Truth Magazine

By James W. Adams

(Note: I regret there has been a slight interruption in the appearance of these articles, but it could not be avoided. Meeting work has taken me away from home and library making it impossible for me to prepare the articles to run in consecutive issues. JWA)

An individual can repeat a misrepresentation, however absurd, often enough to propagandize and catechize a great many unsuspecting people. In fact, he quite often convinces himself despite what he unquestionably knows to be the facts in the case. Brother W. Carl Ketcherside has for the past fifteen years written like Jehu of Old Testament fame drove his chariot, “furiously” (2 Kings 9:20). He has written so much and so “furiously” that one researching his literary misadventures all but drowns himself in a sea of semantics. I have never read after a person who can say the same thing, so many times, in so many different ways. Our erring brother is famous for his ability to “con” his audiences and readers with “cute” clichés and inveigle them with epigrammatic errors. If rhetoric were argument and showmanship were truth, Ketcherside would be all but irresistible. Fortunately, they are not. Two of the more common Ketchersidian, rhetorical flourishes are: “Unity is not conformity” and “unity in diversity. “

Unity vs. Conformity

When our garrulous brother in pulpit and press parrots the affirmation, “Unity is not conformity,” he implies there are those who contend that unity demands absolute conformity in every view which is held respecting the faith and practice of Christians. If this is not true, his often-repeated epigram is pointless. I categorically deny that any representative preacher or writer, “heir of the Restoration Movement” or otherwise, so affirms. Why then does Ketcherside continue to prejudice the issue by constantly reiterating this cliché’? The answer is obvious. A politician uses whatever makes good propaganda, nor is he above insinuating what he dares not specifically affirm.

Ketcherside himself believes, notwithstanding his rhetoric, that there must be a relative degree of “conformity” before New Testament “unity” can obtain among professed Christians. According to him, all must subscribe to the following tenents: (1) Christ is God Lord; (2) all must be immersed in water as an act of obedience to God; (3) “partyism” must be theoretically and practically abjured; (4) none must be guilty of “moral turpitude.” Yes, strange as it may seem, Keteberside demands absolute conformity relative to the person and nature of Jesus, the action of baptism, a permissive spirit of brotherhood, which he calls “fellowship,” and circumspect morality (I suppose according to his “interpretation” of the ethics of New Testament revelation). So often are these points emphasized in the speeches and articles of Ketcherside that documentation is unnecessary.

It appears, therefore, that the whole matter resolves itself into the old and often debated question: “What are the minimal, essential elements of Christian unity and fellowship?” Ketcherside admits that almost everyone believes unity to be desirable, God to be displeased with division, absolute conformity to be neither required nor feasible, and truth to be basic while recognizing not all elements of truth on every subject to be of equal weight in the matter of unity or fellowship (“Unity in Diversity, “Mission Messenger, January 1961). The truth is that all our crusading brother has done is to come forward with his list of essentials which are subjectively, arbitrarily, and inconsistently conceived and applied. A current, cynical observation of rebellious youth is in order at this point, “So, what’s new! ” As far as I can tell, absolutely nothing except the untimely birth of another unity cult now diffused in many denominational bodies and in many divisions among those who profess to be New Testament Christians, but inevitably destined to polarize, then solidify, and finally materialize as another sect or die. Ketcherside should be an expert at this because he has been through it all before.

What About “Unity in Diversity?”

Brother Carl all but suspends his whole contention on this concept. Is it or is it not a valid one? Like the former concept involving unity and conformity, it is not new. No representative teacher known to me would think of denying that Christian unity permits some degree of diversity. To go about parroting “unity in diversity” is not to announce a panacea for the ills of division. It resolves nothing. The question is not whether this is or is not true, for it can be either true or false depending upon the degree of diversity contemplated by him who declares it. Rather, the question is: How diverse can our beliefs and practices be without disrupting fellowship and making unity impossible? Ketcherside himself agrees that professed Christians cannot hold diverse views relative to the nature and the spirit of brotherhood and Lordship of Jesus, the action of baptism, the spirit of brotherhood (anti-” partyism “), and the standard of morals. He arrives at his conclusions through ingenious and devious routes with which we shall deal later, but it will suffice for present purposes to observe that he will not allow absolute diversity either in the realm of “opinion” (his term for interpretation) or practice. So, we are back again where we began, with the old question: What are the minimal essentials, or where does diversity begin and end’?

In the January 1961 issue of Mission Messenger, Ketcherside had an article, which he called, “Unity in Diversity,” to which attention has been called previously in this article. In the article under consideration, he used what he chose to call “common examples” which he believed to be analogous to his “unity in diversity” concept in religion of ten the case in reasoning. However, as is so by analogy, his examples did not exemplify and his analogies were not analogous. In reasoning, all logicians know that analogies yield only “probable conclusions” (An Introduction to Logic, Creighton, p. 275) and that the degree of probability ranges all of the way from zero to reasonable certainty depending upon the number and validity of the points of resemblance. Ketcherside’s examples of his “unity in diversity” concept do not contain vital points of resemblance essential to establishing the fact that they are indeed analogous. His examples prove nothing, therefore, with reference to the validity of his concept.

Ketcherside’s Examples

Ketcherside employed a group of singers and a symphony orchestra to illustrate the validity of his “unity in diversity” concept in religion. He correctly noted that singers sing different parts, even sounding different notes, in unison and that instrumentalists play different instruments sounding different notes in unison, yet there is “harmony” or “unity of effect.” What he does not emphasize is the fact that all singers or players sing or play the same piece of music, which has been written and arranged by an expert in the field so as to produce the “harmony” and “unity of effect.” Had he pursued his analogy, he would have been forced to concede that New Testament revelation constitutes the perfect standard for the faith and practice of Christians and is so written and arranged by the all-wise “captain of our salvation” (Heb. 2: 10) as to produce beautiful “harmony” and transcendent “unity of effect” in ” one body” of redeemed souls of “every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation” (Rev. 5:9).

Ketcherside also fails to mention that choruses and orchestras have directors to keep all participants functioning accurately so as to maintain “harmony and unity of effect.” The different singers or players are not permitted to make up their own music as they proceed or to inject innovations of would be composers of questionable competency. To allow such would be destructive of “harmony” and make “unity of effect” impossible. The result would be chaos. One could hardly inject sections of “An Ole Dead Skunk in the Middle of the Road” into “I’ve Found a Friend, Oh such a Friend” without the loss of meaning and the destruction of harmony. By the same token, I find it impossible to perceive sweet harmony and loving unity of effect in two religious bodies teaching in unison in perfect fellowship “baptism for the remission of sins” and “salvation by faith alone without further acts of obedience to God.” Ketcherside does not.

The next example employed by Ketcherside is the “planetary system.” He blasts off into the ethereal regions with an eloquent dissertation on the galaxies and their millions of planets “majestically rotating through space.” He calls Aristotle to witness to their unity of movement though diverse in “size, shape, speed and power of attraction” in his classic phrase, “the music (symphonia) of the spheres.” He reaches a grand climax in the use of the Psalmist’s statement, “The heavens declare the glory of God,” as a premise from which to conclude “that a part of the glory of God is revealed in a demonstration of unity in diversity.”

All of this high-flown rhetoric is supposed to prove that the “unity in diversity” which Ketcherside promotes in religion is analogous to the God-ordered unity in diversity of the planetary system. Honestly, brethren, how ridiculous can a man be? The planets, each one in every solar system in the nearest to the most remote galaxy, seen or unseen by the eyes of man, catalogued or uncatalogued by the astronomer, function in strict conformity with Divine law, the law of the universe, hence their marvelous unity. They are diverse, true, but not in reference to Divine law or their amenability to it. This is the kind of unity for which Truth Magazine and her editors and contributors plead, but which Ketcherside and his colleagues and sympathizers contemptuously reject as legalism. Can this be said of Baptists, certain Holiness, members of Christian Churches, and the constituency of churches of Christ who, according to Ketcherside, are in fellowship with God, hence in fellowship with one another and constitute the “one body” of Christ? Every responsible reader should be able to see (whether Ketcherside does or not) that such a concept is absurdity gone to seed.

Next, our effervescent brother cites Paul’s use of the human body to illustrate how unity can exist with diversity (1 Cor. 12). He affects to find in this illustration support for his “unity in diversity” concept. In discussing the matter, he recognizes that Paul’s point lies in the fact that “all members have not the same function.” Function, Brother Ketcherside, function-not faith and religious practice. Paul teaches that Christians must be united in faith and practice, but that each child of God has his own peculiar function, determined by his abilities or gifts, and in implementing their collective practice based on their faith.

The same is true of the “spiritual gifts” which is Ketcherside’s next example. There were different gifts. They were distributed as the Spirit willed to different members of the body of Christ. Not all had the same gifts. However, the gifts were all directed toward the same goal and were exercised by persons worshipping in the same congregation for the edification of the body unto the belief and practice of the revealed will of the head of the body, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Will Ketcherside please advise us how (1) the doctrines of salvation by faith alone and the impossibility of apostasy, (2) the impostures connected with so-called “glossolalia and divine healing,” (3) the practice of monthly, quarterly, and yearly communion along with the use of mechanical instruments of music in Divine praise plus (4) the multitude of other divergent beliefs and practices among immersed persons who believe in the deity of Jesus can logically or scripturally be shown to be analogous to the diverse abilities or spiritual gifts to which Paul referred in his body illustration? Though lie implies such in his plea for “unity in diversity”, I cannot believe that a man of his obvious intelligence would expose himself to the idiocy of trying to prove it. Such affirmations no doubt lie at the root of Ketcherside’s proclamation that he is forever through with debating. If I had written as much foolishness as he has during the past fifteen years, I am sure I would do as he has done, solemnly disavow debating. True it is that “discretion is the better part of valor.”

Ketcberside’s final analogy had to do with the fact that the church is “the body of Christ.” In this analogy, be pulls a Joseph Fletcher on his readers. In his book, Situation Ethics, Fletcher takes borderline cases in the realm of morals where only a choice between two evils exists and makes sweeping generalizations on the basis of principles he imagines exist in them. and, “Presto!” situation ethics is proved.

Ketcberside employs cases involving differences over immaterial matters, matters of mere opinion such as “eating of meats and observing days” (Rom. 14:8), then makes sweeping generalizations regarding the toleration of aberrations in matters of faith, doctrine, worship, organization, and work. He takes principles that involve the private practice of individuals and applies them to the collective work and worship of the saints. Such misuse of Scripture is appalling in one professing to be submissive to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. With no desire to be unkind nor to judge any man’s heart, I am forced by what I read from W. Carl Ketcherside to believe that he has no more respect for the word of the Lord than he does for the comic strips in Sunday’s newspaper.

Conclusion

The most fitting way I can think of to conclude this article is to utilize a small piece of doggerel from the pen of W. Carl Ketcherside used by him to introduce an article on “The Drift of Time” and appearing in Mission Messenger, September 1955. At that time, our brother was crusading against some awful brethren whom he called “hired pastors.” He was upbraiding them because they represented a change in attitude toward the so-called “pastor system.”

As time goes on, and churches fill with pride, they sanction that which once they did deride; and bend the Scripture, which so long they taught, to uphold systems which for years they fought.

Well said, Brother Carl, you evidently had a vision pure of what you, yourself, were destined to become, so we will let Ketcherside of yesterday rebuke Ketcherside of today.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 28, pp. 7-10
May 17, 1973

By Cecil Willis

The New Testament abounds in warnings given to both individual Christians and to churches. Many dangers and pitfalls may beset us. “Beware” is a word frequently used in the New Testament. In this article, and in another to follow, I would like to sound a word of warning to generous hearted Christians and to churches who are prone to being “suckered into” helping or supporting unworthy individuals, or causes.

The apostle Paul warned against men corrupted in mind and bereft of the truth,” who suppose that “godliness is a way of gain” (1 Tim. 6:5). There are hosts of people who traipse over this land who maintain their existence by preying upon generous hearted brethren or churches. They are simply “dead beats,” worthless, lazy, good-for-nothings, who eke out a shameful existence by pyramiding lie upon lie in order to beguile honest brethren and to prey upon the sympathies of generous hearted sows.

Some brethren become wonderfully excited when they hear us teach that churches are obligated for the charitable maintenance only of “believers … disciples,” “brethren,” or “saints” (See Acts 2:44, 45; Acts 4:32-35; Acts 6:1-6; Acts If: 27-30; I Cor. 16:1-4; Rom. 15:25-32; 2 Cor. 9: 1, etc.). If there are some others for whom the congregation has benevolent responsibility, I would be glad to have someone to call it to my attention and to cite the Bible passage, which so obligates the congregation. Not only are churches limited by the scriptures in benevolent responsibilities to those just mentioned, but also congregations are even instructed not to assist certain among the saints.

Those Not In Need

For instance, neither the congregation nor the individual has any benevolent responsibility toward those who are not in need. You will notice in Acts 2:44,45 that distribution was made “according as any man had need.” Paul declared that Christians should be gainfully employed in order that they “may have whereof to give to him that hath need” (Eph. 4:28). You may think that this truth is so obvious it need not even be called to our attention.

However, such is not the case. I once had a lady approach me who wanted me to help her get into a “Church Old Folks Home” so that the churches of Christ would maintain her, though she freely admitted that she was not a member of the Lord’s church, had never (so far as I know) attended a single service of a church of Christ, and that she had $30,000 in cash! But she had heard that some churches of Christ supported some Old Folks Homes, and she wanted to get into one of them. The congregation has no benevolent responsibility to a non-Christian, and especially to one who has $30,000 cash!

The name of this lady will not be divulged! Suffice it to say that she lived in Indianapolis, Indiana and was a member of the Methodist church. I state emphatically that her name will not be divulged, because there are several of the so-called “Church of Christ Old Folks Homes” that would be glad to “take her in,” providing she either turn her money over to them, or will it to them, and providing that she is not in very good health, and it therefore does not appear that she will live very long.

The Old Folks Home in Houston, Texas, which is sponsored by the Central Church of Christ, requires that any person who enters be prepared either to pay a monthly fee for board and medical expense, or that someone else be secured beforehand to guarantee the monthly payment of this fee, unless their admission requirements recently have been changed. The Madison, Tennessee church announced some time ago that they were going to build some condominium apartments. This is an arrangement by which each couple purchases from the church the apartment, but the buyers must also agree to will the apartment back to the church. And one must be at least 60 years old to get in. I do not see how they possibly could lose on a “deal” like that! Such shenanigans as these are why it is necessary to say that the congregation has no benevolent duty toward those who are not in need.

Those Who Will Not Work

Neither does any Christian, nor any congregation, has any benevolent responsibility toward those who will not work. Paul is emphatic on this point: “If any will not work, neither let him eat” (2 Thess. 3: 10). Nearly all of the $15 “church bums” fall into this category! If you doubt my word, the next time one comes along with this pitiful “tale,” offer him a job instead of a handout, and see what response you get. These “professional beggars” nearly all tell the same woeful tales. Either they were just passing through town and their car broke down, and their children are hungry; or they have a job in a distant state, and if they only could get the money to get there; or else a relative has died and they are on the way to the funeral; or they use another little patent tale or two. In nearly every instance, all they need is $15, and they quickly volunteer to send the money back just as soon as they arrive at their destination. I have never even afterward heard from one of them; certainly none has returned any money as he volunteered to do.

Some brethren are entirely too free with the church’s money. We have the same responsibility not to help the lazy and unworthy as we have to help the needy saint. A lot of brethren would rather dole out $15 of the church’s money than to look one of these bums in the eye, and to tell him “No!” In twenty-five years of preaching, I cannot remember a single instance where the evidence showed a single one of these $15 bums to have told the truth, and for later evidence to vindicate that he was indeed a case worthy of our benevolent concern. Think that over. My guess is that nearly every preacher or elder in the land could truthfully make the same or a similar statement.

Let me propose, if you have not already adopted such a procedure, that you begin not giving out any money until you have verified the genuineness of the need, and the truthfulness of the one beseeching your help. What am I suggesting? I propose that you invest a couple of dollars in a telephone call to the congregation where this person claims to be a member. In the first place, any faithful church would prefer to help its own, if they are in need. In those instances in which I have called preachers or churches cited to me as “references,” I have not yet had a one of them to advise me to give the beggar any money. When I called a Louisiana church where a certain dead-beat was supposed to be a member, I was told: “Don’t give that bum one red cent. He won’t work I We got him job after job. He quickly lost each one of them. Thinking perhaps he had some kind of personality problem, we bought him a set of tools so that he could work for himself. He just flat won’t work.” You know how much I gave him? Not one red cent!

My own experience has been that the request for a name and a telephone number of someone who knows him usually highly “insults” the beggar, and he goes off in a huff, before you even have time to call the telephone number he gave you, if he waits long enough to give you a number. A woman passing through Marion a few months ago, and who wanted me to bring her $15 to the bus station, somehow could not remember the name and address of a solitary preacher who knew her, though she claimed to have been a member of the church for thirty years. Though my wife was with me, this woman was highly insulted when I asked her to step outside of the bus station, or into an office offered to us by the bus station, that we might discuss her “need.” Suffice it to say, I also did not give her one red cent.

Probably someone is ready to say, “That’s the way with those Antis. They just won’t help anybody.” Let me just say this in reply to that: I do not intend to give money to anybody whom the Lord specifically told me not to help. And that includes the lazy dead-beat who thinks either society or the church owes him a living.

In another instance, I called a Memphiss, Tennessee liberal preacher to “check-out” the story being told me by one of “their members.” The preacher said, “Would I like to get my hands on that fellow! I borrowed $600 to try to help out that fellow, and he gambled up half of it the first night and left town. Now I am paying off that $600 note in monthly installments.” In our city, the fellow ended up dealing repeatedly in stolen cars, under the guise that he knew a fellow who would like to buy it, “if you will only let me keep it a week or so in order that I might show it to him.”

A few months ago, one which represented himself to me as being a Nigerian gospel preacher wrote me a long letter telling me what a dreadful condition the widows and orphans left from the Nigerian civil war were in. He gave me the exact number of widows and orphans in each of the ten churches with which he had close contact. He wanted me to publish the report immediately in Truth Magazine. I almost fell for that one. But before publishing the report, I wrote Brother Wayne Payne, who then was working in Nigeria. Brother Payne replied immediately that he knew the fellow well who write me, and that he was a deliberate liar, and furthermore, that not a one of the ten churches he mentioned even existed! Yet I know of $600 his letter brought in, and no telling how much more he received from too generous hearted brethren.

Within the last six months I have had numerous inquiries about a certain Nigerian brother (Charles Onogwimoniya, alias Custom Esedekpahe) who apparently has written every brother and every church whose address he could get. He has even used more than one name in his pleading letters. I immediately sent him a $10 or $15 personal check when I received his first letter, as I imagine a host of other brethren did. I got “suckered” in that time. Upon inquiry from Brother Leslie Diestelkamp, I learned that this brother indeed was a brother, but that he is now somewhat demented, and should not be supported as a gospel preacher. Brother Diestelkamp at that time did recommend that small amounts might legitimately be sent to him because he was a needy saint. However, even that recommendation was withdrawn when it was discovered he was writing to people all over this nation, and under more than one name. A statement of warning to brethren regarding this brother was published in Truth Magazine just a few months ago. Yet I continue to receive chastising letters, containing many scripture references, from him because I have disregarded his further and frequent appeals.

Conclusion

What I am recommending is this: Attend promptly to every legitimate and scriptural need. But do not send sums of money to anyone anywhere, just because someone wrote you asking for it, unless you know the plea to be legitimate and the cause worthy. A host of deadbeats in this country are living off of gullible brethren, and some in foreign lands are trying to play the same game. Investigate before you send your money to help those who are scripturally your responsibility, as you have ability and opportunity. But by maintaining these professional beggars, you merely contribute to their further delinquency, and thus become a party to it. In an article to follow, I want to sound some similar warnings in the realm of evangelism.

 

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 28, pp. 3-6
May 17, 1973

By Mason Harris

In previous articles we have mentioned that there are certain laws of life we need to understand if we expect to live a rich and rewarding life. Many of these are well known laws like the laws of gravity and cause and effect. When we work in harmony with these laws, they become tools in our hands for a richer, fuller life. When we work against them, they become as weapons to defeat our cause. A man becomes rich or poor, happy or sad, a success or failure, depending on how effectively lie uses these laws.

0ne of the laws of life we need to understand is the law of reproduction, or sowing and reaping. It is sometimes called the law of cause and effect. The apostle Paul expressed it in these words: “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall lie also reap” (Gal. 6:7).

What a change could be brought about in this world if the people understood this law and used it to achieve the things in life they desire! What a difference it would make if we would always live in harmony with the laws of life, instead of trying to beat the system. Man is often frustrated by the desire to have his cake and eat it too, – or to enjoy the pleasure of one thing but to receive the reward of another. For example, many would like to sow to the flesh and reap of the spirit. But the law of sowing and reaping says this cannot be done.

To disregard this law is as foolish as to plant turnip seeds and confidently expect a crop of watermelons. Things do not just happen, as some suppose. But rather they come to pass as the result of action. This is the law of cause and effect.

A real problem in today’s world is that too many are busy taping band-aids on the effects of our problems instead of performing major surgery on the causes. The Lord spoke of this problem in this way: “Woe unto you, scribes, and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.” (Mt. 23:25-26) To eliminate undesirable effects, we must remove the cause.

If you are not pleased with what you are getting out of life, take a look at what you are putting into life. Sir Isaac Newton is reported to have said, “Every action is followed by an equal reaction.” This is just-another way of stating the same truth spoken by Paul, “Whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap.” Whatever we send out returns in kind to bless us, or to punish us. We get out of life what we put into it.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 28, p. 2
May 17, 1973

By Mason Harris

There are certain laws of life (law of gravity, cause & effect, etc.) we need to understand if we expect to live a rich and rewarding life. These laws are documented by the whole course of man’s history. When we work in harmony with these laws, they become tools in our hands for a richer, fuller life. When we work against them, they become as weapons to defeat our cause. A person becomes rich or poor, happy or sad, a success or a failure, depending on how effectively he uses these laws.

One of these is the law of time. It is written in Ecclesiastes 3: 1; “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven.”

Our society is characterized by restlessness. We are always on the move. There seems to be too little time for us to do the things we want to do. And each day our frustrations become greater. Often it seems that we are on an endless treadmill going nowhere. The sand is pouring through the hourglass of our life and yet there is so much left to do! The conflict within us mounts! We pop a pill into our mouth and gulp a drink to calm ourselves for the tomorrows which will be even more hectic than today!

A son waits anxiously for his father to return home from work-he expects his father to play catch with him. Daddy is late, but the little lad waits patiently. Finally, daddy arrives but he does not have time to play-he must hurry and eat, dress, and rush off to a meeting somewhere to discuss what can be done on the local scene-to curb juvenile delinquency. A daughter waits in vain for an opportunity to have a quiet, relaxed talk with her mother because with all the work, visiting, and entertaining, there just isn’t time.

Some would blame the lack of time for all their shortcomings. Yet, every day each of us receives 24 hours of time. Somebody says we need to organize our time. This sounds good, but the truth is time is already organized. There are 60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour, and 24 hours in a day.

What we need to do is synchronize our activities to blend with the time that is already organized. The wise man said there is a time for everything; there is a time to work and a time to play; a time to plant and a time to harvest. There is summer and there is winter. The wise farmer makes use of this Jaw of time and plants, cultivates, and harvests while the seasons permit in order that he may face the winter with sufficient provisions. May we be as wise in regard to preparation for Eternity!

A prophet of long ago said, “Thy servant went out into the midst of the battle; and, behold, a man turned aside, and brought a man unto me, and said, Keep this man: if by any means he be missing, then shall thy life be for his life, or else thou shalt pay a talent of silver. And as thy servant was busy here and there, he was gone.” (1 Kings 20:39-40) Notice once again the servant’s excuse for failing in his responsibility: “As thy servant was busy here and there, he was gone.” How descriptive this is of so many of us!

Parents have the responsibility of bringing up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. But think of how many parents have become “busy here and there” with no proper planning on the use of their time and then discovered their children were grown and gone from home without the training they needed. Christians have the responsibility of teaching others. How many of us have intended to talk with a certain person about their soul, but put it off because we were busy here and there, and then one day learned of their death?

This is true in the lives of so many. We become busy here and there, but without any real planning and without any real accomplishments. One thing should be obvious to most of us, and that is: While there is time for us to do the things we need to do, there is usually not enough time for us to do all the things we would like to do. This means we are ‘faced with a decision as to how we will use our allotted time.

In the continuation of our life we awake each day with twenty-four hours of unmanufactured tissue of our life. This is ours to spend, second by second, hour by hour, day by day, year by year, as we alone choose. It is ours to spend wisely or foolishly, in daydreams or in productivity, in hate or in love, in fear or in happiness, in selfishness or in contribution. But while it is our right to choose how it will be used, it is not our privilege to alter the penalty for time wasted or ill spent. For out of this time given to us each day we must make provision for this life and the life that is to come.

Instead of letting the hours of our life be spent in idleness, excessive devotion to business, vanity, and such like, let us decide what ought to have the priority in the use of our time. Then as we see each new day approaching, let us make plans as to how it will be used-putting first things first. Without such planning, we, too, may become “busy here and there” and neglect the important things in life.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 27, pp. 12-13
May 10, 1973