Truth Magazine

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

After being awakened several times during the night by his cat, a man, seeing the critter by the dim light of the moon sneaks up and gives it a good swift kick. It was not the cat who screamed this time, but the man as he broke his toe. You see, the “cat” that he thought he saw was really an old fashioned smoothing iron. The good man learned quickly that things are not always what they appear to be at first glance. If he had only turned on the light before he kicked!

All too frequently there are news items about people being victims of some scam. An elderly couple in our area was robbed recently by men posing as social security investigators. Several people have been relieved of their life’s savings by investment schemes that were really too good to be true. It is easy for us to ask rhetorically, “How could they have been so gullible?” After the fact, the victims themselves are likely asking the same question. It is so easy to be deceived and we are all apt to be from time to time. Sometimes there is no real harm done, but it is often very painful or expensive.

Jacob was deceived by doctored evidence – Joseph’s bloody coat. Isaac was deceived by the hairy arms of Jacob into thinking he was dealing with Esau — though the voice was Jacob’s.

People may set themselves up for deception by their need for a thing to be so. Fortunes have been wasted on the “miracle cures” of quackery because people badly wanted it to be so. Then, there are those who believe strong delusions because they had pleasure in unrighteousness (2 Thess. 2:10-12).

Whether the deception is kindled by others, or fueled by self-deception, one can get hurt badly by it. We must constantly watch lest we become victims of some cruel deception.

Perhaps the greatest spiritual danger that we face is our own gullibility. Paul speaks of simple (naive – NIV) brethren who are deceived by certain smooth talkers (Rom. 16:19). It matters not whether the deceiver is honest or dishonest, the effect on naive brethren is the same. Therefore, there are many scriptural warnings against being deceived. Among these are the specific words of Paul: “Be not deceived”(1 Cor. 6:9; 15:33; Gal. 6:7).

1. Do not be deceived about who is going to heaven. “. . .Do not be decieved. Neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9). It does say that these are the only one who will not make it, but it does say these will not make it. They may gain social approval, legal sanction, and even brotherhood acceptance on earth, but they still will not inherit the kingdom of God – unless they repent and turn from their sin. God said so.

I have friends who tell me that they believe just what I do about what Matthew 19:9 teaches: “. . whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” It is a mystery to me how they, at the same time, can take is so lightly when it happens – even urging brethren to continue to fellowship those guilty. They also urge us to keep on using, as preachers and teachers, brethren who teach and encourage brethren to remain in those second marriages. Remember, my friends say they believe just what I do on divorce and remarriage. Now I believe that one who enters a second marriage without having divorced the first companion for fornication is an adulterer. Is this not what Jesus said? If one is really an adulterer, then he cannot inherit the kingdom of God if one is to believe what Paul wrote.

Oh, they say, we just leave it up to each individual and his conscience, just like we do the head covering, military service, and other individual matters about which good brethren have held and taught different views for years and still maintained fellowship. Now, that seems to be a simple solution doesn’t it? But is it really that simple? Hardly.

If the Scriptures were as explicit on the results of covering or not covering the head in worship, or the results of military service, or any other similar matter as it is on marriage and divorce, then I think I would have to take a different approach to it. If it expressly said they commit adultery, murder or another sin mentioned by Paul, then that would be a different matter, don’t you think? I think I would have to take it out of that realm where each may do his thing and still indefinitely maintain fellowship.

Shall we add homosexuality, murder, drunkenness, stealing, extortion, and sodomy to the list of matters of individual conscience? How long will it be before brethren will be willing to accept these into their fellowlisip with those whom they say they believe are committing adultery. Now, come on, brethren, either quit saying you believe that those in unscriptural marriages are in adultery or quit trying to get brethren to continue to fellowship them. You cannot have it both ways.

If you doubt that such marriages are adulterous then be honest enough to say so. We may need to study it further. If you believe it is right to indefinitely fellowship brethren who are committing adultery then say so. If you believe we should openly support and use preachers who teach a doctrine that, if practiced, results in adultery, by your admission, then say so. At least brethren will know where you stand.

2. Do not be deceived about the influence of bad company. “Do not be deceived: ‘Evil company corrupts good habits'” (1 Cor. 15:33). While we cannot avoid all company with evil folks and still live in this world (1 Cor. 5:10), we need to be very careful about choosing our closest friends and associates. We have all known good brethren whose faithfulness has either been destroyed or weakened by the influence of those with whom they have been become bosom pals.

Paul’s warning goes beyond morally and ethically evil company. It is a general maxim that applies to all evil company. Paul had earlier warned that if the church did not deal with the immoral brother that the “little leaven” would “leaven the whole lump.” In 1 Corinthians 15:33, he invokes the principle while discussing a doctrinal subject the resurrection of the dead. One needs to watch who he “runs with” doctrinally as well as morally. It is hard to remain strong for truth on any subject while one’s closest friends and associates are teaching error. It is hard to stay sound in the faith, if the bulk of what he hears and reads comes from those steeped in error. I suspect that many of the young men who were caught up in the Calvinistic concept of grace a few years ago got it from spending more time reading from writers with a Calvinistic slant than they did reading other sources.

Let’s be careful about constantly associating with those who teach the opposite of what we say we believe the Bible teaches on vital doctrinal matters. We can easily allow such closeness to keep us from boldly speaking as we ought to speak (cf. Eph. 6:19,20). Too, if we are not careful, we will let those close ties cause us to become agitated when others expose the errors our friends. I know brethren, who’l am sure believe the truth, but are very timid and weak about proclaiming and defending their convictions because of the effect it would have on their closest friendships and associations.

Brethren, we all need to watch who we ” run with” doctrinally as well as morally. It can affect our influence for good and maybe our own faithfulness to the Lord and his truth.

3. Do not be deceived about God’s harvest law. “Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap” (Gal. 6:7). The harvest will either come in this life or the life to come and maybe in both.

Some seem to have deceived themselves into believing that this rule does not apply to them, but it does. One cannot neglect family responsibilities and not reap problems. One cannot live a worldly life day by day without paying for it eventually. One cannot live a life of misplaced priorities and expect good from it.

One need not expect to have friends if he is not a friend (Prov. 18:24). Jesus warns against harsh and severe judgment of others, “for with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you” (Matt. 7:1-2). Again one reaps what he sows.

Some seem to have deceived themselves into believing that the full harvest is immediate. So, if there is no immediate reward from their godliness, they give up and quit. Or, if they do not experience any immediate harm from their sin, they think they are getting by with it.

We must remember that reaping comes “in due season” (Gal. 6:9). We will reap a token harvest in this life for sowing – good or bad. One may have good things added to him, here and now, as the result of seeking first the kingdom of God (Mk. 10:29,30; Matt. 6:33). One may receive shame, guilt, fear, disease, etc., here and now, as a direct result of his sins. Still, the full harvest will come after death. If we have sown to the flesh we will reap corruption; if we have sown to the Spirit we will reap everlasting life (Gal. 6:8). Don’t let anyone or anything convince you otherwise. God’s law of harvest will not be broken – not even for you.

Brethren, “Do not be deceived.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 22, pp. 686-687
November 15, 1990

By Donald P. Ames

While listening to one of the local radio stations recently, I was shocked by some statistics offered. They noted that today one out of every four babies born in America is born to an unwed mother. This figure is six times higher than it was 40 years ago!

What does this say? It simply demonstrates that all the talk of sex education in the schools (minus the teaching against pre-marital sex) is not the answer. It points out to us that diseases such as herpes, syphilis, gonorrhea, and now even AIDS have not convinced people not to engage in illicit sexual activity. It shows us the influence of TV and “easy sex” on our young people. It also shows us that gospel preachers and Bible class teachers are not getting the message through that sex is only good and wholesome in the realm where God authorized it – marriage!

Passages, like Hebrews 13:4 which notes, “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge” need even greater emphasis. Galatians 5:19-21 points out that those who practice fornication “will not inherit the kingdom of God.” 1 Corinthians 6:18 clearly warns us to ” flee sexual immorality, ” and vv. 9-10 remind us again that those engaging in such can not inherit the kingdom of God. It is not a “sin” only “if you happen to get caught.” It is a sin! Marriage does not make it OK “if you goof up and get pregnant” (witness David and Bathsheba). And those who think “it won’t happen to me” are not only deceiving themselves (as evidenced by the fact it did happen to one of every four born), but certainly are deceiving themselves for eternity as well!

Equally disappointing is the fact so many have so little self-respect and pride that they cannot seem to remain a virgin until they get married. Do they think this is a “sure” way to get someone to care for them and get married? Do they have no more confidence in their own personal appeal as a person to win a mate than to think this will “get them”? (And if it takes this to get one, what happens when that mate later wants it elsewhere?) I cannot over emphasize the fact that whatever the reason, it is still a sin and totally displeasing to God!

Yet, on the other side, I am also disturbed by the fact that some are also whittling away on principles of morality. More and more today we are hearing of preachers trying to open the door to divorce and remarriage (coming out of the closet and pushing for a more liberal attitude than authorized by Jesus in Matt. 19:9). The latest of such is now brother Homer Hailey. An announcement recently appeared in a journal stating that he is publishing a book setting for his views, just as James D. Bales did recently. And every preacher around who is seeking to find some way to set aside Jesus’ plain teaching will be grabbing on to his coat-tails!

The views of brother Hailey are not really anything new or different. Over 30 years ago, while attending Florida College, I was well aware of his thinking. I edited a bulletin then for a church in Thonotosassa, Florida, and took issue with some of his views then. It was occasionally mentioned in class rooms, discussed, and evaluated. Yet, it was not something brother Hailey pushed.

But, someone asks, if that be the case, and if brethren knew of his position for over 30 years, why are they getting all bent out of shape over it now? And that is a fair question. There are several factors that come into play today that create a different picture. (1) Then, it was a class room situation, where it was studied, discussed, brought up in other classes, etc. Today, it is being taught as truth to the general public, (2) Then it was not the popular theory, and was quickly questioned. (3) Then, brother Hailey was a teacher at a college. Today, he has published several commentaries on the prophets and Revelation. (I think they are some of the best in their field too!) His influence and popularity is far greater and so is his potential to do harm in the spreading of his views on this doctrine. (4) Then, his views were not pushed or advocated very widely. Now, he plans to publish a book to assist in circulating them. If he wishes to go publicly, then despite our love for him and his work in the prophets, he must be met publicly!

And since he is speaking out of these subjects, he should not object to brethren responding or declining to have him for a gospel meeting where he might cause problems by advocating his ideas on the subject.

But, he is not alone. Charles Holt has surrounded himself with such cronies to help promote his false concepts on the local congregation and his organization – and if he has not endorsed their views, he certainly has promoted them! In my opinion, he may soon wander so far off with his cantankerous attitude though that brethren in general will lose sight of him.

It is a shame to see brethren who once stood tall in the faith drifting away from plain teaching in the Bible to pursue wild theories and destructive doctrines. But it is a far greater shame to see those influenced by them in sin because they feel men of “such stature” can’t be wrong (especially when it is what they want to hear). In reality, we must strive even harder to warn them that our faith must be based on the word of God, and not in men! May God help us in the days and years ahead as we wage the war against immorality – on both ends of the marriage vows!

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 22, pp. 680, 692
November 15, 1990

By Mike Willis

The testimony of the apostle Paul to Christ marks another strong affirmation of the deity of Christ. In this article, I shall call attention to some of the more emphatic statements that point to the deity of Christ. The barest minimum of such statements shall be cited from his epistles to demonstrate that the deity of Christ pervades his thirteen epistles (assuming he did not also write Hebrews).

1. Romans. In the book of Romans, Jesus is declared to be the Son of God and our Lord who is descended from David according to the flesh but “declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness” (1:3-4). Paul offered thanks to God through Christ (1:8). Jesus Christ will be man’s judge and is able to judge the secrets of men’s hearts (2:16). Redemption is in Jesus (3:24); his blood is the propitiation for sin (3:25; 5:10-11). Man has peace with God through Jesus (5:1). He is “over all, God blessed for ever” (9:5). William S. Plumer commented on this phrase in Romans 9:5 as follows: “Three things are here said respecting Christ, either of which should settle the question of our Lord’s divinity. One is that he is called God. Another is that he is supreme – he is over all. The third is that he is blessed for ever” (Commentary on Romans, p. 459).

2. Corinthians. The deity of Christ is also evident in I Corinthians where the common phrase of the Old Testament, “the day of the Lord (Jehovah)” is applied to Jesus (1:8; 5:5; cf. 2 Cor. 1:15) to point to the day of Christ’s Judgment. A passage where the Hebrew text has Jehovah is quoted with application to Jesus (1:31; cf. Jer. 9:23). He is called the “Lord of Glory” (2:8). He is described as the judge who knows the thoughts and intents of men’s hearts (4:5). His pre-existence is asserted by the statement that he was with Israel during the wilderness wanderings (10:4). In 2 Corinthians, he is the image of God (2 Cor. 4:4). God worked in Christ to reconcile the world to himself (2 Cor. 5:19). As he described the incarnation, he wrote, “For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for our sakes, he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich” (2 Cor. 8:9). Paul tried to bring “into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5). In closing the books, he joined Christ with the Father and Holy Spirit saying, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all” (13:14). He obviously treated all three as divine beings.

3. Galatians. Paul began this epistle by stating that his apostleship was not “of man, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ” (1:1; cf. 1:12), which necessarily implied that Jesus was not merely a man. Jesus joined the Father in sending grace and peace to the Galatian churches (1:3). In the fulness of time, God sent forth his Son, who was born of a woman, made under the Law (4:4).

4. Ephesians. Jesus is placed above every power that is created (1:21). God created all things by Christ (3:9). He is the one Lord (4:5).

5. Philippians. Though other texts could be cited from this epistle, the text in 2:5-8 is one of the classic texts on the subject of the incarnation of Christ. Here is that text:

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

I would encourage our readers to take the time to study some in depth commentaries on the language of this text. A distinction must be recognized between the “form” (morphe) of God and a servant and the “likeness of men” and “fashion (schema) of a man.” Warfield comments on this text as follows:

So far is Paul from intimating, therefore, that Our Lord laid aside His Deity in entering upon His life on earth, that He rather asserts that He retained His deity throughout His life on earth, and in the whole course of His self-abnegation, living a life which did not by nature belong to Him, which stood in direct contradiction to the life which was naturally His. It is the underlying implication which determines the whole choice of the language in which our Lord’s earthly life is described. It is because it is kept in mind that He still was “in the form of God,” that is, that He still had in possession all the body of characterizing qualities by which God is made God, for example, that He is said to have been made, not man, but “in the likeness of man”; and that the wonder of His servant hood and obedience, the mark of servant hood, is thought of as so great. Though He was truly man, He was much more than man; and Paul would not have his readers imagine that He had become merely man. In other words, Paul does not teach that Our Lord was once God but had become instead man; he teaches that though He was God, He had become also man.

An impression that Paul means to imply, that in entering upon His earthly life Our Lord had laid aside His Deity, may be created by a very prevalent misinterpreation of the central clause of his statement – a misinterpretation unfortunately given currency by the rendering of the English Revised Version . . . (that Jesus emptied himself, mw) . . . . (“The Person of Christ,” Biblical Doctrines 179-180).

Warfield continued to explain the misinterpretation which understands this passage to state that Jesus divested himself of his deity when he became a man. The writer of Philippians 2:5-8 had a “consciousness, that he is speaking of one who, though really man, possessing all that makes a man a man, is yet, at the same time, infinitely more than a man, no less than God Himself, in possession of all that makes God God” (182).

6. Colossians. rhe theme of this epistle is the all-sufficient Christ. In chapter one, Jesus is presented as one to whom the kingdom belongs (1:14), the image of God (1:15), the firstborn of every creature (1:16), the sustainer of creation (1:17), having existed before his earthly life (1:17), the head of the church (1:18), the firstborn from the dead (1:18), him

in whom the fullness dwells (1:19), and one through whom man is redeemed (1:20). Christ in us is the hope of glory (1:27). In chapter two, Paul stated that in Christ are “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (2:4) and in him “dwelleth all the fullness (the totality of divine powers and attributes) of the Godhead bodily” (2:9). That fullness dwelt in Christ bodily only when he had a body! Hence, Jesus was not merely a man while on earth. Though more evidence from this epistle could be cited, this is enough to show Paul’s concept of Jesus.

7. Thessalonians. In these two Pauline epistles, Jesus is the Lord who is coming in judgment and to redeem his saints (1 Thess. 1:10; 2:19; 3:13; 4:6,13-18; 5:2; etc.). Jesus and the Father providentially directed Paul’s life (1 Thess. 3:8).

8. Timothy. Jesus is described as the one mediator who represents both God and man (1 Tim. 2:5). He was “God manifest in the flesh” (I Tim. 3:16; newer translations follow a variant reading which omits the word “God”).

9. Titus. Paul described Jesus as “the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” (2:13; see studies in Titus to understand this Greek construction).

The evidences of this train of thought are so abundant that an entire book would be necessary to cite them all. I have only touched the highlights. Suffice it to say that Paul understood that Jesus was no ordinary man; he was the incarnate God whose blood was shed for the remission of man’s sins.

The Book of Hebrews

The affirmations of the deity of Christ in the book of Hebrews are so extensive that they must be listed by themselves. They only can be compared to Colossians 1.

The revelation of Christ is distinguished from the revelation of the Old Testament inasmuch as the former was given by prophets, the latter was given by God’s own Son (1: 1-2). The concept of Jesus which states that he received his power to perform miracles and his knowledge of divine things by the Holy Spirit reduces him to the level of the Old Testament prophets and New Testament apostles and prophets, a tool in the hand of God. The Son is (a) heir of all things, (b) creator of all things, (c) the brightness of God’s glory, (d) the express image of his person, (e) the sustainer of creation, (f) the one who purged our sins, and (g) is presently seated on the right hand of God (1:2-3). He is superior to the angels (1:4), being declared to be the Son of God (1:5) He is called God (1:8) and rules for ever and ever (1:8). He not only laid the foundations of the earth but also shall outlast the heavens and the earth (1:10-11). He is immutable (1:12).

The superiority of the Christian revelation is manifest in that it was given by the Son, not mere angels (2:1-4). The Son is the divine being who became a man (2:6-18).

Jesus is superior to Moses who served as a servant in the house of God (3:2-5); but Jesus served as a Son over his house (3:6). He is the living Word of God who is the discerning judge who sees all things (4:12-13).

Jesus has a priesthood after the order of Melchizedek (5:6). Melchizedek was the priest-king, the type of the Messiah who is both priest and king. The divine record purposely omitted the reference to Melchizedek’s father and mother and his descendants to point to him who would serve an everlasting priesthood (7:4,16-17,24).

Jesus’ sacrifice is superior to that of bulls and goats because it is the “blood of Christ, who through the Eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God” (9:14).

This Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith (12:2). Like God, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and to day and for ever” (13:8).

Conclusion

I have had to be brief in selecting isolated texts from each of Paul’s epistles and Hebrews. Many more citations could be added. I have not even considered the testimony of Matthew, Mark, Luke, James, Peter, Jude. Were there testimonies added to these, the affirmations of the deity of Christ would be greatly multiplied. There is scarcely a page in the New Testament which does not contain some statement which has the implication that Jesus is the Divine Son of God.

(Concluded next article.)

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 23, pp. 706, 726-727
December 6, 1990

By Wayne Greeson

In the “Voices” column of the Arkansas Democrat (August 28, 1990) guest writer, Donald Reeves expounded the increasingly popular proposition that a Christian who believes that the faith is “the only true faith” is “exclusion-oriented,” “intolerant” and “the height of religious egotism.” To support this proposition, Mr. Reeves even attempted to enlist the teachings and example of Jesus as one who condemned, according to Reeves, “promoters of religious exclusion.”

Intolerance and bigotry towards others is offensive. However, Mr. Reeves’ faulty idea, that Christians who believe their faith is the only true faith is intolerant, is equally offensive. Toleration requires a fair and objective attitude towards others who are different, it does not require one to abandon what he believes to be truth, merely upon the ground that others hold opposing views. A good balance between the belief that one is right and a toleration of the beliefs of others is found in the ancient saying, “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Our relativistic culture has redefined truth from “an absolute fact or reality” to “a relative viewpoint.” Thus, it finds itself in the absurd and contradictory position of asserting as true that one cannot know truth. Anyone who professes to “know truth” is labeled as “intolerant and “exclusion-oriented” and is not tolerated by society. Who is truly intolerant?

In light of this popular view, Allan Bloom observed in his book, The Closing of the American Mind, “The true believer is the real danger. The study of history and of culture teaches that all the world was mad in the past; men always thought they were right, and that led to wars, persecutions, slavery, xenophobia, racism, and chauvinism. The point is not to correct the mistake and really be right; rather it is not to think you are right at all.” “Thus what is advertised as a great opening is a great closing. No longer is there a hope that there are great wise men in other places and times who can reveal the truth about life. (pp. 26 34).

Unfortunately, the popular relativistic philosophy of society has infected many in matters of religion. Mr. Reeves is an good example of this. He professes to be a Christian while at the same time denying the explicit and exclusive claims of Jesus Christ to truth and the founder of the only true faith.

Truth is exclusive, it excludes all that deny and contradict it. Jesus not only claimed to have and to be the truth, but he also excluded all other ways, saviors or religions as means to gain God. Jesus claimed, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (Jn. 14:6). Jesus further claimed that those who followed him would also know the truth (Jn. 8:32).

If one truly accepts Jesus’ claims then he will view his faith as “the only true faith,” as the apostle Paul taught, there is “one hope . . . one Lord, one faith” (Eph. 4:5). Likewise, he will reject the claims of all other religions and saviors, including Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. (Acts 4:12). Yes, this makes a Christian exclusive, but certainly no more exclusive than Jesus was. Likewise, this makes Christians no more “intolerant” and “religious egoists” than the Lord they follow. Rather than redefining truth to encompass contradictory and conflicting religions, I suggest that Mr. Reeves reconsider his concept of intoleration and follow the advice of the apostle Paul, “Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21).

Exclusion of others practiced by society

Intolerance linked to crisis

In the mix and maze of feelings and thoughts which accompany the critical evens in the Midwest, I have discovered a heretofore unnoticed frustration within myself.

It is “religious” frustration.

As I have watched the news reports and rad the newspaper accounts, I have become increasingly aware of the simple fact that my own Christian faith-culture has been very exclusion-oriented.

That is, we Christians have been so oriented to our own faith as being the only true faith that we have only played games with ecumenism and have missed the boat in creating healthy lines of communication with other faiths (Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, etc.) which might have offered some avenues of cultural communications on a global scale, even when policital communication seemed impossible.

Perhaps one hard truth we need to face is that our religious institutions are still ultimately racial-cultural institutions, and in the final analysis our religion simply promoted cultural exclusion rather than cultural inclusion.

What an anomaly for a faith that has supposedly grown out of the life and teachings of a man from Nazareth, whose most pronounced negative judgments were addressed to those who were promoters of religious exclusion!

Our traditional Christian insistence that God, the creator of the universe, is only available in our style and taste is the height of religous egotism and seems as rediculous as would seem the insistence that all others should wear our style of clothes or develop our tastes for food.

But we are religous egoists, personally and institutionally; and our egotism may contribute much to political egotism in a global setting that desparately needs both religious and political humanity.

So in conclusion, political crisis may in fact be indicative of religous crisis. And the real personal crisis for me may be whether or not I can be honest enough to admit that fact.

(Editor’s Note: Donald D. is pastor of First Presbyterian Churhc in Hot Springs and chaplain of the Arkansas Air National Guard, in which he holds the rank of lieutenant colonel.”

Reprinted from “Voices,” Arkansas Democrat (Tuesday, August 28, 1990).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 22, pp. 685-686, 696
November 15, 1990