Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

Ten Years Ago

Truth Magazine is now well into its sixteenth year of publication. Just a few days ago, I completed my tenth year as editor. Ten years represents a good-size chunk out of ones adult, active years. Yet I am nearly the “junior” editor, even among papers published by conservative brethren. A few months ago Yater Tant “retired” as editor of the Gospel Guardian after serving in that demanding capacity for well over twenty years. William E. Wallace succeeded Brother Tant. Stanley Lovett has edited Preceptor since 1956. H. E. Phillips has served as editor of Searching the Scriptures throughout its existence, and it is in its thirteenth year.

The Past

Several brethren were responsible for establishing and maintaining Truth Magazine through most of its first six years of existence. Bryan Vinson, Jr., now of Dallas, Texas, edited the paper through nearly six years. He was assisted in publishing the paper by his brother, FOY, Leslie Diestelkamp, Gordon Pennock, Ray Ferris, and a host of other brethren.

During the last part of his tenure as editor, Bryan Vinson, Jr. had become involved in a number of other time demanding enterprises. The paper had not only demanded of all those connected with it a great amount of time and free work, it also bad cost all of them considerable money. Those brethren decided to let Truth Magazine die.

I wrote my first article in Truth Magazine for a “Special Issue” in Volume Two in 1958. When the decision came to stop publishing Truth Magazine, I had been writing regularly for the paper for two or three years and securing a goodly number of subscriptions for it. After the decision bad been reached by the former publishers not to publish another issue, apparently as an after thought, someone thought I might take the paper and continue to operate it. When one of these brethren called me, of course I had not given the matter the slightest thought. I was not seeking the position as editor of any paper. I recommended that they call Irvin Himmel, who then was publishing Apostolic Doctrine, and see if he would take Truth Magazine, and perhaps merge it with Apostolic Doctrine. He rejected the proposal.

The former publishers then called me back and told me of Himmels decision. At that very moment, William F. Wallace was in the North holding some gospel meetings. He was living then in Oklahoma. William told me that if I would agree to take the paper, he would go back to Oklahoma and make immediate plans to come to the North to help me operate it. He moved to Lisbon, Ohio within the space of about three weeks.

At the time I took over Truth Magazine, there were 990 subscribers. Two months printing bill was owed. There was something like $7.00 in the bank account. A sizable investment would be necessary to fulfill the subscription obligations to those whose subscriptions had not yet expired. There was not a single manuscript on hand with which to compile even one issue. But that is where we started.

The Work

The ten years of editing Truth Magazine have been enjoyable years to me. I am one of those fortunate few people who happen to like the work he is doing. I hear a lot of preaching brethren continually complaining about what all they do not like about preaching. My attitude has always been, if you do not like preaching, quit! With such an attitude, you probably are not making much of a contribution to the Cause of Christ anyway. Furthermore, the Lord always has been able to get His Work done without the assistance of any unwilling servants. The work on Truth Magazine truly has been to me a “labor of love.”

This is not to say that it has been a “bed of roses,” for it has not been. David Lipscomb once said that any man who would edit the Gospel Advocate for ten years would either end up an infidel, or a mighty good man. I have gotten my share of knocks and bruises, and a few verbal brickbats have been hurled in my direction. The little childhood ditty, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me,” more than once has come to my mind. I sincerely have sought to do those things which would result in the glory of God, and not to be swayed either by praise (and I have even gotten a little of that too, on rare occasions) or criticism.

That I have made errors in judgment, no one knows better than myself. None of us bats 1000 % in the realm of making human judgments. Some of my wrong decisions have only resulted in the loss of some money; others have done definite harm. Certain ones nearly always remind me of my mistaken judgments, but usually by the time their letters arrive, I already know I made a mistake. Like most everyone else, my hindsight vision is nearly 20/20.

For nearly three years now, Truth Magazine has been a weekly publication. Some of the brethren tell me that I make a bigger job out of editing the paper than need be For instance, I insist on doing a page-by-page paste up of each issue. I think I have pasted up every issue during the past ten years, except one, and I was in the hospital for a few days at that time. I never have liked to see articles continued to back pages of a paper. In papers that do that, I never finish reading an article until I read through the paper to the page to which it has been continued. Furthermore, I personally want to decide which article goes where in the paper. So I like to design each page.

During the years I have edited the paper, I have nearly always been working regularly with a congregation. Furthermore, I have for many years carried a fairly heavy schedule of gospel meetings. One year I held 23 gospel meetings, and another year I held 19 meetings and two debates. Regularly, I conduct from 12-18 meetings. This makes it doubly hard to keep up with the demands of a weekly paper. Much of the time, less time and attention have been devoted to the paper than I would like to have given it.

For seven years, I edited the paper without being paid a cent. Of course, all the while brethren around the country reminded me, “But youve got Truth Magazine,” whenever financial matters were discussed. Like nearly every other religious journal published by our brethren, Truth Magazine does not pay; it costs! In fact, it has lost about $8,000.00 since I have been editing it. Since January, 1969 I have been associated with the Cogdill Foundation, which is now responsible for the publication of Truth Magazine. About two years of that time, I worked for the Cogdill Foundation on a full-time basis, working to prepare the new series of Bible class material now in process. Presently I am paid the stupendous sum of $25 a week for my work for Cogdill Foundation, which includes editing Truth Magazine.

Brother W. W. Otey told me one time that in seventy years of preaching, he could not remember being discouraged a single time. That statement has bothered me a good deal. I am now only 40 years old, and quite obviously have not preached seventy years, and I have already been discouraged a couple of times! Sometimes when I am very weary, I think I would like to let someone else wrestle with the burden of publishing the paper for awhile. In fact, when we began publishing weekly, I suggested that I resign as editor, and that James W. Adams serve in that capacity. But he turned down the proposal.

But truthfully, I enjoy the work. I wish I were free to devote full-time to editing the paper. It is a sufficiently important work to warrant all of an editors time and attention, in my judgment. I suppose I am occasionally like the retiree. He works all his life looking forward to retirement and when the time comes to do so, he then continues to work as long as he can. When it got down to the final analysis of the matter, I do not think I would want to quit editing the paper. I have no grandiose power-seeking ambitions or intentions, as some have on occasion indirectly and incorrectly charged; I simply like my work!

The burdens of publishing the paper always have been generously shared by a host of willing and helpful brethren. I had better not mention anyone specifically, or I would be starting a never-ending list. Particularly am I indebted to our staff of writers, I am somewhat like the world traveler who returned home and said, “There may be a lot of things wrong with this country, but it is a whole lot better than anything else I have seen.” In like manner, our staff of writers may be lacking in some fields, but I would not exchange them for any other staff of writers known to me.

A good deal of personal satisfaction has resulted to me in that we have been able to use Truth Magazine to help worthy brethren get before the brotherhood a statement of their needs in order to engage in some sacrificial work. In nearly every instance, an informed brotherhood has been a generous brotherhood.

The Future

And what of the future? I do not know what the future holds, but I know who holds the future. I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet. However, any observant person can see that the future holds more struggles for the people of God. During the past quarter of a century, a Herculean battle has been waged by thousands to keep Churches of Christ from being devoured by the institutional inventions of men. In most places, that battle already has been f ought, and either lost or won. However, it will startle some brethren to learn that in many places that fight has not even been waged yet. Yet already battle lines are being drawn upon new fields. A soldier of Christ does not finish the fight until God tells him to lay down his armor. So, fight on we will, God being our Helper.

Rank modernism is beginning to show its bead among Churches of Christ, as I have shown in recent articles in this journal. The coming years will see more and more of that monster revealing itself. The Lords people always are facing some kind of a crisis, for the devil is never at rest. But whenever the battlefield and whoever the enemy maybe, we must all he ready continually to “fight the good fight of faith.” Whether we sail briefly through balmy seas, or are pitched upon the turbulence of raging waves, let us hold high the banner of the Lord Jesus Christ … until He mines.

In Closing

For several months now, the demand of other things have so pressed upon our time that we have not been able to give the matter of securing new subscriptions adequate attention. Securing new subscriptions is a never-ending job, for someone is always letting his subscription expire. Within the last six months or so, we have suffered a decline of about 500 subscriptions. This means a loss of about $3000.00 in annual income. Would you please make a little personal subscription drive of your own, and help us to replace those lost subscriptions? A few of our most loyal friends have a never-ending subscription drive going, but right now we need the help of all our readers.

To encourage you to seek new subscriptions, we are going to offer a copy of a paperback book for every new subscription you secure at the regular $6.00 per year subscription price. We have secured perhaps two thousand copies of the classic The Imitation of Christ by Thomas Kempis. One author stated that The Imitation of Christ has been for five hundred years the most widely read book of Christian devotion in the world.” No one knows for sure how many editions of this book have been made, but the municipal library of Cologne, Germany has 400 different editions of the book in its collection. The Latin edition of the book was first published in 1486.

For each new subscription you secure to Truth Magazine, we will send you a free copy of The Imitation of Christ, if you request that we do so. If you want to send, say 25 subscriptions and want 25 copies of the book to give to friends, tell us so when you send in your list of subscriptions. We would like to exchange two thousand copies of The Imitation of Christ for two thousand new subscriptions to Truth Magazine. And we need your help in order to do so.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 43, pp. 3-6
September 7, 1972

By Ray Ferris

Along about this time of the year it has been customary for many preachers and editors to have something to say about the immodest apparel that was for years associated with “summer weather.” We bad much to say about shorts, halters, swim-suits, etc. There is no doubt in my mind that such was timely and needed. It seemingly did little good.

However, I am now faced with a problem. How can I be critical of shorts and halters; and swim-suits after mini-skirts, micro-skirts, see-through blouses, etc.? The clothing of the modern female has reached a sad state, indeed, when a Christian who is a teacher in the public school system and who has fought the encroachment of shorts as acceptable dress for years, is constrained to recommend them now! Why? Because he feels it is less immodest than the dresses that mothers and fathers send their daughters to school in today! Many school administrators fought a brave battle for many months to restrain such activities, but alas, the foolish parents sided with the children, and even to the point of taking matters to court. Now a judge with much less sense than nerve has the audacity to say that no dress code at all can be sustained!

Now what does all that mean? Why one dare not be critical of the dress (undress) of a fellow human being, because the law is on his side. He may jolly well wear what he pleases, if be pleases to wear anything at all! Many people in many places, from what I bear, are now pleased to do just that – wear nothing at all. They call them nudists, and I suspect they are not as sexually stimulating to the opposite sex as the tease that will expose almost, but not quite all!

Someone is doubtless saying now, “Preacher, are you saying you think shorts, and halters, and modern swim-suits are all right now?” Absolutely not! I am just saying they are no worse than some things I see on the streets, in the stores, in the homes and in our own church building that supposedly consecrated people who call themselves followers of Christ wear for normal dress! Many times I have heard people talk about modesty being relative. They remind me of grandmothers day, when the dress went to the ankle and a glimpse of the ankle was deemed an immodest revelation. Well, perhaps there may be some relativity involved. Somehow it seems to me that we have just about used up all the relativity by now and must be just about down to the absolute! Mothers, what kind of example are you setting before your children? Fathers, what are you allowing to go out of the house? Boys and girls, do you want to he deliberate in your efforts to arouse one to sin and crime? Read again, I Timothy 2:9-10 and Galatians 5:19-21. Study the word lasciviousness again. Are you helping in the solution, or are you part of the problem?

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 42, p. 13
August 31, 1972

By Mike Willis

General Corroboration of Background Material

On opening ones New Testament, almost immediately a king named Herod commits an act of almost unbelievable wickedness when he “sent and slew all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its environs, from two years old and under.”1 Our knowledge of Herod the Great is now completed enough that this statement, or any other, is no longer unbelievable. He murdered his favorite wife, Marianne I, because he suspected her of unfaithfulness. Later, he convicted and executed his two sons by Mariamne I, Alexander and Aristobulus, for treason. 2 Thus, when in his old age Herod committed many acts showing emotional instability, why should one be overly appalled if lie murdered a few more babies because of his fear of one of them eventually taking over his throne?

Later reading in the gospel of Matthew (14:1-12) records the mention of another Herod called “the tetrarch” that had some type of marriage which did not meet the approval of John the Baptist. This Herod was called Herod Antipas and became a tetrarch following the death of Herod the Great. He ruled from 4 B.C., to 39 A.D.3 He was married to Herodias, who had formerly been married to Antipas half brother, Herod Boethus. Prior to Antipas marriage to Herodias, he had been married to a Nabatean princess whom he divorced. The divorce led to a war with Aretas IV, king of the Nabateans, who was determined to revenge his daughters mistreatment by Herod. 4 Since both Herod Antipas and Herodias had been previously married and divorced, no wonder John the Baptist said, “It is not lawful for you to have her.” 5

In Acts 8:27, the historian Luke introduced us to a certain eunuch who was treasurer under Candace, queen of the Ethiopians. “Archeological light on this group of queens called Candace was found by Melver in his excavations in Nubia, 1908-1909. In the Christian period these Nubians still called their queen Candace: they fed her on milk, and regarded obesity as an attribute of royalty.” 6 The British Museum contains a large relief showing one of these queens named Candace.

Paul recorded his escape from the ethnarch of Damascus under Aretas the king. 7 Regarding the king Aretas, this quotation relates the following:

“Dr. A. Cowley, 1914-1915, found a particularly interesting inscription at Khalasa … dating from about 96 B.C.: This is the place which Nuthairu made, for the life of Aretas, king of the Nabateans. A number of other inscriptions mention Arems, who loves his people. One of these date from A.D. 31, and anotherfromA.D. 37. Itwas sometime between these dates that Paul escaped from the governor of Aretas in Damascus.” 8

Thus, little by little, archaeologists are able to piece together knowledge of history for that age in which New Testament history occurred.

Of no less importance has been the many papyri discoveries in the arid sands of Egypt. One significant help of these discoveries has been the light shed on the day to day living. “At Tebtunis in the southern Fayum 1899-1900, Grenfell and Hunt found papyri … Here in a sacred crocodile cemetery, where the deified animals had been mummified and interred ceremoniously, papyri turned up in profusion as wrappings for the crocodile mummies … There before the amazed eyes of the archaeologists were fragments of ancient classics, private A letters, petitions, land surveys, accounts contracts and royal ordinances.” 9

In addition to the rebuilding of the ordinary daily life of first century citizens, papyri finds brought new discoveries such as the one by Mjr. Adolf Deissman. “Deissman was the first to )recognize that these papyri were written exactly in the language of the New Testament, and to draw the conclusive inference that Biblical Greek could not any longer he regarded as an esoteric, sacred language, or as a language to any considerable degree Hebraized by its Jewish autbors.”10 With this discovery, a new period in the study of New Testament Greek began. Rather than considering the New Testament to be a “sacred Greek” or “Holy Spirit Greek,” the scholars found the New Testament to be written in the language of the common man. “The N.T. Greek is now seen to be not an abnormal excrescence, but a natural development in the Greek language; to be, in fact, a not unworthy part of the great stream of the mighty tongue. It was not outside of the world language, but in the very heart of it and influenced considerably the future of the Greek tongue.”11 “Numbers of New Testament words, once considered strictly biblical, are now known to be common to the Koine of the period. Even more important is the elucidation of the meanings of words. Words once thought to have special biblical or New Testament meanings in many instances have been found not to differ appreciably from their usage in the papyri.” 12

Archaeology, therefore, blew up some old-fashioned theories and completely re-vamped the study of the New Testament.

Footnotes

1. Matt. 2:16.

2. Bo Reicke. The New Testament Era, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 19681 pp. 91-106)

3. Ibid., p. 115.

4. Ibid., p. 125.

5. Matt. 14:4.

6. Joseph P. Free, Archaeology and Bible History, (Wheaton, Van Kampen Press, 1952), p. 311.

7. 2 Cor. 11:32.

8. Camden M. Cobern, The New Archaeological Discoveries, New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1917), p. 369.

9. Merrill F. Unger, Archaeology and the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970), p. 331.

10. Op. Cit., Cobern, p. 30.

11. A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), p. 30.

12. Op. Cit., Unger, p. 335.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 42, pp. 11-13
August 31, 1972

By Ron Halbrook

In five years of school teaching, the first topic of study I have presented to every history class is “The Divine Rule of the Universe.” This rule includes His appointment of and power over civil government. “The most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will” — even “the times” and “the bounds” of nations are in his Hand! 1

While Christians might seek to be His providential instruments by some participation in government, we must be cautious in assuming He is for or against some particular ruler, law, or plan. “How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!” His thoughts and ways are often far different from ours.2 Thus, brother Franklin wrote in 1856,

Jesus and his apostles … never attempted to correct the political institutions of the country, no matter how corrupt they were . . . When acting as a citizen of the civil government, be candid, quiet, peaceable, and kind, and do just what you think right, allowing every man the same privilege, as Christ has left us all free here, and leave the event with God. 3

God has been invoked as a sponsor on both sides of every political issue: (1) Patrick Henry spoke of “God” arming the colonies to revolt “in the holy cause of liberty,” but many an Anglican pulpit thundered with Gods condemnation on the rebels; 4 (2) since the Constitution recognized slavery, William Garrison called it “an agreement with hell,” while others defended slavery as “commanded by God;”5 (3) Henry Clay and others were sure that tariff laws were necessary to fulfill the “design” and “the order of Providence ” to sustain both “the wealth and morals of the community,” while “the gentleman from South Carolina,” Robert Hayne, was sure that “natures God” had the opposite plan in mind. 6 (4) Southerners like “Rev.” W. T. Hall of Miss. thought the South was compelled to fight the Northern invader because “the very authority of Gods word was at issue,” 7 yet Julia Ward Howe wrote a song to inspire the marching “invader,” in which she saw in him “the glory of the coming of the Lord … Our God is marching on;” 8 (5) the womans vote movement was seen as “the spirit of infidel reform … in … contempt of the providence of God,” but as an example of the ameliorating influence of Gods Word by others; 9 (6) the gold or silver standard issue, social integration issues, and a host of others could be cited.

Now we must add (7) those who have mobilized churches to support the Prayer Amendment, as though it was unquestionably Gods legislation, and those who indicate that to be truly “spiritual,” each Christian had “better get with the letter writing” against the Amendment. To express ones opinion on the Amendment is one thing. To assert that spirituality depends on accepting this opinion, that there is something appalling about Christians not accepting it, or that all “concerned Christians” will accept it, is something else! Brethren Wallace Little and Lyn Trapp might well have observed this important distinction when expressing their opinions on such politically-related matters. We are glad to consider their recent articles.10 Yet, we beg to differ without implying someone else is spiritually anemic or even lacking in concern for Americas freedoms.

1. The brethren say it is foolish to press “for the right of prayer in public school ” because the courts ruled against only “those . . . sponsored by public officials.”

The Supreme Court decision put many educators on notice that there was a trend in power circles to honor atheistic whims (remember who brought the case!); thus, schools did away with prayer and Bible reading in many places, as a precaution against further legal action.

Educators fears were justified and the courts went further than our brethren realize, as Rep. Wylie (Amendment sponsor) points out. “The ludicrous extreme to which the courts have arrived is exemplified by the Netcong case which said students could not meet in a gymnasium before school” for public prayer.11

The Amendment would remove this intimidation, doom future legal efforts of such nature, and simply restore a practice which was Constitutional for 171 years! In fact, Rep. Wylie is willing to let the Amendment die if his near-win influences “the lower courts and school officials (to) permit voluntary prayer in public schools … then the problem will have been resolved.” 12

2. Our brethren see a Catholic plot in the effort of ” Citizens for Public Prayer, a Roman Catholic front group led … by Roman Catholic priest, Robert H. Howes.” 13 The long-range plan is for Catholics to define what prayers will be allowed.

This writer knows Catholicism tries to manipulate our government for its advantage. But the evidence is lacking in this case. Catholicism evidently sees no advantage to itself in this. Rep. Drinan of Mass. voted against the Amendment. Why? “I am following the counsel and policy laid down by the U.S. Catholic Conference. I am abiding by their wisdom. Thats the whole explanation.” 13 The U.S.C.C. includes all Catholic bishops in the country I Catholicism thus flexed its tremendous muscle to defeat the Amendment. “Ill give you one guess as to which religion swings enough political clout to have the deciding voice” on whether the Prayer Amendment succeeds or fails.

3. The long-range plot is to succeed by interpreting “any public building which is supported in whole or in part through … public funds” to include “church buildings provided police or fire protection.” Then, Catholics in office will define what prayers are to be allowed-or required (?), a distinction overlooked by our brethren-in church buildings. Our brethren ask if we are ready to be told what prayers are allowed “within the four walls of your building.”

Government control based on a concept of subsidized buildings is feared. A stretching, yea twisting, of the concept of a “public building” and the intent of the law – – which can happen only by a lack of respect for the law in those who govern — is seen on the horizon. Without respect for the law, the provisions of our Constitution are nothing but “parchment barriers.” 14 Historically, unprincipled men in office always have been able to get around such provisions. Besides, politics, often called “the art of the possible,” is much more a creature of expediency than of principle.

Hitler declared a state of national emergency under Article 48 of the German Constitution, which gave him dictatorial power under such conditions — only the emergency never ended! Political activists in high offices have brought social, and even political, change by fiat. John Kennedy viewed our Constitution as outdated and thus unreliable for the 20th century; 15 Is the Supreme Court has been “using the Constitution to bring the nation to . . . practice which the Court thinks to be the ideal” rather than faithfully interpreting it. 16 Such leaders will do what they wish as far as their power permits when they lack respect for the law. They do riot need a lawful statement on paper and they will not be stopped by one.

All of which leads to this. The Supreme Court has already ruled that “it is hardly lack of due process of law for the government to regulate that which it subsidizes.” 17 Thus, the courts could control churches right now by merely defining churches as public buildings, in that they are subsidized (in the stretched sense-fire protection, etc. 1. The rationalization is already there. In fact, it is there with or without the subsidized building concept (and certainly with or without the Amendment!). The interstate commerce clause with the elastic clause can be made to mean nearly anything by political activists. These powers coupled with the general welfare clause would be amply sufficient to do all Brother Little fears.

Only the myriad checks on, and division of, powers instituted by our Founding Fathers, and the gracious providence of God, continues to protect us. The Prayer Amendment would not likely increase the dangers discussed, for it prohibits government interference with a specific, individual participation in prayer in public places. Yet~ it could be twisted, like any law, by unscrupulous men.

4. The brethren fear “nondenominational prayer” will be defined by Catholics. The definition will first come by local officials and educators. Only if some such decision is challenged would federal courts, and finally the Supreme Court, be involved. When this happened (and when is important–compare the 50s to the new Court), many factors and pressures would enter in, and it is correct to fear Catholic pressure. Too, we need to know a greater power enters into such matters providentially.

It is important to remember that the Amendment attempts to add nothing new, but only to restore a general freedom of practice, according to local and personal desires, which was understood to be Constitutional for 171 years in our schools.

5. “Lawfully assembled” is said to be “redundant” and “carries certain ominous overtones.” “How else would anyone assemble? This is part of the conspiracy seen; no group would use prayer and songs in connection with riots and looting; so, why the terms lawfully assembled if not to conspire and trick? “

Those who have lived where religious activities have indeed been used as a pretext and cover for defiant marches, immorality, riots, and worse can well appreciate the wisdom of “lawfully assembled”! An amendment guaranteeing the right of prayer in any public place would seem to give lawful defense to an assembly in the middle of a Chicago freeway, in the view of certain groups and liberal judges.

6. Gaston Gogdell, Director of the Organization for Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, is quoted as saying the Amendment makes “public Schools” agencies for teaching “state religion.” It thus implies tax support for parochial schools.

Again, we point out the Amendment is designed to restore an understanding of the Constitution which went practically unchallenged for 171 years. Any other use that might be made would come by twisting. And the twisters will find something to twist, when their time and power is right, with or without the Prayer Amendment. The amendment returns us to what we had before the courts began their recent trend-which did not include state religion or tax funds for parochial schools.

In conclusion, God does not teach sinners to pray for remission of sins. But, He blesses rulers (and their nations) who recognize Him as their Superior and who implore His aid. 18 Until a stronger case of cause (Prayer Amendment) and effect loss of freedom to worship) is shown, I do not intend to write any letters objecting to the proposed Amendment; this does not imply any lack of spirituality in those who disagree.

Our schools and governments, at all levels, need leaders such as Benjamin Franklin, who spoke to that brave band gathered in Constitutional Convention concerning Divine Providence and the need of prayer. Their work was about to end in futility after a month of haggling; Franklins appeal changed the whole mood of the Convention, and we are all indebted to him for the results. May we ever live in an atmosphere where such requests as he made can be honored in all sorts of public gatherings:

“In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of Lights to illumine our understanding? … To . . . kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance?

“I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth-that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His Notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? ….

“I, therefore, beg leave to move that, henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this assembly every morning we proceed to business. . .” 19

Footnotes

1. Dan. 4:17; Acts 17:26

2. Rom. 11:33; Isa. 55:8-9

3. David E. Harrell, Jr., Quest for a Christian America, Vol. 1 (1966), p. 58.

4. T. A. Bailey (ed.), The American Spirit, Vol. I (1903 1. pp. 97, 116; American Loyalists warned a Catholic take-over would follow in the wake of Americas alliance with France and implied that every lover of religious freedom would oppose the alliance, p. 115.

5. Fremont P. Wirth, The Development of America (1956), pp. 349-351.

6. Calvin Colton, The Life & Times of Henry Clay, Vol. 11 (1846), pp. 138-332.

7. Richard M. Weaver, The Southern Tradition at Bay (1971), p. 208.

8. H. A. Bruce, Woman In the Making of America (1926), pp. 214-216.

9. Richard M. Weaver, Ibid., p. 145 footnote.

10. Gospel Guardian (Jan. 20, 72), p. 7; Preceptor (Jan. 72), p. 9; Truth (Feb. 24 &May 11, 72) pp. 8 & 10; Searching the Scriptures (May, 72), p. 1.

11. Human Events wspaper (Dec. 4 7 1), p. 6.

12. Ibid.

13. Ibid.

14. James Madison in No. 48 of The Federalist Papers.

15. David Lawrence, “Downgrading the Constitution,” U.S. News & World (Dec. 17, 62), p. 104

16. “How Supreme Court Is Changing U.S.,” Ibid. (Jan. 18, 65), p. 58

17. Majority decision written by Justice R. H. Jackson in Agricultural Adjustment Act Case of 1942.

18. Prov. 14:34; 16:12; Ecc. 10:16-17; Dan. 4:34-37; 6:25-26; Rom. 13:1-7.

19. Benjamin Weiss, God in American History (1966), pp. 36-39.

 

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 42, pp. 7-10
August 31, 1972