the nation. If you destroy the egg of an eagle, the fine is $5,000. But under the proposed new law a baby can be aborted up to five minutes before birth and even kept alive long enough to “harvest” body parts.

The penchant for “political correctness” has so saturated the great educational institutions of the nation that genuine freedom of information is outlawed. Under the guise of “multi-culturalism” the agenda of radical feminists, socialists, environmentalists, and homosexuals has been advocated to the exclusion of alternate views, and especially those that have anything to do with biblically-based morals. For example, the University of Michigan has a “student guide to proper behavior” which lumps racist threats with “failing to invite someone to a party because shes a lesbian.” At Pennsylvania State University 10,000 incoming freshman in 1990 were advised that they might be assigned a homosexual room mate, and if so, they would not be allowed to object. Whatever happened to “free speech”? Many state universities have become breeding grounds for beer bashes, alcoholism, drug abuse, unwanted pregnancies and abortions and sexually transmitted diseases. All the while God, the Bible and godly behavior are ridiculed and professing Bible believers are treated as objects of pity for their ignorance. Many godly parents have come to look upon public schools as public enemy number one when it comes to the faith and morals of their children. Many are opting for private schools (at great financial sacrifice) or home schooling to educate their young without making infidels and moral reprobates out of them.

The entertainment and news media have long held nearly anything in the name of Christianity up to scorn. Pat Oliphant, a cartoonist, recently depicted “fundamental Christians” as rats dragging a Republican elephant into a mission with a “Jesus Saves” sign above the door. What other minority group could be so publicly ridiculed without creating a firestorm of protest that would rattle the windows in the Oval Office and reverberate in the halls of Congress?

In some areas zoning requirements and environmental restrictions ranging from “wetlands” to “potential habitats” for certain types of birds have made it so expensive, and in some cases impossible, for churches to build new and needed houses for worship.

Christians in business are subject to legal reprisals for refusing to hire, or for dismissing a homosexual employee. The moral and religious convictions of the employer do not count.

On ABCs “20/20” Hugh Downs likened those who stress family values to the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s, to Adolf Hitler and his emphasis on motherhood, and the Hezbollah. He said, “As warriors, fanatics censor the thoughts of others and love to burn books. In the modern United States, new proponents of family values continue this tradition of fear and intolerance.” There was a time when you could announce that you were to preach on the family and you could pack the house. But now, teaching the values about family which the Bible presents, is not “politically correct” for it runs into the feminist agenda, opposes the libertine morals of the day, teaches that marriage is for life, that children are to be obedient to parents and that the word of God is the last word in determining decisions which have to do with all of family life. Right now, a Christian in the state of Florida who lays a hand on a child who misbehaves in a public place (including a church service) is subject to having that child taken away from the parent under the guise of protecting the child from “child abuse.”

Christians, we are now a despised minority. We need to help and encourage each other. It is not time to reduce the amount of gospel preaching we do, rather, we must increase it. We must work hard to save our own. Sometimes I hear it said that in our meetings we are just talking to ourselves. That is not true, but if so, do we not need to exhort one another to be faithful in the midst of these trying times? When the world is growing darker that only enhances the brightness of divine light reflected in the lives of our Lords people. This is no time to hide your light under a bushel. It is not the time to let your salt lose its savor. But it is time to say with the Hebrew writer, “So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me” (Heb. 13:6)

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 14 p. 3-4
July 15, 1993

By Walton Weaver

When Satan told Jesus he would give him “all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them,” if he would fall down and worship him, it is implied that he had such power and control over these kingdoms and their glory, to deliver them into his hands. What is implied in Matthew 4:9 is expressly asserted by him in Luke 4:6: “All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomever 1 will I give it.” Whether Satan actually possessed the power and authority he claims for himself in these passages has been a much debated subject.

Since God himself is the Almighty, and the Bible does not teach dualism (that the world is under the control of two equal forces of good and evil, God and Satan), Satan could have no power except what has been committed to him. Whatever power he had was his only because it had been “delivered” to him. The extent of his rule is clearly indicated when he is called “the prince of this world” On. 12:31), and “the prince of the power of the air” (Eph. 2:2). In 2 Corinthians 4:4 he is called “the god of this world.” John says that “the whole world lieth in wickedness” (1 Jn. 5:19), and Revelation 12:9 attributes this to the fact that “that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, . . . deceiveth the whole world.” That Satan does not, however, have equal power with God is affirmed when of Christ it is said that “one stronger than he” had come to “assail and overcome him” (Lk. 11:22).

A Closer Look

We will take a more careful look at those passages just cited which describe Satan’s power in the world.

1. The Prince of this world (Jn. 12:31; 14:30; 15:10). The word “prince” in the Bible is not used just to refer to the heir of a king. It is also used as a title of a person with significant royal, military, or other authority (see Num. 22:15). The term was chosen by the KJV translators to translate more specific foreign titles (Dan. 1:3; 3:2; “nobles” and “satraps,” NASB). At other times the word is used to identify a high ranking angel in the spiritual realm. Daniel 10:13, for example, names “Michael, one of the chief princes,” and the reference seems clearly to be a high ranking angel. As a high ranking angel, Michael is also called “the prince of Israel” (Dan. 10:21) and the “great prince” (Dan. 12:1). In Matthew 12:24 Beelzebub is called “the prince of the devils” (better “demons,” and evidently a reference to angels who had fallen from their high estate). In this last passage, and in John 12:31, later versions like the RSV, NIV, NKJV and the NASB translate the word “ruler,” but the KJV and the ASV have the word “prince.”

The “world” over which Satan rules is mankind in alienation from God. While the world appears to be Satan’s empire, or his sphere of operation, as a matter of fact, what he produces in the world (sin and death) becomes his empire. The “world” in this ethical sense is laden in sin and in need of salvation. In this realm men “loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil” (John 3:19; cf. 1 John 2:15-17). Where sin reigns, spiritual death also reigns, for “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23).

2. The Prince of the power of the air (Eph. 2:2). The only difference in this passage and the one just considered is that the terms “the world” are replaced by the terms “the power of the air” (i.e., “the air” the atmosphere around the earth). Why this particular mention of “the air” as the place where Satan is cannot be known for certain. It may mean no more than that the air is the place where Satan dwells as the chief ruler, or prince, of the demons, or evil spirits. It probably means that the air is the place where such spirits live, and Satan is the prince of all such spirits who have the air as their place of abode. The Jews of Paul’s day believed that the air was Satan’s sphere of dominion, and Paul evidently teaches it as a matter of fact in this statement.

The word “power” means rule or dominion. Paul’s point is that Satan is the “ruler” (RSV, NKJV, NIV) of all evil forces who reside in the atmosphere around the earth. Other passages show that he, and all other wicked spirits under his authority, do their work in the world, but in this passage Paul affirms that they have the air or atmosphere around the earth as their place of abode. Even Christians do not struggle “against flesh and blood,” Paul says, “but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places” (Eph. 6:12). “Darkness” is representative of the realm in which these evil forces rule; their dominion is in the area of ignorance, superstition, and sin. In this sense they rule over this dark world. Their actual sphere of operation is identified in this passage as “in high places” (same as 1:3, 20; 2:6; 3:18, “in heavenly places”). Perhaps here it means the unseen realm in the world, including both good and evil forces. The phrase does not appear to be equivalent to “the air” in Ephesians 2:2. It does not have this meaning in any of the other places where it is used in the book of Ephesians.

3.The God of this world (2 Cor. 4:4). Only here in the New Testament is Satan called a “god.” All attempts to apply the term in this passage to the only true God rather than Satan have proved unsuccessful and are unnecessary. The word is a fitting description of Satan when it is used as Paulmeans for it to be understood. A similar use of the word appears in Philippians where Paul says of certain Judaizers, “whose god is their belly” (3:19). Like Romans 16:18, “for they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly,” the term “belly” in this passage is used to describe the desires of the flesh. To serve one’s belly is to make one’s fleshly desires one’s “god,” or the principle thing with him. In this same way, when those in the world give themselves to serve Satan, or he becomes the principle thing in their lives, he becomes their god. The “world” in this passage is humanity who has given itself to serve Satan. In this sense Satan is “the god of this world.”

4. The Deceiver of the whole world (Rev. 12:7). The whole world has plunged into sin because all those who are in the world have been “deceived” by “the great dragon, . . . the old serpent, he that is called the Devil and Satan.” The latter two terms tell us that this great “deceiver” is man’s accuser or slanderer (= the Devil), and man’s arch adversary, the one who stands as our opponent and antagonist (_ Satan). The two terms describe his true character. As the “deceiver of the whole world” it should be remembered that … it was by deception that the world of mankind was plunged into sin (1 Tim. 2:14), and by which he has continued since to control men (12:9; 20:3, 8, 10). It is by deception that false religion, symbolized by the beast out of the earth, also gains adherents (13:14; 19:20); and it is by deception that worldliness, signified by the harlot, the great city, seduces her victims (18:23). Expose and remove the deception of sin and its power is nullified (Homer Hailey).

Temptation No. 1: What would be Jesus’ personal lot during the period of his ministry? Would he avoid personal suffering through the use of his special power as the Son of God? Why should he as the Son of God have to suffer hunger as other men do? Could he not avoid such suffering through the use of his own power as God’s Son? Satan knew that he could have done so, and this was the nature of the first temptation. Jesus’ response was that bread was important, but bread alone was not the important thing. He would not use his divine power to satisfy his own personal needs in order to avoid suffering.

Temptation No. 2: Would Jesus use spectacular display of himself and his power in order to get a following? Surely high acclaim would have been given him by the crowds below if only he would cast himself down from the highest point of the temple and trust God to bring him safely to the ground below. If he would leap from the wall, God would charge the angels to bear him up. Such a display would no doubt appeal to the Messianic aspirations of the crowds. They would likely hail him as “he that should come.” But, again, Jesus knew this was the easy way, and a way that would only be chosen by one who was determined to avoid the way of suffering. To do what Satan suggested would presume upon God’s favor by putting him to a test to see if he would keep his word. He refused to tempt God in this way. His spiritual ends were not to be accomplished by unspiritual means.

Temptation No. 3: Would Jesus attempt to accomplish his mission through political power? This was the kind of Messiah the people had expected and wanted. As Jesus looked out from the high mountain where he had been taken, he must have looked past the landscape to the political kingdoms of the world and envisioned them at his feet. At least this was what Satan intended for him to do. He offered Jesus “all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them.” Jesus successfully resisted the temptation by rejecting the devil’s methods to accomplish his mission. He would not attempt to avoid the way of suffering for selfish and ambitious reasons, i.e., love of power and a desire to rule politically over others. He saw that surrender to Satan in this way would mean a divided loyalty, and he could not accomplish his true mission except through complete trust in God and service to him. This could be accomplished only through suffering.

In the third temptation Satan was not offering Jesus a way to accomplish his true mission. He was attempting to turn Jesus away from that accomplishment through worldly ambition. Jesus could not have saved the souls of men by establishing a worldly kingdom. Satan did not take him to that high mountain to show him the souls of men which he had come to save, but to show him “all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them.” As Luke 4:6 shows, it was the “power” and “glory” of these worldly kingdoms that Satan offered to Jesus. From that high mountain Jesus saw beautiful lands, towns, cities, and mountains, in addition to all the peoples of these kingdoms, and the temptation was to have the authority to rule over all that was included in these “kingdoms of the world,” and the “glory” that would accompany this vast political power and all the possessions that would come with it.

2. Could Satan Have Delivered On His Offer To Jesus? Was there an attempt at deception involved here? Did Satan really have the power he claimed for himself when he said, “I will give You all this domain and its glory; for it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I wish” (Lk. 4:6, NASB)? What is the likely answer to this question?

J.W. McGarvey thought that “Satan’s promise to give Jesus the kingdom, when considered in connection with the capacities of Jesus himself, involves no very arrogant assumption of power.” Even though “the whole world lieth in wickedness,” it is not because Satan exercises in any sense absolute sway over the world. He could not give the domain and glory of the world to whomever he chose, and yet this is presumed in his offer to Jesus. Whatever ground he has gained in the world is not his by right. J.S. Lamar is quite right when he says that Satan’s “suggestion means . . . that they [the kingdoms of the world, ww] have been rightly delivered to him, i. e., by Him who alone possesses all things, and this is false.” His claim that the earth (all the kingdoms in the world, and their glory) had been delivered to him was, however, partially true. This is the meaning of those passages we have already considered. His claim that he could give it to whom he willed, however, was false. His lordship is limited in power and duration. This means that had Jesus met Satan’s demands he would have conceded that he did in fact own “all this” (power over the kingdoms and the glory that belongs to them) by right, and this simply was not the case. There is no doubt that Satan’s power is great, but there is a greater power, and Satan’s days were numbered. So it was with half-truth and half-falsehood, and using the Messianic hopes of Jesus’ own people whom he had come to save, that Satan assaulted the integrity of Jesus in the hope of saving himself and his “domain of darkness” (Col. 1:13, NASB).

Satan, in other words, was inviting Jesus to join forces with him. He offered him authority over the world. In making this offer was he not hoping to retain authority for himself in the rest of the universe? He saw his own power being challenged, and his offer to Jesus in this particular temptation appears to have been an attempt to compromise so as not to lose his entire domain. A part dominion was better than nothing. McGarvey concedes that there was a way Jesus could have become cohort with Satan and gained the prize offered to him. But for this to happen it would take more than Jesus simply surrendering and coming under the power and dominion of Satan. He says that “it is quite certain that if he had consented, and had not by this con-sent lost the power and wisdom which belonged to him, he could have attained in a short time to universal dominion” (emphasis mine, ww). Whatever success he would have had in this way would have been due, not to Satan’s power alone, but to Jesus’ own power and wisdom as well. The fact of the matter is, in spite of his bold claim, Satan did not exercise absolute sway over the whole world so that he could give a major part of his dominion away at his choosing.

Wherein Lay The Temptation?

What then was the nature and the force of the temptation brought against our Lord here? For one thing, he was tempted to concede that Satan exercised absolute lordship in the universe. Had Jesus given in to worship and serve him he would have been saying by his action that God did not occupy the position of total Lordship in the universe. John P. Lange correctly observes, “The point of the temptation lay in the boldness of the design  Satan spreading out all at once a rushing picture of absolute sway over the world and of its glory, and then offering all this to the lowly and rejected Son of David, who of right could claim all the nations of the world as His inheritance, and the utmost ends of the world as his possession.”

Another aspect of this temptation would have been the attempt on Satan’s part to influence Jesus to establish the kingdom of Jewish expectation by outward power and pomp. This was the very role the Jews had expected their coming Messiah to fill. The desire Satan hoped to excite was that of worldly ambition. If he could but divert Jesus’ attention away from his mission in the world, which was to seek and to save the lost, his own mission would have been accomplished, and he could at least have saved a part of the universe for himself to exercise lordship over. But Jesus could not have established the true kingdom of God on earth had he given in to Satan’s conditions. He would only have become ruler of the kingdoms of the world. Like the other temptations that had gone before, the attempt here was to turn Jesus away from the accomplishment of his true mission in the world.

But Jesus, in his resolve to accomplish his mission and to do the Father’s will, stood firm. For the third time he made a direct appeal to the word of God: “Then Jesus said unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord they God, and him only shalt thou serve” (Matt. 4:10). By using the term “Satan” Jesus exposed his true character and showed him to be the adversary that he was. By telling him to get out of his sight he showed both his great enmity toward him, and all the evil that he represents in the world, as well as his resolve to withstand his appeal. The rebellion was put down. The strong man was being cast out. God still reigns in the universe, and Jesus surely would destroy “every rule and every authority and power” set against God (1 Cor. 15:24).

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 12, p. 22-24
June 17, 1993

By Johnie Paul Edwards

In late January 1848 gold was discovered by James Mar-shall as he worked on John Sutter’s sawmill at Coloma, California. The news of gold in California began to spread across the nation and as the word leaked out, a “gold rush” erupted in northern California.

“Gold fever” raged eastward and by 1849 crowds of gold seekers were headed west on the trails, others by sea, making helter-skelter marches for California.

These “forty-niners” turned California into a land of untamed mining camps and boom towns. Boom-town California soon became a land of violence. Gold fever led to claim jumping, ambusing and murder! American miners looked on each other with dislike and distrust.

Now here we are, nearly a century and a half later and things really have not changed very much. (Have you noticed the lines at the supermarket to buy lottery tickets?) Man continues to eagerly pursue that which is to be shunned, to the eternal loss of his own soul.

The Love of Money Is the Root of All Evil

This “gold fever” that has been afflicting mankind for generations is nothing more than the “love of money” (1 Tim. 6:10). The assertion is not concerning money, which, is neither good nor bad in itself, but concerning the love of money. It is really a root-sin, for it leads to care, fear, malice, deceit, oppression, envy, bribery, perjury, and contentiousness. Surely men today need no proof of the fact that men and women will commit any sin or crime for money.

Louisa Clapp produced what historians now consider to be the best accounts of gold-rush life ever writtern. In her “Gold-Rush Chronicler” she described the violence. “In a short space of twenty-four days,” she wrote in July of 1852, “We have had murders, fearful accidents, bloody deaths, a mob, whippings, a hanging, an attempt at suicide and a fatal duel.”

A root of all evil lies in one with the love of money. There is no kind of evil to which a man may not be led through an absorbing greed for money. This passion, this covetousness, is to be “put to death” (Col. 3:5).

They That Will be Rich

Fall Into Temptation and a Snare

Paul said, “But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition” (1 Tim. 6:9). The idea is that some desire to be rich; will to be rich at any cost and in haste (Prov. 28:20). The money-lover, by putting a false value upon money, makes it a snare and an instrument of hurt to himself and others. Jesus spoke of those who “trust in riches” (Mk. 10:24). The love of money often leads one into impiety and crime, and through them to sorrows and perdition. Greed for the wages of unrighteousness urged Balaam on to his destruction (2 Pet. 2:15). Greed for money made Judas a thief, a traitor, and a murderer of the Lord. This desire to be rich is only a snare, set by the devil (1 Tim. 3:7) to entrap us in sin.

Godliness and Contentment Is Great Gain

Paul wrote, “But godliness with contentment is great gain. . . And having food and rainment let us be therewith content” (1 Tim. 6:6,8). The godly man is rich indeed, for he has acquired riches, which, unlike the riches of this world, he can take away with him (compare Lk. 12:31-34). We have good reason to be content. We brought nothing into this world and can carry nothing out! Instead of reaching after worldly riches, procure the true wealth, and become rich in righteousness, godliness, fatih, love, patience, and meekness (1 Tim. 6:11).

Avoid the “fever” that leads to “helter-skelter” marches to the supermarket for lottery tickets by putting your trust in the living God “who giveth us richly all things to enjoy” (1 Tim. 6:17).

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 12, p. 15
June 17, 1993

By Circuit Judge Leah M. Lampone

(Introductory Note: Leah Lampone received her law degree from. Marquette University. After serving as a clerk in the Wisconsin Supreme Court, she served as an assistant U.S. attorney.

When she was 31 years old, in 1979, she was elected and named Circuit Judge. She once said she became a lawyer because she wanted to be something more than just “an Italian mother whos always there to wash clothes, wipe noses and cook meals.” The envy of women who long to be “liberated” from home life, she recently ruled that “a reordering of my priorities is over-due” and stepped down [or up] from her role as a judge to be a full-time wife and mother. Mrs. Lampone at first temporarily left the bench when Patrick was born to her and her husband, Kevin. Now 44 years old, she wrote the following letter resigning her position altogether.

The God who made us male and female said in the long ago concerning the womans role, fulfillment, and happiness:

Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety (1 Tim. 2:14).

I will therefore that the young women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully (1 Tim. 5:14).

That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed (Tit. 2:4-5).

Submitted by Ron Holbrook, 654 Gray Street, West Columbia, Texas 77486)

With the scheduled day of my return to the bench swiftly approaching, it has become increasingly clear that more important work calls me.

“With the right person elected, they ma-son, all will be well. They look to the schools to educate and instill values in their children; the social service system to feed, clothe and nurture them; the police to stop them from being victimized by out of control violence; and the courts to break the endless cycle of child neglect and crime. Unfortunately, government programs  well-intentioned though they may be  cannot stop the erosion.”

As I write, I gaze upon my newborn son  an answer to our years of prayer, unexpectedly granted late in life. Patrick is napping now, exhausted from his mornings work: viewing the world from his mothers shoulder.

He sleeps secure in the knowledge that upon his waking cry he may reclaim his rightful perch. The burden of his weight on my no-longer youthful back is lightened by the knowledge that this tender nurturing will have a lifelong impact on his perception of himself and the world around him.

My decision to leave the bench was not easily made. I hope I have served well the trust the people of Wisconsin have placed in me. Yet the job I leave has changed dramatically from that which I first undertook.

In each of my judicial assignments over the years, I have seen, heard and felt the unraveling of society palpably as a slap in the face.

Caught in the trap of lifelong welfare dependence, generations of impoverished and dysfunctional mothers – ignorant of the need for nurturance and incapable of adequate parenting – have produced children bereft of hope and vision and without the capacity for empathy for another human being. (I omit fathers here only because in many cases we see today, they have seemingly become superfluous after conception.)

In this environment, brutality and cruelty have become commonplace. Lawlessness has become blatant. Crimes are committed no longer only under cover of night, but in broad daylight without a hint of shame.

As a substitute for the structure, control and education that the family once provided, people now turn to the government. Ancient values of self-reliance and responsibility for, and to, family are seemingly dying.

With the right person elected, they reason, all will be well. They look to the schools to educate and instill values in their children; the social service system to feed, clothe and nurture them; the police to stop them from being victimized by out-of-control violence; and the courts to break the endless cycle of child neglect and crime.

Unfortunately, government programs – well-intentioned though they may be – cannot stop the erosion. We cannot be the nurturing parents that the people who come before us never had.

Faced with this reality, our job (in the court system) has become frustrating, as the Band-Aids we apply do little to halt the rapidly spreading cancer.

With these thoughts in mind, a reordering of my priorities is overdue.

Looking back upon my years as both judge and mother, I have come to realize that the greatest impact I have made in any life is that which Ive made in the lives of my own children.

I have less than another decade to spend with my Daniel (age 11) and my Michael (age 9) before they are off to their lifes adventure.

I wistfully dream of freezing time for a few years and thank the Lord for Patrick, who has his entire childhood yet ahead of us.

While I suppose I could continue as both judge and mother, at age 44, after the stress of a hard day, I doubt I could be all the mother that two young boys and an infant deserve.

Patrick calls, and hence I must close – both this letter and my career in the judiciary.

I leave with alarm at what I have seen daily. I leave with the warning that we as a culture must end the cycle of pro-creation without committing to parenting. We must do what we can to discourage dysfunctional household units, and abdication to the government of the familys role in teaching moral, spiritual and social values. 

Continuation on our current course will render our courts to being little more than process centers for movement through foster homes, treatment centers and penal institutions.

Hopefully, by investing more of my time in my own home, I will look up at the end of my life to see three young men, emotionally vibrant and self-reliant, ready to face their lifes drama.

With that solid foundation, perhaps they will be better equipped to meet the challenge of putting back together the pieces of society we let crumble in our hands. (Reprinted by permission from Reminisce, January/February 1993, pp. 60-61).

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 14 p. 1
July 15, 1993