Truth Magazine

By Dick Blackford

There are other subjects on which I had rather write, but perhaps none more needful than this one. The drug problem which permeates our society knows no boundaries. In the Third Annual Report To The U.S. Congress from the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (1973), after giving us some sobering statistics of this widespread problem, the National Institute On Drug Abuse in their book on Marihuana and Health said this: “Rates did not differ significantly among racial groups and ONLY SLIGHTLY BY RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION. There is no new data suggesting that these patterns have changed…” (p. 23). Members of the church of Christ are not exempt. This writer is familiar with three congregations which have been troubled with the problem among their young. No doubt there are others which have not yet discovered an existing problem. There is some new and revealing information in some recent studies that I would like to share with you.

Marijuana Is Harmful

There is no dispute that other drugs are harmful (amphetamines, barbiturates, LSD, Heroin, etc.). Our remarks will be confined (for the most part) to marijuana, as it is the point of controversy. There is a movement underway to legalize it. “When smoked, marihuana quickly enters the bloodstream and acts on the brain and nervous system. It affects the user’s mood and thinking. Some scientists report that the drug accumulates in the liver. … The more obvious physical reactions include rapid heart beat, lowering of body temperature, and sometimes reddening of the eyes. The drug also changes blood sugar levels, stimulates the appetite, and dehydrates the body. . . . “1 The sense of time and distance of many users frequently becomes distorted. A MINUTE MAY SEEM LIKE AN HOUR. SOMETHING NEAR MAY SEEM FAR AWAY.”2 “In a set of experiments designed to study the effects of alcohol and marihuana on driving-related visual functions, it was found that ‘marihuana interfered with PERIPHERAL VISION as well as CENTRAL VISION to a greater extent than alcohol under a wider variety of task demands… there is sufficient evidence at this time to justify the warning that even social doses of marihuana may impair performance sufficiently to lead to motor vehicle accidents. . . 3

A study has been made in “personality predictors” to see what kinds of people are most apt to take drugs. This was made on junior and senior high students and their characteristics before they experimented with drugs. According to the study of students in six selected school systems near Boston,. . a small number of characteristics were quite in evidence among students who later, in 1972, would use marihuana… Among these characteristics were: rebelliousness, low grade point average, cigarette smoking, and favorable attitude toward cigarette smoking. Among these, rebelliousness toward authorities and rules was the strongest predictor. All of these characteristics were more true’ of marijuana users than nonusers, and more true of heavier users than of light users. . . “4 Evidence is overwhelming that drugs (marijuana included) can harm the body and mind. Many young people have been brainwashed into thinking that “marijuana is harmless.” That statement is false to the core. Some have been too prejudiced to accept the facts. Youth is not exempt from prejudice and can be just as stubborn and hypocritical as they sometimes accuse the older generation of being.

Another statement is that “Marijuana does not mean automatic graduation to hard narcotics and is not addicting.” There is just enough truth in that statement to lead to real tragedy for anyone who believes it is complete truth. Scientists have stressed that while marijuana is not addicting, it can produce a drug dependency. `A study of 970 white, male drug addicts admitted to the Addiction Research Center at Lexington, Kentucky from 16 states . . .disclosed that 764 of them, or nearly 80%, had prior histories of marijuana use. On the average, they were two years younger than other addicts at the time of their first arrest and were determined to be TWICE AS LIKELY to become heroin addicts as were nonusers of marijuana.”5

Another defence is “It’s my body and my mind and it’s nobody’s business what I use.” This statement too, is false to the core. Dallas County (Texas) District Attorney Henry Wade has pointed out that “smoking marijuana while driving an automobile, baby-sitting, fighting in battles, flying an airplane, or performing any ONE OF THOUSANDS OF ACTS can, and does, endanger the lives of people other than the user. “6 Thus it becomes everybody’s business.

Bad Company: A Basic Factor in Drug Abuse

“The teenagers’ use is CLOSELY CORRELATED WITH USE BY HIS FRIENDS. When none of a teenager’s friends reported use of drugs, ONLY ONE OUT OF FIFTEEN youngsters themselves reported use. When all of their friends reported use, NINE OUT OF TEN had also used the drug…. THE MORE PEER-ORIENTED AS OPPOSED TO PARENT-ORIENTED THE YOUNGSTER IS, THE MORE LIKELY HE IS TO BE A USER (by peer-oriented is meant the amount of time spent with friends, greater reliance on advice of friends than on that of parents, etc.).”7

“One study has focused on the sources of information used by elementary and secondary students in various states of acquaintance with marihuana. The sources of information about marihuana mentioned most frequently by all students… were parents, television, and friends. BUT THERE WERE DISTINCT DIFFERENCES IN THE TYPES OF SOURCES ACCEPTED BY STUDENTS AT VARIOUS GRADE LEVELS. For 5th graders, television and – parents were most significant: for 7th graders, FRIENDS and television: and for 11th graders, FRIENDS AND OTHER STUDENTS played the largest role. In general. younger children use more socially approved sources compared with older students (who tend to rely on ‘non-authority sources). The authors commented that many students appear unaware of the influence process surrounding their decisions about marihuana use.”8

Somewhere between the fifth and seventh grades parents are losing their young people to their companions. Our youth must remember that the poorest excuse for doing anything is “everybody else is doing it.” Evil companionships still corrupt good morals (1 Cor. 15:33; Prov. 1:10-19).

Marijuana also silences the conscience. `A person using marihuana finds it harder to make decisions that require clear thinking. And he finds himself MORE EASILY OPEN TO OTHER PEOPLES SUGGESTIONS… 9 This is why drugs and sex go together. A boy not on drugs is less likely to make sexual advances toward a girl. A girl who uses drugs is more easily influenced to have sex. Many boys who use drugs know this too. That is why they influence their girlfriends to try drugs. About as many females now use marijuana as do males.

When a person=s conscience is dulled or silenced, he is more likely to commit a crime. Intoxication (whether alcohol or other drugs) creates a false courage-usually more courage than sense. A high percentage of crimes are committed by people under the influence of liquor or other drugs. They can get “courage” in bottle, a pill, or a marijuana cigarette.

Why?

The major reason for our drug problem, as given by the National District Attorney’s Association, is the belief that medicine can solve every problem. Parents program their children to believe that there is a pill for every problem. One of the greatest forms of drug abuse is the misuse of tranquilizers and pep pills by well-meaning parents. There are pills to make you sleep, wake you up, keep you alert, help you make it through the day (plus cigarettes and coffee between pills) etc. Pills are “problem solvers.” Alcohol and drug abuse are substitutes for suicide and are chosen for the same reason-a desire for easy solutions and escape from reality. We live in a drug-oriented society. The Christian should beware! Not too surprisingly, drug use by children is related to drug use by parents. When both parents use drugs such as alcohol, TOBACCO (pay attention brethren) and other psychoactive drugs, there is a greater likelihood that their children will use marihuana… The probability of drug use is also associated with such factors as LACK OF FAMILY COHESIVENESS, use of other medications and LESS PARENTAL EMPHASIS ON SELF-CONTROL.”10

Not many doctors will tell their patients to use self control. It is easier to prescribe pills. If you go wanting pills, they will nearly always give them to you. After all, pills are “miracle workers.” I have nothing against the medical profession. I think it is great. But they are not infallible. No one is. Self-control could solve most of the problems that people (even Christians) are depending on drugs to solve (tobacco is a drug and the difference between it and other drugs is one of degree). Christians are to exercise self-control (I Cor. 9:27; 2 Pet. 1:6).

Notice also in the preceding quote that a “lack of family cohesiveness” is a part of the drug problem. Two young girls in the school system here who had been using drugs said they felt like they “had been rejected by their fathers.” Too many fathers think they have “more important things to do” than rear children (Eph. 6:4). Such “fathers” are worse than infidels (I Tim. 5:8). They should teach their children to honor good men and women, not Timothy Learys, Janis Joplins, and weirdos who eat live chickens, feathers and all (Alice Coopers).

So you want to expand your mind? You can stretch it all out of shape and warp it with drugs, if you want to call that “mind expansion.” However, the real secret to mind expansion is found in Proverbs 1:7. And if you really want fo get “stoned,” try drinking wet cement. It’s guaranteed to work. In the meantime, do not be afraid of reality. Forget your nickel bags, dime bags, tripweed, etc.-roaches too (drug terms). “Blowing your mind” is nothing to brag about. There’s nothing new about it. You could stay that way, you know. Many have.

Footnotes

The information contained in this article about marijuana is only what has been discovered up to the present. Authorities are not through studying it yet; which is all the more reason to avoid experimenting with it.

It should be remembered that with the exception of Lifeline, the other sources quoted herein are not concerned with this subject from a moral standpoint, all of which should convince young people that they were not just trying to put somebody down. (All caps in the quotations were by me).

1. Marihuana. Some Questions And Answers, Tract by Public Information Branch National Institute of Mental Health, Chevy Chase, Md. 20015. U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1969.

2. Life Line Freedom Talk, No. 62, Dallas, Texas 75206, December 28, 1970.

3. Marihuana and Health; Third Annual.Report to the U.S. Congress From The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. National Institute On Drug Abuse, 1973, p.14,15

4. Ibid., p.37.

5. American Criminal Law Quarterly 7:174, “Marijuana And Relevant: Problems,” G. Joseph Tauro, Spring 1969.

6. Life Line.

7. Marihuana and Health. p.7.

8. Ibid., p.34.

9. Marihuana, Some Questions and Answers.

10. Marihuana and Health, p.7.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:44, p. 6-8
September 12, 1974

By Cecil Willis

Last week we devoted some time to a discussion of some writers’ and preachers’ disposition to make a show of the wisdom, of this world in their preaching and writing. The illustration that was used regarding the study done by two “scholars” of the usage of participles in Paul’s epistles well demonstrates the trend in modern education, and especially in graduate and post-graduate work done in the field of religion. This trend is to one of ever greater emphasis upon specialization. Someone has said, “We are learning more and more, about less and less, until if we are not careful, before long we are going to know everything about nothing. “I read once of where supposedly one aged Greek linguist was asked what changes would he make in his life, if he were permitted to live it over again. He was not only a specialist in Greek; his special specialty was the Greek noun. This aged Greek noun specialist is reported to have said: “If I could live my life over again, I think I would confine my study to the dative case of the Greek noun.” Wasn’t it Solomon who said, “much learning is a weariness of the flesh,” and “in much wisdom there is much grief; and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow”?

Several years ago, Guy N. Woods reviewed some articles written by G. C. Brewer in which Brewer was advocating and defending the church support of Bible colleges. Woods said of Brewer’s argumentation that it was “as clear as a sea of mud.” This is exactly the reaction that I feel after some of our growing-softer brethren get done explaining what they meant when they said something that brethren allegedly misunderstood.

Weasel Words

Some brethren become adroit at using weasel words. They use words that get them out of a tight spot, but they reserve for those words some special, private definition. In so doing, they think they maintain their own integrity, while they placate their inquiring brethren. When a brother uses this reprehensible duplicity, there is about as much integrity in him as there is in the little boy who thinks it is all right to lie, if behind his back, he has his fingers crossed.

In a recent issue of the Gospel Guardian, Brother Edward Fudge purported to answer some questions that have been asked of him regarding his position on the subject of fellowship. This long article was reproduced in tract form, a copy of which I have before me. If ever I saw an instance of a brother equivocating, I would have to say, “Brother Fudge, thou art the man!” I am not going to attempt a review of the entire article. I want us merely to notice what he said about whether he believed the usage of mechanical instrumental music in worship to be sinful or not.

“Where do you stand on instrumental music? I believe that instrumental music is wrong in the corporate assembly of Christians, that it is without scriptural authority, that it is not the Lord’s will for His children today. Therefore I do not use it, I preach against it, and I would encourage anyone who does use it to leave it off, for the reasons I have given above.” And then he adds his customary little commercial about his tract, in this instance on instrumental music.

On the surface, the answer given by Brother Fudge appears to be clear-cut, and as strong a statement as anyone would be expected to make. But the fact of the matter is, Edward Fudge believes today about instrumental music the same thing he has believed for about ten years. Though he says mechanical instrumental music “is wrong,” is without scriptural authority,” and “is not the Lord’s will for His children today,” Brother Fudge still does not believe anyone will be lost for using it, unless that person knows instrumental music to be sinful, and then deliberately and high-handedly continues to use it. This is where he has always stood on the matter, at least so long as I have known him.

Last fall things got a little warm on Brother Fudge around his hometown, Athens, Alabama. Finally, enough pressure was built up among brethren that Brother Fudge was forced to state publicly that which he had never before said, and until that day had refused to say, namely, that instrumental music in worship is SINFUL. But when Brother Fudge was pressed before his hometown brethren, he knew he must not refuse to state that instrumental music was sinful, or he was going to be in bad trouble with his hometown brethren.

Brother Fudge has a Master’s Degree in Greek. But would you believe that it was only within the week before his public confrontation is Athens that he learned the definition of the Greek word harmartia? Until that very day, Brother Fudge repeatedly had refused to label instrumental music as sinful. Brother Bill Wallace prodded Brother Fudge, and tried to show him that saying instrumental music was sinful, was not to put instrumental music in the same category as fornication, theft, etc. So on that fateful Sunday afternoon last Fall in Athens, Brother Fudge finally did say that he believed instrumental music was sinful. . .to the infinite surprise of those who had talked frequently and at great length with him on the matter, and yet evidently to the complete satisfaction of those brethren who were sympathetic with him. Brother Fudge said he had learned just that past week that sin meant “to miss the mark.” Is that really the first time you ever knew that, Brother Fudge? I knew that by the time I was in eighth grade, and I barely got through one course in Greek in college. The country preachers at whose feet I sat as a little boy taught us very early in life that to sin meant “to miss the mark.” Do you suppose my attainment of such a profound understanding of the Greek word harmartia may qualify me to receive a Master’s Degree in Greek? If the Abilene Christian College administrators really believed that you got a Master’s Degree in Greek without learning the definition of sin, would their faces ever be red! If they had the power to do so, I suspect that they would like to rescind the granting of your degree.

But let us note another question Brother Fudge poses to himself, and then note his answer. “But Is it a sin?” “I believe that it is, in the accepted definition of ‘sin’ as ‘missing the mark.’ My previous answer clearly shows that. Some, however, have apparently wanted to play judge and jury and assign to hell without further ado all who use instrumental worship. This I have refused to do, and, when it has been clear that this was the meaning being given to ‘sin’ I have refused to use that word. I have always believed, however, that instrumental music’ misses the mark’ of God’s will, and that in that biblical meaning of the term, it is sinful.”

Now if that bunch of theological double-talk satisfies the brethren who have had doubts about Brother Fudge’s soundness, we are in worse trouble than we thought. The word “sin” is his weasel word, in this instance. He makes his play to the audience by stating that he does not intend to play God, and decide the destiny of those who use instrumental music in worship. Brother Fudge, do you play “judge and jury, and assign to hell without further ado” all those who have not been immersed for the remission of sins? Nobody has ever asked’ Brother Fudge to “play judge and jury.” The Lord Jesus Christ shall judge us all, according to His word, and according to our works.

What Brother Fudge really has said is that he thinks that instrumental music is sinful, but he refuses to say that he believes that persons who commit that sin will be lost. One sly little differentiation which Brother Fudge injects is that of saying a thing is “wrong,” but then refusing to say that it is “sinful,” if one means by sinful an act that will cause one to be lost. It would be very helpful to us all, Brother Fudge, if you would prepare for us a list of those things which are “sinful,” but which will not cause one to be lost, and another list consisting of those things which are “sinful,” but which will cause one to be lost. Or, do you refuse “to play judge and jury” to the extent that you will not state that any specific sin will cause one to be lost?

Also, Brother Fudge, would you please tell us what other acts are “wrong,” “without scriptural authority,” and are no part of “the Lord’s will for His children today” which you put in the same category as mechanical instrumental music? Is the act of sprinkling such a “sin”? Do you “play judge and jury” on those who do not immerse? It is my understanding that you merely go one step further than Brother Carl Ketcherside and Brother Leroy Garrett. They; do not hesitate to “play judge and jury” upon those who have not been immersed, but step down from their judgment throne from that point onward. Brother Fudge does not hesitate to “play judge and jury” on persons until they have been immersed ‘for the remission of sins, ” and then he descends from his judgment throne. Is this a correct representation of your position, Brother Fudge? If not, then “explain and clarify” your position for us further.

What is so bad about “sin,” if it will not cause one to be lost? The Catholics have their catalog of “venial” and “mortal” sins. There is not a hair’s difference between their position on two categories of sin, and that of Brother Fudge. Brother Fudge also has his list of sins that will cause one to be lost, and another list of sins that will not cause one to be lost, if we just could get him to publish his list. A few weeks ago, Brother William Wallace, Gospel Guardian Editor, published a list of 84 things upon which brethren are said to differ. Now would you please help us all and tell us which of these will cause one to be lost, and which will not cause one to be lost? Now do not give us any more of this “refuse to play judge and jury” bit. You already have played “judge and jury,” when you state that one can do something in worship that is “wrong,” without scriptural authority,” “is not the Lord’s will,” and “sinful,” yet not be lost eternally for doing such a thing. Did God somewhere state that one could commit an act which fits the descriptive terms just quoted from you, and still be saved, though he neither repents, confesses, nor prays for forgiveness? If God stated that somewhere, please cite the reference. I have no knowledge of such a statement by God. If God did not make such a statement, who empowered you to make this libertarian declaration? It can only be by your own “judge and jury” decree.

Here We Are Again

Several years ago, Brother James W. Adams wrote an extensive review of the Roy Deaver-Tom Warren “Constituent Element-Component Part” argument, as they sought o justify their defection from the truth into institutionalism. Brother Adams used a not-so-popular, but very appropriate, title for his series, “Round and Round the Mulberry Bush.” Such a title would be very appropriate also for the antics and announcements of Brother Edward Fudge. Regardless of what he says, and how he amplifies it or explains it, he always come out at the same place. In every effort he has made so far, he has concluded that “sins” such as instrumental music and institutionalism will not cause one to be lost, unless knowingly and high-handedly done. Now it as logically follows, as that night follows day, that if God is going to receive these “sinners” into His eternal fellowship, we certainly should not exclude them from our fellowship here. This is where Brother Fudge began, and now after nearly years of theological gyrations, we are now back again just where we started. He still believes that we should receive into our fellowship those who practice the usage of instrumental music in worship, and those who use the congregation’s funds to support human institutions. He maintains that we should receive into our fellowship those who would corrupt the worship, and pervert the organization of the church. Brother Fudge has tried the “silent treatment” act, and now the “explanation route” has been followed. But we are still right where we were two years ago. This, our brother who is an Associate Editor of the Gospel Guardian, and whose family owns that influential journal, is contending that we should receive into our fellowship the “instrumentalists, ” and the “institutionalisms,

“because the “sins” which they commit will not cause one to be lost.

Like the liberals of a quarter a century ago, it appears that Brother Fudge will soon learn that the “dignified silence treatment” is much the better course to follow for his cause, than the open forum discussion, and I predict he will now go back into theological hibernation, hoping that when he awakes next Spring, the warm Spring weather will make brethren more receptive to his loose views on fellowship.

Meanwhile, Brother Fudge, please do not insult our intelligence by anymore of this weasel-word theological gobbledygook. Most of the brethren can see right through it anyway, and you only reflect upon your own integrity and upon our intelligence when you give explanations that do not explain, or when you make differentiations without a difference, or when you tell us that “sin” (for the remission of which Christ died) will not cause anyone to be lost in Hell. I prefer silence to insult, and your latest effort to exonerate yourself is a mere insult to the intelligence of brethren.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:44, p. 2-5
September 12, 1974

By Jeffery Kingry

Faith as described in the Bible is not mere mental assent to the deity of Jesus Christ. Neither is it just the outward acts of obedience which put us into Christ. Faith is a way of life.

There is no difficulty involved in recognizing an individual who has faith in something. I have seen materialistic Communists in S.E. Asia who had such a driving faith in their form of political view that it moved them to leave home and family for decades, to live under primitive conditions, always in fear of death, and dread of capture. They willingly chose this life of lonely furtiveness to further the cause of Communism. I have spoken to atheistic liberals who believe that the hope of mankind rests upon humanism. These individuals are more than willing to spend their lives and their money in the advancement of their ideal. They are eager to gamble their comfort and future on the chance that a man-made utopia might be achieved. To the Christian, to whom this world is but a precursor to life everlasting, this must seem ludicrous. Yet, these children of the world are willing to risk all they are and have, that perhaps, in another generation, good might come. How true it is that “the children of this world in their generation are wiser than the children of light.”

The writer of the Hebrew letter described faith as the foundation of our expectation of all spiritual and physical blessings. Through our faith we have a living hope that God will keep his promise of salvation and heaven, if we continue faithful to him (Heb. 11). Paul further said that “we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for” (Rom. 8:24)? Herein lies the true test of faith. By faith Noah, being warned of God, spent a large portion of his life, and all of his substance constructing an Ark miles from any kind of water. Noah was willing to lay his life and energies on the line that he might save himself and his family (Heb. 11:7). It was through faith that Abraham left the ease and comfort of Ur and struck out through the desert to a place that he had never seen before. He left wealth and means, to dwell in a tent as a nomad, so that some day he might find a spiritual city, like none that he left behind (Heb. 11:8-10). Faith then is not something that is, but something that does.

Can we imagine our heritage if Noah had said, ”I don’t know Lord… A boat that size? The nearest water to float that thing is at least a thousand miles away! And the size that you specified would take years for me and my sons to build; it’s for sure that I’ll get no help from my neighbors. Are you sure that it will be worth all the trouble and expense? Isn’t there some other way for you to save me and my household?”

Would Abraham have been the one God chose for the lineage of Christ if he had been the kind of man that would have said, “Go where Lord, Canaan? I never heard of the place. Just a lot of foreigners out there. And what’s all this business of making me a great nation? You can’t do, anything with a dried up old 75 year old man, and Sarah is way past tier childbearing years. I have so much right here in Ur couldn’t I just be a good steward right around home?”

It all depends on what we think is important. Faith never tried, never stepped out upon, is not faith. The Christian who must see the final good of his work before he begins it does not work in hope or faith. The Christian who questions God’s plan of work for the church with “what good will it do?” is not a man of faith, but one of sight.

The New Testament describes a man who walked by faith: his name was Epaphroditus. This good Christian brought the gifts of the brethren in Philippi to Paul while Paul was in prison. Epaphroditus stayed in Rome to be Paul’s servant, and to see to Paul’s needs. Epaphroditus gave so much of himself that he lost his health and almost died. Paul said, “Because of the work of Christ he was nigh unto death, not regarding his life, to supply your lack of service to me” (Phil. 2:30). The word that is translated “not regarding his life” is a gambler’s word: paraboleuesthai. It means to cast everything down for a chance, or to stake all at a risk. What Paul is saying is that Epaphroditus gambled or put his life on the line, that Christ’s cause might be advanced.

William Barclay relates that there was an association of men and women in the second century who called themselves the parabolani, the gamblers. It was their aim in life to visit the sick and those in prison, especially those, who were ill with infectious diseases. It was through their effort in 252 A.D. that the city of Carthage was saved from the destruction of the plague, even after the heathen had abandoned the city. The church today needs more men who would be willing to gamble with their lives and their resources that the gospel might be preached. Some are not willing to let go even of their purse strings for Christ. “And if, therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust true riches” (Luke 16:11)?

The lives of those Biblical characters who were characterized by faith were men who were willing to stake all they had on the Lord’s promise. Do we have many such men of faith today?

Truth Magazine, XVIII:44, p. 2
September 12, 1974

By Luther Blackmon

J. Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI, has repeatedly told us that the greatest factors in preventing juvenile delinquency and crime are discipline and the influence of religion in their lives. Statistics show that a very small percentage of the people in our penal institutions have ever attended church regularly. Less than five percent, I believe. But parents are not impressed. Only 51 percent of the people in this country are even “church related,” as they put it. And only a small percentage of the 51 percent attend worship more than three times a year. In the church of Christ, you can find as many who don’t attend as you can find who do. It would be safe to say that less than 25 percent of the youth attend worship except on “special” occasions. The one thing that would exercise the greatest influence in their lives to keep them from crime and delinquency, to say nothing of the salvation of their souls, the parents don’t give them. They give them money to spend, parks, playgrounds, dance halls, country clubs and nearly everything else that appeals to the flesh. But the one thing that has proven most effective, they deny them: The example of godly, church-going, Bible-reading parents.

There are many reasons for this. One is the utter spiritual bankruptcy of these parents. They care nothing for God until tragedy strikes them or they think they are going to die. Dad spends $25 or $50 a year for newspapers and knows all about current happenings. Mother may belong to the Book of the Month Club, or spends long hours at canasta or some other game. The children know about science fiction and Elizabeth Taylor. They spend an average of 36 hours a week in front of the TV set – smaller children. But the Bible is a keepsake. It is the depository for old pictures and locks of hair. Not much chance of their bieng lost there because that is one book that is seldom touched. On the Lord=s day these parents are too tired to go to worship. So they wash the car or cut the grass or play a game of golf or visit some friends of play poker while their children observe the fine examples their parents are setting. This sort of conduct is understandable in parents who deny the existence of God, heaven or hell, and who believe that the bible is folklore. But for parents who recognize that their children have not only a body and an intellect, but also a soul, there is no excuse. There is no city of refuge where they may hide when the day of reckoning comes. Juvenile crime is constantly on the increase. But don=t blame the kids too much. They did not ask for the kind of parents they have.

(Written several years ago.)

Truth Magazine, XVIII, 45, p. 13-14
September 5, 1974