Truth Magazine

By David West

Reflections After Watching A Movie

I’m not big on watching TV and movies, but both my daughters play in the band, and several had recommended “Mr. Holland’s Opus,” a movie about a high school band teacher. I went. In many ways it was a great movie. It takes the viewer though emotional highs and lows, demonstrates the impact a caring involved adult can have on the lives of impressionable young people and shows that the direction we may want to pursue with our lives, may not be the one we finally take, or even ought to take. It also dealt with priorities and some frustrations that often accompany life.

Don’t take this as an recommendation for you to go see the movie. Before you go and spend your time and money, I am warning you that the dialogue contains a half dozen objectionable words.

Jesus made a practice of commenting on the things that went on around him. He used whatever was at hand to teach and illustrate truth and to combat error. Though Christians must continue to live in the world, they must also stay on their guard, critically evaluating what they see and hear lest they be robbed of their prize and taken captive by the vain philosophies of men (Col. 2: 8). We must always be alert to detect Satan’s efforts to sabotage our accurate understanding of life (reality) from God’s viewpoint (2 Cor. 10:4). We must remain alert and sober (1 Thess. 5:4-8).

Several thoughts went through my mind while viewing this movie. Not only would I like to discuss some points that I believe urgently need to be taught, I also want to illustrate how we can develop the habit of analyzing TV, movies, songs, and what we read, so that the Devil will have a much tougher time filling our minds with thoughts which contradict the truths revealed in Scripture. Perhaps we could also use these opportunities to talk with our children after watching a TV program or a movie together (even the “good” ones).

Language

It was milder than is typical in everyday conversation in most schools, workplaces and marketplaces. Yet, because such language is commonplace, it is easy for us to be nonplused by it. When someone tells me that such language doesn’t bother them, I am not relieved to learn of their spiritual strength. I suspect that sin is acting as a narcotic.

I know that if we, as salt, get out of the salt shaker, we will be exposed to sinful behavior, but we must not allow ourselves to be desensitized to the point where hearing such language no longer offends. I’m glad that my reaction to such language is similar to what it is when someone runs their fingernails down the blackboard. May God help me never to resort to such speech (Eph. 4:29; 5:3-4). I also observed that much of the inappropriate language was directed by the teen-aged boy to his father with whom he was angry. He failed to honor his father and treat him with respect (Eph. 6:2, 3). Disrespectful and disobedient behavior toward one’s parents is viewed by God as on a par with murder and adultery (cf. Rom. 1:28-32; 2 Tim. 3:1-5). On the other hand, parents are not to provoke their children to wrath (Eph. 6:4; Col. 3:21).

Homosexuality

I do not think the movie intended to promote homosexuality, but during a visual montage which rolled the clock forward through scenes typical of high school in the late ’60s up to ones in the ’90s, one of the images used to identify the present was two young men holding hands in a romantic walk across campus.

My mind jumped immediately to recent events reported in the news. In the past couple of weeks, TV viewers have been subjected to homosexual marriages on Oprah, Friends, and Roseanne (compare last season’s homosexual marriage on Northern Exposure and a lesbian kiss on Roseanne).

We can develop the habit of analyzing TV, movies, songs, and what we read, so that the Devil will have a much tougher time filling our minds with thoughts which contradict the truths revealed in Scripture. Perhaps we could also use these opportunities to talk with our children after watching a TV program or a movie together (even the “good” ones).

Loving, compassionate, caring homosexuals are regulars on soap operas, situation comedies, and in the movies. I see nothing “entertaining” about it.

The “gays” contend that since we have accepted such in our living rooms, it is now time to legalize it in our courtrooms. It will come as no surprise to anyone with one eye open that the home is under attack from every direction. The very definition of “family” is changing. We are told that family consists of people who live together and love each other.

My little boy watches children’s programming such as Barney & Friends and Hugabug Club on the educational TV channel. Just last week, both shows had songs talking about the vast variety of combinations of people forming families today. They concluded that whatever kind of family each child had, whether Mommy and Daddy live together or far apart, “. . . mine’s just right for me.”

I understand that children need security, the knowledge that they are loved and that if their home is not intact with a married mother and father, it is not their fault. But, to argue that all situations are equally good and whatever kind of family you happen to be a part of is ideal for you, is unbiblical and absurd.

I salute all of those single parents, or grandparents, or foster parents, etc. who are bravely doing their best to make the best of a bad situation. Many seek to provide a safe, nurturing environment for the children in spite of the failings of the adults in their lives (though parents are not always culpable, e.g., when unable to fulfill responsibility due to accident, murder, or disease), but that does not argue that planning it this way from the start is an equally valid choice.

Let me hasten to say that these children’s shows have not yet started including homosexual families in their lists. How-ever, the stage has been set by the redefinition of the family and it is but a short step for it to be a reality. Still it is clear that the home is under assault by the “gay rights” advocates. Recent studies are arguing that things such as homosexuality and uncontrolled anger are not the person’s fault but are the result of genetics. Perhaps genetics help predispose a person to be more vulnerable to one sin more than another, but that does not relieve one of responsibility to overcome temptation or accountability when one doesn’t.

The Bible is clear in its unequivocal condemnation of homosexual behavior. “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with female: it is an abomination” (Lev. 18:22). That means it is perverted, disgusting, and sickening. It is included in a list of many disgusting sins (1 Tim. 1:9-10), the practice of which will exclude one from heaven (1 Cor. 6:9-10). However, there is hope. One can change. He can quit the behavior and can be forgiven. “And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God” (v. 11).

When the apostle Paul discussed the depravity of the Gentile world which refused to retain the knowledge of God, he described how God dealt with it. They perverted the true nature of God into the image of man and various sorts of animals. Whenever people refuse to maintain an appreciation for the difference between the nature of God and the nature of his creation, he gives them up to vile passions and gross immorality best illustrated by confusion over the true nature of the sexual relationship  men with men and women with women. God views such conduct (along with many other perverted activities as worthy of death (Rom. 1:18-32).

Rejection of Hell and/or Heaven

I detected no hint of any kind of religious belief or practice in Mr. Holland’s speech or actions. He was greatly disturbed by the assassination of John Lennon (song writer and former Beatle). His well-known song “Imagine”  a theme song for secular humanism, Marxism, socialism, communism, and perhaps other anti-God/anti-religion, and anti-government philosophies  was played.

Here are its lyrics: “Imagine there’s no Heaven, It’s easy if you try; No Hell below us, Above us only sky. Imagine all the people, Living for today.

“Imagine there’s no countries, It isn’t hard to do, Nothing to kill or die for, And no religion too. Imagine all the people, Living life in peace.

“Imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can? No need for greed or hunger, Only brotherhood of man. Imagine all the people, Sharing all the world.”

Chorus: “You may say I’m a dreamer; But I’m not the only one. I’ll hope someday you’ll join us, And the world will be one.”

A beautiful and catchy melody delivers this popular, yet frightening message. Imagine no Heaven, no Hell, no religion, just living for today! Yes, I would say he’s a dreamer, but the dream is a nightmare.

More people believe in heaven than in hell. Most who believe in heaven believe they are going there regardless of how little thought and preparation they are making for it. Hardly anyone believes he is going to hell. But if the words of Jesus concerning the fact that few would enter the straight gate and the narrow way that leads to life and many will enter the wide gate and broad way leading to destruction (Matt. 7:13-14) and the fact that many are called but few are chosen (Matt. 22:14) mean anything, they must mean that many (most?) will go to hell.

Preaching on hell is becoming increasingly unpopular. Rejection of the concept of torment in hell is becoming increasingly popular, even by those claiming to believe the Bible. Unbelievers reject it; believers ignore it. Just this past week, the newspapers announced that the Anglican churches (Church of England and Episcopal) have decided that hell does not involve conscious torment for eternity. Instead, they have concluded that what hell involves is an-other word for annihilation (following in the footsteps of Jehovah’s Witnesses Seventh-Day Adventists, Armstrongism and other cults?)

Why have they reached this conclusion? Not because of anything they have learned from the Bible but because of the perceived difficulty of reconciling hell with the love of God. To human reasoning it appears that the punishment doesn’t fit the crime. This is especially troublesome when we talk about “good” people who never have become Christians (Ghandi? Mother Teresa?) It looks to us almost like capital punishment for a traffic violation. Some believe God is too good to send anyone to hell; others believe man is too good to be sent there.

As a substitute for eternal conscious torment, two alter-native views are often proposed: universalism (which teaches the ultimate salvation of all men) and conditional immortality (which teaches immortality only for the righteous and destruction for the wicked). If the first were true, there would be no urgency in preaching the gospel and begging men to repent. After all, they will be saved anyway.

The second is the position being taken by the Anglicans. The word used in the New Testament for “destroy” does not carry the meaning of annihilate. See Matthew 9:17 where broken wineskins are destroyed (ruined), Luke 15:4 where sheep are destroyed (lost), and John 6:12 where leftover fragments of a meal are saved so that nothing is lost.

The same word “eternal” that is used to describe the nature of God and to describe the duration of heaven is used to describe the duration of hell. “And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (Matt. 25:46). Both the righteous and the wicked will exist forever, although in different places (see Dan. 12:2).

Hell is a place of eternal torment. Consider just a few references. “Then the king said to the servants, `Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into the outer darkness in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth’ (Matt. 22:13). And if your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:43, 44). “And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away, and Lazarus in his bosom” (Luke 16:19-31; esp. v. 23).

Two passages in the book of Revelation seem to settle this issue (14:10-11; 20:10). “. . . he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.” “And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever” (20:10).

Eternal conscious torment appears clearly taught. No way to deny it. When we make it obligatory for God to save everyone (universalism) or to annihilate the wicked (conditional immortality), we make salvation a matter of justice, not mercy. Yet, the Bible teaches that salvation is the result of God’s mercy.

These theories are not believed so much because the Bible supports them, but because of the difficulty of harmonizing eternal punishment with the justice and love of God. The justice of God requires that everyone receives only what he deserves. Our sins against an eternal God render us eternally guilty and thus unable to pay off even one sin, and our sense of injustice is rooted in our failure to comprehend the seriousness of sin. Have you ever asked someone what he thinks ought to be done to him after he has misbehaved? What is the chance that he is going to propose something as severe as others might propose?

God doesn’t delight in the destruction of the wicked. “Say to them, `As I live!’ declares the Lord God, `I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, 0 house of Israel?”‘ (Ezek. 33:11). He is patient (long suffering), not wanting any to be lost, but all to be saved (2 Pet. 3:9; see Matt.23:37). But, he cannot override our freedom of choice and force us to be with him in heaven when we reject him. If we don’t want him and his will now, what makes us think we would want it then?

We all find comfort in the doctrine of heaven. But, shouldn’t the doctrine of hell be comforting, as well? Look at all the crime, cruelty, and inhumanity that takes place every day in this world. Most of the time the perpetrators go unpunished and justice is thwarted.

But, on Judgment Day, no murderer will go unapprehended or unpunished. No child molester or rapist will escape justice. No one will be able to bribe the Judge or find a slick lawyer to locate a loophole by which to escape. And if our sense of justice conflicts with him, does anyone doubt that he will be unimpressed with our efforts to change his mind?

Did you realize that the eleven references to hell in the Gospels are all from the lips of Jesus. If hell is inconsistent with the kindness and love of Jesus, why is he the main one to talk about it in the New Testament? He spoke more about hell than about heaven. What is the justification for sending Jesus to the cross of Calvary if there is no hell to be rescued from? How great can the grace of God be when we were in no danger to start with? Hell is the foundation upon which the plan of salvation is built.

(b) Imagine there’s no Heaven! I can’t. God has provided a legitimate means of satisfying every desire of man. He has provided food and drink for the thirsty, sleep for the tired, marriage for the sexual desire. Has he left our greatest hunger (to live on forever) without any means of fulfillment? Where is the justice and the reward for those righteous saints of old who sacrificed all, even their lives, for their love of God (Matt. 5:10-12)? Where is that heavenly city to which they were going as strangers and pilgrims (Heb. 11:10-16, 26)? How much better to say with the apostle Paul, “For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith; in the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing. The Lord will deliver me from every evil deed, and will bring me safely to His heavenly kingdom; to Him be the glory forever and ever. Amen” (2 Tim. 4:6-7,18).

John Lennon admitted that one might accuse him of being a dreamer. I do. He hoped one day we would join him. Why would anyone want to join him on a meaningless hope-less journey to nowhere (at least according to his view). I’m reminded of the account of Walter Hooper telling C.S. Lewis of an epitaph engraved on a headstone which read, “Here lies an atheist, all dressed up but with nowhere to go.” Lewis replied, “I bet he wishes that were so.”

In a 1973 bulletin, Ray Hawk tried his hand at song writing when he revised the lyrics of “Imagine” to more closely reflect the truth.

“Imagine there’s a Heaven, It’s easy if you try, A Hell below us, Above us the sky. Imagine all the people, Living for God today.

“Imagine there’s a country, If isn’t hard to do. Nothing to kill or die for, And no false religions too. Imagine all the people, Living life in peace.

“Imagine sharing possessions, I wonder if you can? No need for greed or hunger, We’ll follow God’s plan. Imagine all the people, Sharing all the world.”

Chorus: “You may say I’m a dreamer, But I’m not the only one. I hope someday you’ll join us, And in Christ we’ll be one.”

Avoiding Adultery

The outcome of one scene was highly unusual and unexpected for a movie script and increasingly unusual in the “real” world. One of Mr. Holland’s talented female pupils falls in love with him and invites him to abandon his wife and son and go to New York with her to pursue her singing career. He is sorely tempted and tried by the proposition, but finally rejects the proposition telling her that it is “for the best.” (Some viewers perhaps felt he was foolish or felt sorrow for him having to remain in his mundane life. This is a real danger. Characters are often presented to us in such a way that we are disappointed and feel sorry for them when they choose to do the right thing. We may even feel sorry for ourselves when we make a similar decision.)

No religious or moral reason was given for his failure to make provision for the flesh to fulfill its lusts. There was nothing on the order of “How can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?” (Gen. 39:9). Yet, it was refreshing to see a man refuse to deal treacherously with the wife of his youth or to break up the home he had vowed to pre-serve.

Yet you say, “For what reason?” “Because the Lord has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. But not one has done so who has a remnant of the Spirit. And what did that one do while he was seeking a godly offspring? Take heed then, to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of your youth. `For I hate divorce,’ says the Lord, the God of Israel, `and him who covers his garment with wrong,’ says the Lord of hosts. So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously” (Mal. 2:14-16).

A good wife is a man’s reward in this life (Ecc. 9:9). He is to be satisfied with her all the days of his life (Prov. 5:15-21). To that end, he should make a covenant with his eyes not to look lustfully on another woman (Job 31:1) thus committing adultery in his heart (Matt. 5:27-30).

Mr. Holland’s “Opus” was his relationship with and service to others. He thought that composing a musical masterpiece would be the opus highlighting his life’s work. Instead, it turned out to be all the lives he had changed with his care, concern, and patient teaching. This turned my thoughts to a newspaper column I had written the week before. I reproduce it here:

My Obituary

Mark Twain got up one day and read his obituary in the newspaper. He responded to the newspaper with this well-known quip: “Reports of my demise have been greatly exaggerated.” But, what if you could not only read your obituary ahead of time, but could actually write it?

John Rau, a former bank executive, who is now dean of the Indiana University School of Business, recently wrote an article in The Wall Street Journal on the tenuous nature of success. William Raspberry’s syndicated column which appeared in the Tampa Tribune this week made reference to it. The point in Rau’s article that most intrigued Raspberry was found in his list of recommendations for relaxing tension and reducing fear of falling from “success” in your career. His suggestion? Write your own obituary. (I remember reading of a similar recommendation in Stephen Covey’s Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.)

Should one decide to undertake this project, how would he begin? First, you may not necessarily want to write it as it would appear if you continued on your present track. Instead, you may want to revise it to read as you would have it read if you were on the track you really wanted.

Second, this is not a call to fantasize or to dream impossible (or at least highly improbable) dreams (like winning a $50 million lottery jackpot and marrying a super-model or movie star, etc.). Nor is it even the more humble aspirations of so many young people who see themselves down the road twenty years with “a nice job, a nice family, a nice house and a nice car,” all the while not studying in school, not training for a trade nor doing anything else to put themselves on track to realistically expect to reach these “goals.” Goals require solid plans for achieving them; otherwise they are merely dreams.

Rau is proposing a serious solution to a serious problem. “If you are like most people, you will tear up your first draft because it will be about your accomplishments, successes and positions in organizations. You’ll realize you want it to be about character, doing useful things, being a good partner, an exceptional friend. Put a copy in your locked desk drawer and another in the secret compartment of your briefcase. Read it every morning, and whenever that trapped feeling hits.”

His point? The only way to have the obituary you really want is to start living the way you want to be remembered. This project is not as theoretical or hypothetical as you might think. We are actually writing it all the time. The issue is: “Will it say what we want it to say, or will it reflect a life of missed opportunities and regrets?” I have accepted the challenge. Here is my obituary by me.

“David West passed away yesterday after a full and happy life. A man of limited talent and resources, he made the most of what he had, unselfish and generous, he loved life and he loved people. Family was a top priority with him. He dearly loved his wife Vickie. His faithfulness and devotion lasted as long as they both lived. His dedication also extended to his children: Jenny, Jessica, and Jonathan. Though both, he and they, knew he was far from perfect, they also knew that he tried to set a good example before them and strived never to give them reason to doubt his love for them or his determination to help them be the best they could be.

“His highest priority and greatest love were reserved for Jesus Christ, his Savior and King. He loved to read, study and teach the Bible. He loved to associate with other Christians. He had compassion for the lonely, the hurting, the outcast, and the poor. He was approachable. Others, regardless of age, education, wealth, race or social status saw him as a friend.

“Always pleasant and optimistic he had a smile for everyone. He looked for the best in others and often refreshed them with words of comfort and encouragement. He worked hard to improve his community and to leave the world a better place for those who would come after him. He will be missed.”

So much for the easy part. Now comes the hard work of making it the truth in the daily arena of life. By the way, how will your obituary read? If you don’t like the way it will read, why not revise it today? It’s not too soon to start.

Guardian of Truth XL: 11 p. 18-22
June 6, 1996

By Tiny Tim and Sharon Dunsmore

It was a relatively calm day in my hospital’s NICU (Neonatal Intensive Care Unit). Two other nurses and I were trying to have a conversation amid the customary sounds of ventilators and heart monitors.

I was in mid sentence when the shrill ring of the red emergency phone halted all conversation. “Come fast,” the voice said urgently. “We need a neonatal nurse stat!”

Fear gripped my heart as I ran into the delivery room. Instantly, I knew the situation was critical.

“What’s happening here?” I asked.

“It’s an `oops abortion,’ and now it’s your problem!” responded one of the nurses. For us, an “oops abortion” meant the mother’s due date was miscalculated, and the fetus survived the abortion procedure.

A pediatrician was called to the scene. He ran by me with the fetus (now called a baby) in his hand and yelled in my direction, indicating he wanted me to follow him into the resuscitation room adjoining the delivery room.

I looked into the bed of the warmer as I grabbed equipment. Before my eyes was a baby boy. A very, very tiny baby boy. The doctor and I immediately made an attempt at intubation (inserting a tube down the trachea from the mouth or nose of the infant to the tip of the lungs to ventilate, expand, and oxygenate them). The doctor’s effort at intubation failed, which further traumatized the baby. I glanced at the doctor and hesitantly asked, “Will you attempt intubation again?”

“You’ve got to be kidding,” he replied. “It would be inhumane to attempt to intubate this poor little thing again. This infant will never survive.”

“No, Doctor, I’m not kidding,” I said, “and it’s my job to ask.”

The doctor softened for a moment. “I’m sorry, Sharon. I’m just angry. The mother doesn’t want the inconvenience of a baby, so she comes to the hospital so she can pay some-body to get rid of it  all neat and tidy. Then the whole thing gets messed up when the fetus has the audacity to survive.

“Then everybody takes it seriously, and they call the pediatrician, who’s supposed to fix it or get rid of it.” With anger in his voice, he went on, “Some lawyers will fight for the right to do whatever we want to our bodies, but watch out for what they will do when these abortions aren’t so neat and tidy! A failed homicide  and oops! Then all of a sudden everybody cares, and it’s turned from a `right’ into a `liability’ that someone is blamed for!”

We looked at our pathetic little patient. He was lying in the fetal position in the wrong environment, trying to get air into underdeveloped lungs that couldn’t do the job. In a calmer voice, the doctor said, “Okay, Nurse, I’m going back to the office. Keep him comfortable and let me know when it’s over. I’m sorry about this. Call me if you need me. I know this is a hard one. If it helps, please know it’s tough for me, too.”

Holding His Hand

I watched the doctor retreat and then glanced back at the infant before me. He was gasping for air. “Lord, help!” I prayed.

Almost instinctively, I took the baby’s vitals. His temperature was dangerously low. I pushed the warmer settings as high as they could go. His heart rate was about 180-200 beats per minute. I could count the beats by watching his little chest pulsate.

I settled down a bit and began to focus on this tiny little person. He had no name, so I gave him one. Suddenly, I found myself speaking to the baby. “Tiny Tim, who are you? I am so sorry you weren’t wanted. It’s not your fault.”

I placed my little finger in his hand, and he grasped it. As I watched him closely, I marveled that all the minute parts of a beautiful baby were present and functioning in spite of the onslaught. I touched his toes and discovered he was ticklish! He had a long torso and long legs. I wondered if he would have become a basketball player. Perhaps he would have been a teacher or a doctor.

Emotions swept over me as I thought of my friends who had been waiting and praying for years for a baby to adopt. I spoke aloud once again to the miniature baby. “They would have given you a loving and a happy home. Why would people destroy you before ever considering adoption? Ignorance is not bliss, is it, Tiny Tim?”

Hanging On

Meanwhile, Tim put his thumb into his mouth and sucked. I hoped that gave him comfort. I continued to talk to the baby. “I’m sorry, Tim. There are people who would risk their lives for a whale or an owl before they’d even blink about what just happened to you.”

Tiny Tim gasped, and his little chest heaved as if a truck were sitting on it. I took my stethoscope and listened to his tiny, pounding heart. At the moment it seemed easier to focus on physiology rather than on this baby’s humanity.

He wet. And with that my mind took off again. Here was Tiny Tim with a whole set of kidneys, a bladder, and connecting tubes that functioned with a very complex system of chemistry. His plumbing was all working! I turned the overhead light up and Tim turned from it, in spite of eyelids that were fused together to protect his two precious little eyes. I thought about them. They would never see a sunset, a mother’s smile or the wagging tail of a dog.

I took his temperature again. It was dropping. He was gasping for air and continued to fight for life. I stroked him gently and began to sing:

Jesus loves the little children,

All the children of the world

Red and yellow, black and white,

They are precious in His sight.

Jesus loves the little children of the world.

A nurse walked in. “How’s the mother?” I asked.

“Oh, she’s fine. She’s back in her room resting. The family said they don’t want to see or hear about anything. They said, “just take care of it.”

The nurse retreated with one last glance at the tiny patient. “For such a little person, he’s sure putting up a big fight.

I looked at Tiny Tim and wondered if he was fighting for so hard was life  and I knew he was losing it. He was dying and his family was resting. The words tormented me. Just take care of it! No muss and no fuss.

Then Tiny Tim moved and caught hold of my little finger. I let him hang on. I didn’t want him to die without being touched and cared for. As I saw him struggle to breathe, I said, “It’s okay, Tim. You can let go. You can go back to God.”

His gasping started slowing down, but he still clung to my finger. I stroked the baby ever so slowly and watched him take his last breath.

“Goodbye, Tiny Tim,” I whispered. You did matter to someone.”

Epilogue

A few years later, Sharon Dunsmore became the manager of a psychiatric unit. One day, Kathy, a young, severely depressed woman, came to see Sharon following an unsuccessful suicide attempt.

As Sharon interviewed her, Kathy said she had gone through an abortion three years before, and she was having recurring nightmares. A baby was crying for help and kept calling her name. In her dreams, Kathy searched for the baby, but she could never find him or her.

As Kathy gave the name of the hospital and the names of doctors, a disturbing realization dawned on Sharon. Kathy was Tiny Tim’s mother. Because of hospital regulations, she couldn’t tell her what she knew.

Time passed. Sharon was no longer a nurse or a therapist. Kathy was no longer a psychiatric patient. They ran into each other at a restaurant, where Sharon gently unfolded the story that had been hidden for so long. Tears flowed as she gave Kathy the gift of answers. Her baby was touched and loved by a mother. He was given a name. He didn’t die alone. He was sent back to a loving God.

As the visit neared an end, they held each other and wept. Sharon looked into Kathy’s eyes and saw new strength and calm. There were scars, but she was beginning to heal. The nightmares were being put to rest.

Sharon still lives with the haunting impact of this experience. A choice that was intended to be “no big deal” turned out to be a very big deal for everybody.

Reprinted with permission from the author from Focus on the Family.

Sharon Dunsmore has Tiny Tim’s story available in book For more information, write “Tiny Tim,”

Guardian of Truth XL: 11 p. 16-17
June 6, 1996

 

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

Granville W. Tyler was born September 11, 1908 at Primm Springs, Tennessee. Primm Springs is in Hickman County, about 50 miles southwest of Nashville. He passed from this life on April 13, 1996 at his home in Decatur, Alabama. On April 16, a memorial service was conducted at the meeting place of the Sommerville Road church of Christ in Decatur, with Irvin Himmel, Eugene Britnell, and this writer participating. Charles Littrell conducted the grave side service at the Roselawn Cemetery in Decatur.

Brother Tyler was the oldest of seven children born to James Edward and Mattie Derinda McGahey Tyler. His brother Leonard, now living in Longview, Texas, also be-came a well-known gospel preacher. Brother Tyler’s early education was in one, two, and four-room schools in Hickman County. After his mother’s death, his father married again. Three children were born to that union, making ten children in all.

His mother’s death had a profound effect upon him. It may have had a lot to do with turning his mind heavenward and shaping his character with so much love, compassion, and understanding. He spoke of it often, many times publicly, throughout his life. He could never speak of it without tears welling up in his eyes. In some notes, given to me by his family, he writes:

“In 1924 while at Hunter Hill, near Wrigley, at about 4 o’clock in the morning my mother died. The feeling of despair and anguish that overwhelmed us was indescribable. We, my father and his seven children, I the oldest at fifteen and Geda, the youngest at about two, stood perplexed facing a dismal future. I still cannot understand how we came through those experiences. But somehow we joined our hearts and hands and committed ourselves to the task. We older children resolved that we would look after the baby  Geda  regardless of what happened. All of this  and much more  bound us together with cords of love, compassion and understanding, and that bond remains until this day.”

Shortly after his mother died, brother Tyler went to work at a rock quarry at Wrigley, Tennessee making $1.25 per day. He later moved into the plant as oil boy, then to engineer, in charge of the pumps, turbines, and operation of the big blowing engine for the blast furnace. He writes in his notes: “For a little over two years I continued at this work. My hours at that time were from 6 to 6, twelve hours a day. We were on shift work during this time, two weeks days and two weeks nights. But the salary made it worthwhile  I was making $3.60 for the twelve hour day, which was more than many workers made at that time.”

During this time he worshiped with the church at Lyles, Tennessee. At age 16, he was asked to read the scriptures and lead public prayer for the first time. He then began to participate in the public services of the church, not only at Lyles, but visited neighboring congregations to make talks. During one of several meetings in the area, brother W.B. West, Jr. asked the young brother Tyler to preach at one of the morning services. Brother West then drove brother Tyler to Nashville to meet brother H. Leo Boles to talk about enrolling in David Lipscomb College. With only a gram-mar school education, it was thought that the young man, he was nineteen by now, might enroll as a special student taking Bible, church history, and public speaking. But, brother Boles suggested that he finish high school first and then enroll as a regular student.

His first choice was to attend the high school at Lipscomb, but found it too expensive for his means. Brother West knew of a school in Charleston, Mississippi where boys could go, work on the experimental farm connected with the school, and get their high school education. So, in September of 1929, at age 21, brother Tyler quit his job at Wrigley and enrolled in Tallahatchie Agricultural High School to, in his words, “begin my education and my life’s work as a preacher of the gospel.” He lived in the school dorm and ate in the school cafeteria. The principle of the school, a member of a denomination, learned that brother Tyler wanted to preach. He insisted that brother Tyler have time to study, so he of-ten excused him from work chores on the farm so that he could study. Brother Tyler was given credit toward his school expenses for the time that he spent in study in lieu of farm work. While at the school he filled preaching appointments at several small churches around Charleston. After high school, he went to David Lipscomb and Harding Colleges.

Between David Lipscomb and Harding, he worked for a year (1934) with the Washington Avenue church in Russellville, Alabama. At Harding he met and married his beloved Francis Elliott who preceded him in death by a little less than fourteen months.

He returned to Russellville to work with the church again for four years (1937-1941). He then moved to work with the Central church in McMinnville, Tennessee for two years (1941-1943). While here, he and Francis became the proud parents of their only child, Elliott (June 24, 1942). He then worked with the Red Bank church in Chattanooga, Tennessee for two years (1944-1946); the Washington Avenue church in Russellville, Alabama, again for some over three years (1946-1950); the 77th Street church in Birmingham, Alabama for three years (1950-1953); a church in Pampa, Texas for a year (1954-1955); West Helena, Arkansas for three years (1955-1958). In September of 1958 he moved to work with the Sommerville Road church in Decatur, Alabama where he remained until his death. About twenty years or so ago, he “retired” from the local work at Sommerville Road to devote full time to meeting work, but he remained a member there and helped with the work in various capacities when not away in meetings.

Brother Tyler probably held more meetings than any other man in this century. Brother Eugene Britnell, at the funeral, recalled hearing him say that he had held more than twenty meetings at the Market Street church in Athens, Alabama alone. While he held many meetings all over the country, most of his meetings were in the Southeastern section of the country. There is no way to tell how many churches have used and are still using his popular workbook series.

When the institutional issues arose in the 1950s brother Tyler studied the issues carefully and then took his stand. After taking his stand, he never wavered. Many of his closest friends did not come to the same conclusions as he did. However, virtually all of them still maintained a good friend-ship with him. It would have been hard for anyone not to be friends with one who showed himself so friendly. His stand cost in canceled meetings, but he had to stand by and preach his convictions.

He was well known for his keen mind and quick wit. Often his wit was aimed at those that he loved most. No man ever loved a brother more than he loved his younger brother, S. Leonard Tyler. He loved to argue Bible questions with Leonard. He also loved to make him the object of a joke. One night after Leonard had preached with Granville in the audience, someone asked Granville if he had given Leonard the outline that he had preached. As quick as a flash, Granville replied, “As a matter of fact, I did. But I forgot to tell him that it was supposed to be a series.” Not only will people in this part of the country miss the preaching of brother Tyler, they will miss the hilariously funny stories that he told in many a gathering of friends in private homes about characters that he knew during his younger days in Tennessee. As he told the stories, he would imitate their gestures and speech patterns, making his audience hold their sides with laughter. He and country comedienne, Minnie Pearl, grew up in the same county. They must have breathed the same air and drunk the same water.

However, in his preaching, he was deadly serious. Some-times he would inject a humorous illustration, never for the sake of humor, but to make his point more clear. His sermons were simple, Scripture filled efforts to teach men and women God’s will and urge them to obey it. He could challenge the minds and touch the hearts of people with his lessons as well as any man this writer has ever known. He was keenly aware, and often said so, that he would have to give an account for each sermon that he preached. He also reminded his audiences that they would have to give an account for their response to the things he spoke  if he spoke the truth. He also reminded them often that if he did speak the truth that they would give account for not correcting him.

He touched the lives of so many of us. We will miss him.

Anyone wishing to send a card to his son and daughter-in-law, may send it to Elliott and Kay Tyler, 814 Britwood, Dr. SW, Decatur, AL 35601.

Guardian of Truth XL: 11 p. 14-15
June 6, 1996

By Clinton D. Hamilton

Question: The question for consideration in this column is couched in the following quotation: “In 1 Timothy 2:15, women shall be preserved through the bearing of children. Does that mean women must have children in order to be saved?”

Response: Often the major point in a passage and the limitations of the context are stripped aside so as to permit the focusing on a subordinate issue. We must be careful lest this be the case with this passage. In the context of this passage, the issue is the relation of the woman to man. In verse 9, the women should adorn themselves in orderly clothing with modesty and sobriety, not with plaiting and gold or pearls or costly raiment. Paul continues in verse 10 by stating that it suits women professing godliness “with good works,” di’ ergon agathon. Accordingly, a woman is to learn in silence in all subjection (v. 11). But to teach I do not permit a woman nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence (v. 12). Because Adam was first formed then Eve (v. 13). And Adam was not deceived but the woman being deceived has become the transgressor (v. 14). But she shall be saved through her childbearing, if they remain in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety (v. 15). What has just been presented is a somewhat literal translation of the section (1 Tim. 2:10-15) for the purpose of setting the context for the statement in 2:15. This passage is not at its heart about childbearing, but is about the proper relation of woman to man however this may express itself in behavior.

The woman is to reach her goal by obedience in maintaining the role God assigned to her. It is not to teach the man, nor to exercise dominion over him. Hers is by way of submission. It is by fulfilling this mission as God designed it that she reaches full happiness and true freedom in relation to God (vv. 11-12). After Eve had transgressed, God announced, “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” (Gen. 3:16). This is the mission assigned to woman in the scheme of things in the social order of humankind. Adam called her Eve because she was the mother of all living (Gen. 3:20).

Sothesetai, “she shall be saved,” is future passive indicative third person singular of the verb sozo, “save, deliver, preserve, etc.” It has reference first to the woman in v. 14 (Eve) but in this context also to females who are members of the class of whom Eve was the first. Paul is speaking generally of the class of woman. “In childbearing” comes from dia tes teknogonias. What does this mean? Teknogonia, “bearing children,” appears only in this pas-sage in the NT. It is translated very literally in the KJV. The class of females of whom Eve was one fulfills its purpose among other things in childbearing as God decreed (Gen. 3:16). To younger women Paul gave this instruction: “marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully” (1 Tim. 5:14). These two passages fit well with Genesis 3:16. However, on another occasion, Paul spoke of circumstances in which it may be better for a woman to remain unmarried in order to care for the things of the Lord (1 Cor. 7:26-38). He could not give this advice if it were a condition of being saved eternally that a woman bear children. If she bears children out of wedlock, she commits fornication or adultery both of which are forbidden. It becomes obvious that Paul is speaking of the general role or mission of woman in 1 Timothy 2:15, and not specifically of childbearing as a precondition of salvation from sin and the wrath of God to come.

It should not be overlooked that Paul immediately changes from the singular number to plural in his succeeding statements in the passage under study. The next statement is can meinosin en pistei kai agape kai hagiasm meta sphrosunes, “if they remain in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety.” Ean is a conditional particle that introduces some-thing future and is here used with the subjunctive, as will be presently pointed out (see Thayer 162). Meinosin is aorist active subjunctive of the verb meno, “abide.” There is contemplated the condition of their being characterized by certain qualities of spiritual nature. They must remain in faith, love, and sanctification; these are the issues with respect to the higher sense of “save” that are under consideration. Childbearing is not the means of salvation. The expiatory death of Christ is the means of salvation or deliverance from the guilt of sin and the wrath of God. Those who are acquitted of sin are those who believe; they are people of faith (Rom. 1:16-17) and that person’s faith is reckoned for justification or acquittal (Rom. 4:5; Gen. 15:6). Love is essential to salvation if one is to walk by faith (2 Pet. 1:4-11; 1 John 4:7-8, 16, 19-21). Without sanctification, no one can see God (Heb. 12:14). Women can safely bear children and although this is part of the curse placed on them, they ultimately can be redeemed if they are characterized by faith, love, and sanctification.

To say that childbearing is the means of salvation is to wrest this statement out of context in 1 Timothy 2, and to ignore the context of other Scriptures also. Woman fits into the social fabric of humankind by maintaining the proper relation to man by being in submission and fulfilling the role of childbearing. The latter is painful and difficult. The salvation of men and women alike is through the atoning sacrifice of Christ, and not in procreating or bearing children as the case of the sexes may be. Alford well points out that Christians are saved by fire (1 Cor. 3:15). Dia puros in this verse does not mean that the fire of trial is the means of salvation, any more than dia teknogonias has the sense of the means of salvation in 1 Timothy 2:15. Likewise, neither is di’ ergon agathon, “with good works,” the means of salvation (2:10). All of us may go through severe trials as by fire, but we are saved through Jesus Christ the Lord. Those who would live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution (2 Tim. 3:12). Women may go through childbearing as the general role given to them. But this does not mean that childbearing is essential to salvation. In the normal process and general plan, she is to bear children as part of her mission. There may be circumstances in which she is barren, bearing no children, as was Sarah through no fault of her own. This does not mean that she cannot be saved. One may be basically incapacitated to do good works by accident or disease. This does not mean that the person cannot be saved. One must be careful to exegete, not eisegete the text.

Guardian of Truth XL: 11 p. 12-13
June 6, 1996