Truth Magazine

By Steve Wolfgang

Footnote: Peggy Noonan, What I Saw At the Revolution: A Political Life in the Reagan Era (New York: Random House/Ballatine Books, 1990, 1991), pp. 202-203.

Peggy Noonan is a former newswriter for Dan Rather on CBS Radio news who in 1984 became a speech-writer for Ronald Reagan and, later, George Bush. She wrote some of the more memorable speeches delivered by Presidents Reagan and Bush, including the Reagan speech at Pointe du Hock in Normandy in 1984, the January 1986 speech following the space shuttle “Challenger” disaster, as well as George Bush’s nomination acceptance and Inaugural addresses.

Although not a “religious” book, it contains some enlightening passages about issues where politics and religion frequently intersect, and provides some insight into the often anti-religious bias of our public news media. I offer several of these passages for your consideration, and hope you will profit from them as I did.

[Another speech-writer] felt that this was a good time for the president to reassert his opposition to abortion and some of his reasoning. I thought it a good time to bring some of the reasoning up-to-date. A number of people I knew, friends who were approaching their middle thirties, were trying to have children and, for a variety of reasons, having trouble. One, who’d been a newswriter with me in Boston and become a close friend, was trying to adopt and finding it very difficult. One of the unanticipated results of Roe vs. Wade was that people like Judy couldn’t find babies they wanted to adopt anymore.

This is what I wrote:

“I believe that when we allow ourselves to take the lives of our smallest, most vulnerable members, we coarsen ourselves as a society. And it is surely a terrible irony that while some abort their children, so many others who cannot become parents cry out for children to adopt. Abortion has emptied the orphanages – and emptied the cradles of those who want a child to love.

“Our nation has made great strides in helping unwed mothers bring their children to term. Churches, private agencies and individuals are housing, feeding, clothing and treating young mothers, helping them to keep their children or put them up for adoption. This great movement has spread across the country like wildfire.”

Dick Darman did not like anti-abortion language (in the speech-writing business the word “language” is used in place of “argument” and “words”), partly because the president’s stance did not reflect, he said, the will of the majority of the people, and partly, I think, because he himself did not support a ban. We talked about it once. He brought up the polls and said it’s an 80-20, 1 said if you polled the German people in 1939 killing Jews would be an 80-20, he said you can’t squander political capital, I said the courage to take unpopular stands is this president’s capital, he referred to Prohibition and back alleys. I don’t know what I said but I probably conceded yes, people will still do it and they’ll get hurt, you’re right, and more than a change of law is needed – but a change of law is needed.

(I know I lose some people here. I don’t have a single woman friend who agrees with me on abortion, and the woman who edits this or sets the type is steaming. But it’s what I think. When people say abortion is a visceral issue I think they mean it’s purely instinctive: One’s instinct is either to rush to the aid of the frail thing that will be killed or rush to the aid of a freedom that could be lost – and there is no room for compromise. But I’ll tell you something that some members of the anti-abortion movement are privately wrestling with. I had a talk the other night [it is late autumn ‘891 with an anti-abortion activist who is a distinguished writer and thinker. I told him of my growing fear that moving for something like a constitutional amendment when so many women want to keep the abortion option open was – maybe right now not the answer. If we just pass a law and everybody breaks it, what have we gained? There would be so much profit made by bad people, by the worst of our society. And since the decision to abort is made in a single woman’s mind . . . maybe what we really have to do is keep changing minds. He surprised me. “I know what you’re saying,” he said, “and I think about it too.” Maybe the real battlefield is in literature and the arts, in the media, in the fields of political debate. Republican politicians hate to talk about abortion, and then once a year they line up behind a bill to ban it. They have it backwards. They should talk and talk and not move until they have the people. Maybe in this case action must follow consensus, or the action will be meaningless.)

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 12, p. 356
June 20, 1991

By Dennis Tucker

At one of the Gainesville hospitals they have a register that shows their patients’ religious affiliation. I heard one of the staff workers say that they wished that all of these different churches would just unite. That caught my attention because recently in a Bible study that same idea was mentioned. Jesus, on the night of his betrayal, expressed that same desire. “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me” (Jn. 17:20-21). Jesus did not wish for denominations and division but instead unity.

The result of unity would be great. As Jesus mentioned in his prayer, the unity would be proof that he came from God. If every so-called Christian would apply the Bible the same, we would be able to convince others that Jesus is God’s Son and we are his disciples. We would also need fewer church buildings.

In Trenton there are a number of buildings dedicated to worship God. They were not built because of over crowding but because of religious division. Many are only half full on Sunday mornings. This is testimony to the fact that they are not in fellowship with the same God; if they were they would be in fellowship with each other. Fewer preachers would be necessary and less time would be used to teach against the false doctrines of many of these churches. Can anyone question the good that would come about by true religious unity?

What would have to be done to establish unity among all religious people? We are not talking about union but unity. Union seeks to bind people together along with their differences. Unity seeks to do away with all differences and establish a true togetherness.

1. We would have to let Christ be the head of his church. “And He is the head of the body, the church” (Col. 1:18a). This means that there would not be a “Pope” or any other unbiblical office to guide the church.

2. We would have to cast aside all creeds and doctrines except the Bible. The Book of Mormon, Discipline of the Methodist Church, Baptist Manual, etc., would be thrown away. “If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11a). The Bible would be our only guide.

3. We would teach the Bible plan of salvation. We would teach the same things as the Apostles taught on the Day of Pentecost and throughout the New Testament. “Then Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit'” (Acts 2:38).

4, We would worship God as the Bible instructs us. We would sing with our hearts (Col. 3:16), give on the first day of the week (1 Cor. 16:1,2), observe the Lord’s Supper every first day of every week (Acts 20:7), pray to our heavenly Father (Acts 2:42), and study his Word (Acts 2:42).

5. We would let the church be the church. That means we would not make it a social institution nor create a system of government different from that mentioned in the Bible.

Everything mentioned above would create true religious unity. Jesus would be glorified and souls would be saved.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 12, pp. 355-356
June 20, 1991

By Harry R. Osborne

In competitive events, it is not unusual to see opposing parties wishing disaster upon each other. I have yet to see a middle linebacker cry because he decked the opposing quarterback hard enough to knock him out of the game. Nor have I noted much sorrow from the remaining contestants when one player hits the bankrupt space on the “Wheel of Fortune.” In the business world, the cutthroat mentality seems to be accepted as a part of the corporate ladder climbing game. When the one on top falls, the next one is more than happy to take his place without much mourning over the associate’s lot. As any of us with children know, that kind of thinking begins very early. During the typical Nintendo game at our house, Chris and Ryan make no secret of the fact that each wants the other to mess up so as to hasten their next turn at the controls. While competition is healthy in various aspects of life, we need to beware of the general belief that good will come to us as a result of other’s disaster – especially in spiritual matters.

When disaster comes upon one in the spiritual realm, it means that a soul is in danger of eternal condemnation. A lost soul benefits no one. When one falls through Satan’s devices into sin, no one is better off. Yet, those who would claim to be Christians sometimes seem to rejoice at the fall of a brother or sister in Christ. It is a sad fact that news of another’s sin has occasionally been spread with glee among some Christians. Please notice the emphasized words. I do not believe such is the normal practice among brethren, but it has happened. Nor do I believe that most Christians react to a brother’s sin with glee, but it has happened. I remember a case of two people in a congregation who had a continuing feud. When one of the two was caught in a sin, the other hit the phone to help spread the “juicy news” and further embarrass the first. The practice of such gossip seems to be increased when the sin is one of a sexual nature. If the sinner is a preacher or elder, the urge to gossip seems to grow larger. Instead of sorrowing over the fact that a soul is in danger, lives have been ruined, and great damage has been done to the cause of our Lord; a few seem to delight in spreading the details of such tragedies. No sin should serve as the kindling for a fire of gossip, nor should any sinner be the wood consumed for the glee of another’s self-promoting tongue!

A few examples in Jesus’ teaching should serve to declare his disgust with such behavior. For example, examine the case of the elder brother upon the return of the prodigal (Lk. 15:11-32). After the prodigal had repented and had been forgiven of his sins, the elder brother sought to rehash the sordid past of the prodigal’s sins with harlots. Even though the prodigal had left such sinful relationships and had humbled himself in repentance, the elder brother desired to benefit from his father by bringing it up again. Jesus even directed one of his parables “unto certain who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and set all others at nought” (Lk. 18:9). The Pharisee of the story was quick to notice and confess the sins of others, particularly those of the publican. As he compared himself with the publican, the Pharisee was lifted up in pride. He did not seek, as did the publican, the forgiveness of God and transformation of his life to the instructions of the divine standard (Rom. 12:1-2). Obviously, Jesus despises the practice of rejoicing over the sins of another.

We have seen how we should not react towards the sins of another, but what should we do? The apostle Paul addresses that question:

Brethren, even if a man be overtaken in any trespass, ye who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; looking to thyself, lest thou also be tempted. Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. For if a man thinketh himself to be something when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself (Gal. 6:1-3).

If we are indeed “spiritual” ones, our place is to restore our brother or sister who has been defeated in a battle with sinful passions. Instead of looking down our noses at our brother, we should consider what it would be like if we were in our brother’s place and see that such a scenario is possible. If we are certain of our own invulnerability to such sin, we have deceived ourselves and our fall may be imminent (1 Cor. 10:12). We must strive to help our brethren with the load of temptation under which they fell. Such is our duty commanded by God!

Since God gave us the obligation of restoring others, we should seek to follow his example in fulfilling it. After Israel had sinned against God in every imaginable way, God still offered restoration through the message of his prophet in Isaiah 57. He promised, “For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy: I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite” (Isa. 57:15). God’s actions towards Israel were aimed at bringing such humility and contrition so that he might “restore comforts” unto them (Isa. 57:18). God’s actions towards man have always been governed by that goal – restoration of the humble and contrite.

Is that not also the goal he desires us to pursue with the brother or sister overtaken in a sin? A good example of the principle is seen in the way God declared the fornicating brother of I Corinthians 5 was to be handled. The faithful brethren were told to “deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor. 5:5). Paul goes on to state that the same method was to be used for other cases where one refused to leave a sinful practice:

I wrote unto you in my epistle to have no company with fornicators; not at all meaning with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous and extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world: but as it is, I wrote unto you not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no, not to eat (1 Cor. 5:9-11).

One might say that such cannot be done in the “spirit of gentleness ” previously instructed (Gal. 6:1). However, when Paul commands the same thing of the Thessalonians, he adds, “And yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish im as a brother” (2 Thess. 3:15). Thus, God declares that congregational discipline can and must be done in a spirit which shows our brotherly affection towards one overtaken in sin. The aim of such action ought to mirror God’s goal – restoration of the humble and contrite.

When the brother of 1 Corinthians 5 responded in humility and contrition to the action taken, the next step in the process of restoration needed to be taken. Paul gave these instructions to the church:

Sufficient to such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the many; so that contrariwise ye should rather forgive him and comfort him, lest by any means such a one should be swallowed up with his overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you to confirm your love toward him (2 Cor. 2:6-8).

It was time for them to help the brother grow in service to Christ, reassured by their love. A soul had been saved from death and a multitude of sins covered (Gal. 5:19-20). They were to act accordingly. The same principles should govern our actions today. When one of a truly humble and contrite heart turns from sin and ceases the sinful actions, God covers the sins up. Who are we to dig them up again, chew on the past, and regurgitate the details? Let us help “lift up the hands that hang down” and heal the lame (Heb. 12:12-13).

Regarding the restored brother or sister, as David’s penitential Psalms have helped others be restored, so can you as your contrite and broken spirit shows through to others.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 12, pp. 362-363
June 20, 1991

By Mike Willis

The exhortation in James 4:8 says, “Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you.” Each Christian should be dedicated to drawing nearer to God. The chorus of one of our songs says,

Draw me nearer, nearer blessed Lord,

To the cross where Thou hast died,

Draw me nearer, nearer, nearer blessed Lord,

To thy precious bleeding side.

James 4:4-10 tells us how to draw nearer to our God. Let us observe what we must do to draw nigh to God.

1. Divorce ourselves from the world. James wrote, “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God” (4:4). James stated what Jesus before him had said, namely that one cannot possibly serve two masters at the same time (Matt. 6:24; cf. 1 Jn. 2:15-17; 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1). A person never can draw nigh to God so long as he is in love with the world.

James calls those Christians who love the world “adulterers.” The word “adultery” makes a spiritual application of the literal meaning of the word. Adultery is committed when a married person is unfaithful to his mate, becoming involved with another. The Christian is married to Christ; he is the bride of Christ (2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:22-33). When he forsakes Jesus in order to dally with the world, he is guilty of spiritual adultery.

James continues, “Or do you suppose it is in vain that the scripture says, ‘He yearns jealously over the spirit which he has made to dwell in us’?” (4:5, RSV) The Lord God is a jealous God who will not tolerate his bride flirting with the world. He is like a jealous husband who takes offense when his bride is with another man. God earnestly desires fellowship with the spirit of man which he created.

2. Be humble. James stated that the second thing necessary to draw nigh to God is humility. “Wherefore he said, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble” (4:6; cf. Prov. 3:34). The word tiresist” is translated from antitasso which means “to set oneself in battle array.” God sets himself in battle array against the proud. Even as General Schwarzkopf set the American forces in battle array against the military forces of Saddam Hussein, so also does God set himself against the proud. “Who can stand before God?” (Psa. 130:3)

Man’s arrogance and pride drive him away from his God. Man never can be nigh unto God when he is conceited and arrogant. Regardless of how much pretended piety the proud portray, they are not close to God.

3. Submit to God. The third thing one must do to draw near to God is submit to him. The word “submit” comes from hupotasso, a cognate verb to antitasso (resist), which means to “put oneself under.” The Iraqi soldiers who surrendered voluntarily submitted themselves to the American troops. Similarly, those who draw near to God must submit themselves to God.

One cannot draw near to God without submitting to: (a) The plan of salvation. Again, we remind ourselves, that regardless of how much pretended piety may be portrayed, those who have never obeyed the gospel plan of salvation have never submitted to God. (b) The Law of God. A person must also submit himself to the Law of God. The man who lives in disobedience to God’s law, as revealed in the pages of the New Testament, cannot be near to God, regardless of how much piety he may show. Our denominational and liberal brethren leave an appearance of being near to God all the while disobeying his law. James tells us that no one can be near to God without submitting to God. (c) His providence. In order to draw near to God, one also must accept the providence of God, even as Paul accepted his thorn in the flesh (2 Cor. 12:7-10).

4. Resist the Devil. In order to draw nigh to God, a Christian must resist the Devil’s temptations. James said, “Resist the devil, and lie will flee from you” (4:7). There is a Devil who attempts to destroy man’s soul. He goes about as a roaring lion to see whom he can devour (1 Pet. 5:8). The Christian is to resist (antitasso), set himself in battle array, against the Devil.

Nevertheless, God has so equipped the saint that he has enough resources to overcome the Devil’s temptations (see Eph. 6:10-18). Even as Jesus resisted the Devil through the proper use of the sword of the Spirit, so also can we.

5. Cleanse your hands andpurify your hearts. James continued to tell us how to draw near to God saying, “Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded” (4:8). Being familiar with the Levitical priests who washed their hands in the brazen laver before they entered the holy place of the Temple to draw near to God, James uses these figures to instruct us of our need to purify ourselves in order to draw nigh to God.

The cleansing of the hands is a figurative way of emphasizing the purity of life necessary to draw nigh to God. Sin must be put away.

The purifying of the heart occurs in obedience to the truth (1 Pet. 1:22). In order to keep one’s heart pure, he certainly must think on those things which are pure, holy, lovely, virtuous, praiseworthy, etc. (Phil. 4:8). One cannot have purity of heart so long as he fills his heart with moral filth.

One cannot draw near to God while being double minded (4:8). A double minded man vacillates between service to God and sin; he tries to maintain friendship with both the world and God at the same time.

5. Be afflicted, mourn and weep. In order to draw nigh to God, one must be afflicted and mournful. James said, “Be afflicted, mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness” (4:9).

James is not commending that morose, gloomy, somber disposition which is always dejected and depressed. Some Christians appear to believe so. They go through life looking like they have been eating rhubarb, lemons, and bitter herbs. If they are happy, their face does not show it. Christians certainly should not think that this disposition is a mark of holiness and piety.

The kind of mourning which is commanded is that about which Jesus spoke in the beatitudes. He said, “Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted.” The mourning was not over the death of a loved one, some financial disaster, or other temporal disappointment. Rather, the mourning was over sin. James is teaching that one cannot draw nigh to God without a godly sorrow for sin (2 Cor. 7:10). That disposition toward sin which laughs at sin must be broken. In its place must be genuine mourning over sin, such as David portrayed in Psalm 51.

In helping men to draw near to God, the gospel preacher must create this godly sorrow for sin. How can this be done? The preaching must expose sin as a violation of God’s word, show its consequences, and portray its eternal punishment. This can never be done with a “health and wealth gospel,” a PMA approach to preaching. Sin must be named so that those guilty can identify themselves and be brought to repentance. This should be done with kindness and love, like one beggar showing another beggar where there is food, but it must be done before conversion can occur.

Any preaching which methodically removes the kind of preaching which brings men to mourn over their sins has the impact of keeping the sinner separated from God. Although this preaching may portray itself as preaching which brings one close to God by making the individual feel good about himself, warm and happy, James tells us that the spirit of mourning over one’s sins is a necessary prelude to being near to God.

6. Exalted through humility. James said, “Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up” (4:10). Previously James has exhorted that Christians be humble (4:6). The new statement of this verse is that honor comes after humility. The Proverbs teach that “before honor is humility” (15:33; 18:12). Similarly Jesus was exalted to the right hand of God after he had given his life a ransom for many. Exaltation will come in the same manner for us. We can be exalted only after we have served others (Matt. 20:26-28).

Conclusion

In order to draw near to God, one must do the things which James taught. Do you wish to be near to God? Or, will you content yourself in that pretended piety which pleases proud men?

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 12, pp. 354, 374
June 20, 1991