Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

From the time of the Garden of Eden until now, a great battle has been raging between God and Satan for the souls of men. God has his people, Satan has his people, and there is no middle ground (Matt. 12:30). Each of us is in this battle on one side or the other. God calls on us to take a stand for truth and right, and to fight to the end. 

Ephesians 6:10-18 describes this spiritual warfare and teaches us we must arm ourselves with the Word of God to win the victory. “Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore.” If we take our stand for God’s truth and stand with that truth in the battle, we will finally stand in victory. 2 Timothy 4:1-8 is a stirring call from an old soldier of the cross about to lay down his life as he urges a younger preacher to faithfully proclaim God’s Word. Paul said, “I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith.” Let us consider some steps and stages in that great warfare for the hearts, minds, and souls of people.

1. We Must Obey the Gospel. When we obey the gospel of Christ, God removes us from Satan’s army and enrolls us in his own. We must know that we are lost in our sins and that God gave his Son as the perfect sacrifice for sin. This genuine faith in Christ includes repentance and water baptism, i.e., a spiritual birth resulting from the power of the gospel as revealed by the Spirit of God (John 3:3-5, 16). When we come to God by faith, repentance, and baptism, the blood of Christ washes away our sins (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16). Thus we pass from spiritual darkness to light, from death to life.

2. We Must Rise to Walk in Newness of Life. To be “baptized into Jesus Christ” is no mere ritual but means to be “buried with him by baptism” into his death. We are saved by his blood when baptized; then, just as he arose, “even so we also should walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:3-4, 21-23). The rest of our lives are spent serving God and truth, not Satan and sin. 

Sprinkling is not Bible baptism because the burial is missing. Imagine burying a dead man by sprinkling a little dust on him! Denominationalism teaches that men are saved and then baptized, but that means a man  is already alive unto God when buried in the water. To bury a live man is to kill him. That cannot be the picture of Bible baptism!

3. We Must Draw Close to God Each Day. The battle for souls puts us in a spiritual relationship with God or Satan. Each day we fill our hearts with God’s will or Satan’s will by listening to God’s Word or to the sinful world. Satan’s servants delight “in the counsel of the ungodly, . . . in the way of sinners, (and) . . . in the seat of the scornful.” God’s servant delights “in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night” (Ps. 1:1-2). We pay daily homage to God by prayer and worship, or to Satan by worldly, sinful, ungodly talk. David said, “I will call upon God. . . . Evening, and morning, and at noon, will I pray, and cry aloud: and he shall hear my voice” (Ps. 55:16-17).

4. We Must Take God’s Word as the Final Authority. God told Noah exactly how to build the ark. Noah respected God’s Word as final: “Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he” (Gen. 6:22). God gave Moses “the pattern of the tabernacle” and told him to make all things according to that pattern (Exod. 25:8-9). When Naaman accepted God’s instruction “and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God,” his leprosy was healed (2 Kings 5).

We today must respect God’s Word as the final authority. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11). We must speak where the Bible speaks, be silent where it is silent, call Bible things by Bible names, and do Bible things in Bible ways. God’s Word is the only authority, not preachers, friends, or the majority. 

5. We Must Be Members of the Church of Christ. Jesus promised, “I will build my church,” only one church, his own  (Matt. 16:18). All who obey the gospel are added to it by God himself (Acts 2:47). “Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body” (Eph. 5:23). If Christ is to be our Head and Savior, we must obey the gospel and be added to his spiritual body, the church. He teaches his people to meet in each community to worship him and to spread the gospel. These local assemblies are called “churches of Christ” because they belong to him (Rom. 16:16). Each follower of Christ wears his name and no other: “The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch” (Acts 11:27).

The church of Christ is not a modern denomination but is the church we read about in the Bible. This church is scriptural in origin, name, doctrine, and practice, but denominational bodies are not. Christ did not authorize such names as Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, Jehovah’s Witness, or Mormon. He authorized singing in worship but not instrumental music (Eph. 5:19). Women are not to exercise “authority over the man” in the church by preaching, by leading prayers and songs, or in any other way (1 Tim. 2:12). Such things occur in churches made by men, not in Christ’s true church.

6. We Must Resist Every Step of Apostasy. Apostasy means departure from the truth, which God warned would come when “grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them” (1 Tim. 4:1; Acts 20:28-29). Many steps of apostasy taken after the Apostles died ultimately produced Roman Catholicism with its many false doctrines and practices. The Protestant Reformation repudiated many of these errors but retained others. 

Those who restored the original gospel and church of Christ have suffered new cycles of apostasy. God’s people often have fallen back into the errors out of which we have come, like “the dog . . . turned to his own vomit again” (2 Pet. 2:22). Brethren have perverted the worship with instrumental music, entertaining quartets, and chorus performances. Some have accepted premillennial error. Others have embraced church support of human institutions (missionary societies, colleges, camps, child care agencies, retirement centers, etc.). Some churches now sponsor social meals, build kitchens, and organize ball teams. We must be reminded the church is not a social welfare institution or a recreational club (1 Cor. 11:34; 1 Tim. 5:16). Dangerous trends now developing include divorce-remarriage error, the influence of sectarian and liberal concepts, loose ideas on grace and unity, the positive-mental-attitude philosophy (avoid controversy, debate, calling names), misusing Romans 14 to promote unity-in-doctrinal-diversity, and the demand for softer preaching in general.

7. We Must Keep Unspotted from the World. “Pure religion” requires each Christian to “keep himself unspotted from the world. . . . Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God” (Jas. 1:27; 4:4). Souls will be lost when worldliness enters the hearts and lives of Christians. This danger comes when we are more interested in material than spiritual things. Worldliness comes through sexual immorality, social drinking, profanity, dancing, gambling (yes, including the lottery), and immodest dress (shorts, short skirts, swim suits, tank and tube tops, tight clothes, etc. in mixed company).

8. We Must Love God and Our Fellowman. All God teaches us hinges on loving God first and then “thy neighbor as thyself” (Matt. 22:37-40). Love for God involves obeying his commands no matter what the cost. Love for our neighbor means seeking his true welfare. “Love worketh no ill to his neighbor” (Rom. 13:9-10). By teaching people the gospel in its purity and simplicity, we show the greatest love that can be shown. That is why Christ commanded, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:16; 1 Tim. 4:1). 

3505 Horse Run Ct., Shepherdsville, Kentucky 40165-6954

By Jim McDonald

Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the wicked, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of scoffers, but his delight is in the law of Jehovah; and on his law doth he meditate day and night.

The first Psalm is without a heading, assigned to no author, therefore its human authorship is uncertain. We accept all 150 psalms as the inspired work of the Spirit, but the human instrument through whom he moved is not known in that Psalm. David is author of about half of the psalms and at least five other men are named: Asaph, Moses, Solomon, Teman, and Heman. Since several of the Psalms are ­without a heading, they could have been written by any of these men or by some other of whom we know nothing. The first is a sort of ­introduction to the whole book, a collection of psalms that had been in writing for at least 500 years.

The blessed (happy) man is the subject of this Psalm. He is viewed from two perspectives: negative and positive. He is blessed because, of what he is not and on the other hand of what he is. Such a perspective should not be surprising for every balanced life is composed of these two elements. Could it be otherwise?

The words of a song of yesterday go like this: “Accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative and don’t mess with Mr. In Between.” Such a philosophy would make a battery useless. Both negative and positive posts are necessary for the car to function. Such a philosophy. equally renders useless the life of a Christian. Trials are those things­ which bring out sturdiness in us and sharpen our resolve to do right. No child can properly develop without both negative and positive instructions from his parents. Parents cannot say “Yes” all the time any more than they can say “No.” Both things are needful to a child’s proper training and development.

The Ten Commandments illustrated the necessities of “do’s” and “don’ts” in the life of the ancient Israelite. The New Testament reveals that the noble Christian must also have these two qualities. We must deny ungodliness and worldly lusts (negative); we must live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world (positive) (Tit. 2:11). Pure religion is to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction (positive) and keep oneself unspotted from the world (negative) (Jas. 1:27). Read also Romans 12:1f.

The blessed man is blessed because of what he does not do. He does not:

1. Walk in the counsel of the wicked;
2. Stand in the way of sinners;
3. Sit in the seat of scoffers.

These three things show sin’s progressive nature. Paul wrote: “Evil men and impostors shall wax worse and worse” (2 Tim. 3 :13). James said: “Each man is tempted when he is drawn away by his own lust and enticed and the lust when it hath conceived beareth sin, and sin, when it is full grown bringeth forth death” (Jas. 1:13f).

On the other hand, the blessed man is blessed because of what he does. “His delight is in the law of Jehovah and on this law doth he meditate day and night.” This passage reflects an attitude of love and respect. The blessed man loves the Scriptures. He loves them because:

1. Of their origin. He believes they are the sole oral revelation the Creator of this world has made to mankind.

2. Of their worth. They are “Sweeter than honey and the droppings of the honeycomb” (Ps.19).

Need it be observed that any one who loves the Scriptures will be obedient to them? The blessed man is an obedient one. “Blessed are they that do his commandments that they may have a right to the tree of life and enter by the gates into they city” (Rev. 22:14).

From The Gospel Teacher, Lufkin, Texas

By Mike Willis

Those who reject a universal flood make several arguments that one needs to be aware of, even if he cannot adequately answer them. Only two of the arguments against a universal flood that I have read are biblical arguments. These need to be addressed biblically. The other arguments are based on the present understanding of science. I emphasize the word “present,” because one has to accept the changing nature of scientific pronouncements. (How many things have you been told not to eat because they cause cancer and then later be told that you can eat them?) In some of these areas, we freely confess that our understanding is not adequate to explain the questions asked. In such cases, we may suggest possible answers, but where the text does not reveal the answer we can only state that they have not been revealed (Deut. 29:29).

Arguments Against A Universal Flood

Universal language is frequently used even when a universal event is not intended. There is truth in this statement. The Scripture sometimes does use universal language when less than universal events happen. Some examples of this are as follows:

Matthew 3:5 — “Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan.”
Acts 2:5 — “And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.”
1 Samuel 31:6 — “So Saul died, and his three sons, and his armour- bearer, and all his men, that same day together.”
Genesis 41:57 — “And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands.”

In the various uses of such universal language as “all Judaea,” “all the region round about Jordan,” “every nation under heaven,” and “all his men,” one must allow the context to define its meaning. What is the context of Genesis 6-8? Is its context defined as a limited area? The flood was a moral judgment upon the wickedness of all men upon the earth. The evidences cited in article #2 are definitive in determining the sense of the universal language in Genesis 6-8. We remind you of those arguments:

• The judgment was universal. 
• The language describing the judgment is universal. 
• The language describing the flood of water demands a universal flood.
• The need for an ark demands a universal flood. 
• The size of the ark demands a universal flood. 
• The covenant of the rainbow demands a universal flood.

These contextual evidences demand that the universal language of the text bear its normal meaning and not be limited in the absence of any contextual reasons for doing so. The only reason for limiting the meaning of this universal language is the interpretation given to extra-biblical evidence.

The universal language of Genesis 6-9 is subjectively true. This is but a modification of the former argument. It is argued in detail by Taylor Lewis, the translator of John Peter Lange’s commentary on Genesis,  in Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (314-322). Lewis says that the Genesis record “is a telling from the eye, and it speaks of the soul’s eye of the thoughtful reader, giving the impression of an actual spectacle. . . . it is water everywhere as far as eye can see. . . . This is what he saw, and this is all that the interpreter can get from his language. What he may have thought, we know not. He may have supposed the flood to be universal. Probably he did so; then his universality must have been a very different thing (in conception) from the notion that our modern knowledge would connect with the term” (316).

The response to this argument is this: There is not one word recorded in the Genesis narrative that is attributed to Noah. Not one word expresses what he thought the flood looked like or how extensive it was. The subjective element is not a part of the narrative. What is in the narrative is “God said. . . .” 

The strength of both of these two arguments is that they try to grapple with the plain meaning of the language of Scripture. Both arguments are made by those who believe the Bible and are struggling to understand what the text of Scripture means. The following arguments against a universal flood do not argue from what Scripture says.

The Genesis account is legend or myth. Hermann Gunkel expressed this view saying, “The ‘Apologetic’ perspective is wont to consider, pettily enough, only the question of whether the narrative is a ‘true story.’ This cannot be seriously discussed. Rather the narrative in J (and P) is clearly a legend” (Genesis 77). Skinner rejects the idea of the flood being historical and thinks that “the most natural explanation of the Babylonian narrative is after all that it is based on the vague reminiscence of some memorable or devastating flood in the Euphrates valley” (181). The aim of the biblical writer was to “bring the cosmopolitan (Babylonian) Flood-legend within the comprehension of a native of Palestine” (149). In The Interpreter’s Bible, Walter Russell Bowie states, “A universal flood such as J2 describes, to say nothing of P’s account, would of course be a physical impossibility” (I:537). All who take this position affirm that the clear meaning of the text of Genesis is that it describes a universal flood, but they just do not believe that is so. To believe that such could happen conflicts with their views of science, so they reject the Bible.  Another group of arguments are made attacking the universal flood view on the basis of what the writers conjecture to be impossibilities demanded by the universal flood interpretation.

The ark is not big enough to hold all of the animals in the world. Some argue that there are so many different kinds of animals in existence that it is unreasonable to believe that all of them were able to be placed on the ark. Huge numbers of animals are assumed to be required to be in the ark. If scientists can identify 210,000 different birds, then some assume that two of each had to be placed in the ark. In point of fact, the narrative states that two of every “kind” (min) of unclean animal and seven of every “kind” (min) of clean animal went into the ark. The animals were grouped according to their “families” (mispahah). This would not demand two of every species but two of each family (genus) of animals. 

Strangely enough, those who see that the ark is not big enough to house all of the animals in the world, have all of the animals in the world evolving from a one-celled amoeba that resulted from some chance collision of molecules. If they can get all of the animal creation in an amoeba in a swamp, they shouldn’t have trouble accepting that all of the animal creation necessary for the production for animal life could be housed in an ark.

Noah could not have collected all of the animals. Some argue that Noah could never have collected all of the animals on the ark. Such writers usually refer to some particular animal in an isolated part of the globe with a specialized habitat which Noah certainly could not have collected. What the text of the Scriptures says is that God caused the animals to come to Noah. “Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive” (6:20). “And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life” (7:15). Noah was not responsible for capturing the beasts, for God brought them to him. How they came to Noah is not revealed.

Arguments are made on the basis of suppositions not even believed by modern geologists to make this an impossible task. The present appearance of the land masses is assumed, despite the belief of modern geologists that continental rifts have occurred at sometime in the past. Modern temperatures and climate conditions are assumed, even though geologists postulate an ice age that covered many parts of the world. Although these scientists do not believe the world that now is looked like it presently does in the past, nevertheless they demand that those who believe in the Genesis flood explain how the ark was filled based on a model that they themselves reject and is not necessary to the correct understanding of Genesis.

How could the animals return to their natural habitat? This argument asks how, for example, animals exclusively native to Australia got back to Australia after the flood. This is the reverse of the previous argument. The argument is just as valid to the evolutionist as it is to the one who believes in the flood. How did that original spark of life produce animals? How did the descendants of those animals who somehow survived the ice age get to Australia? There are thousands of questions that no one knows the answer to, whether one begins with the premises of the biblical flood or the late twentieth century version of evolution. 

Noah could not have gathered the food necessary to sustain the animals. The feeding of the animals on the ark was indeed a problem for Noah. He was responsible for supplying food for the animals. “And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them” (6:21). Scientists pose questions about feeding carnivorous animals, keeping them separated from the other animals on the ark, providing specialized diets for animals, and similar problems. Such questions presuppose that every known species of animal was present on the ark, every animal known to ever have existed have its present specialized diet, every animal ate such a ration of food as it would eat in an active environment (versus hibernation, for example), and such like things. The Bible simply does not supply the answers to these questions for us and any answer one might give would be mere speculation.

The clouds do not contain enough water for a deluge of the proportions of Genesis 6-8. (For this argument, see Ramm, The Christian View of Science 165ff.) The sources of water for the flood were the “fountains of the deep” and the “windows of heaven” (7:11). This argument strikes at the heart of inspiration. The same Bible that describes the flood as covering the whole world also describes the world at creation as being totally under water. On the third day of creation, God created the dry land (1:9). Before then, the entire world was under water. If there was enough water to cover the earth in Genesis 1, there was enough to cover it in Genesis 6. Those who disbelieve in one account are likely to disbelieve the other. 

The argument also presupposes that the present geological condition of the earth is the same as existed in Noah’s time. Mt. Everest is presently over 29,000 feet above sea level. Such arguments assume that was the case when the flood occurred. However, these same geologists tell us that mountains were created by continental plates placing such pressure that they thrust the ground upward to create a mountain. If that could happen in the geology based on evolution, why couldn’t that happen after the flood? How does one know how high was the highest mountain before the flood? How does one know the position of the continents before the flood and after the flood? What effect did the flood have on geology? No one has the answers to these questions, although many hypotheses are presented. Yet arguments based on unprovable presuppositions are used to deny the testimony of Scripture.

Conclusion

I have tried to avoid speculation about things not revealed in answer to the objections to a universal flood. The reader will have to judge how successful I have been. There are questions related to the flood that God chose  not to reveal to mankind. I am content not to speculate on what I do not know. Let one also acknowledge that there are greater problems for those who reject the biblical narrative. The one who rejects creation and the biblical narrative of the flood has his own problems. He also must explain how animals came into existence in the various parts of the world, isolated and remote as some of those areas are. He must explain how such animals survived a continental ice-age. He must explain continental drift, the mountains, inconsistencies in the fossil record, and such like questions. But must of all, he must explain how life came into existence in the first place. He must explain the “big bang”! The problems that one who believes in the universal flood has pale in comparison to such major problems of the unbeliever!

And there also are problems for the compromising person who accepts “progressive creation” and a “local flood.” His problems come because he is trying to hold to two models at the same time. His most serious problems come because he rejects the plain meaning of Scripture, making his exegesis of Scripture look forced and artificial, like the premillennialist who can transform hailstone, fire and sulphur into atomic bombs (Ezek. 38). Such a person believes that “though newer interpretations of the biblical narrative did not seem to be ‘the most natural meaning,’ yet if geological facts ‘unequivocally require such an interpretation to harmonize the Bible with nature,’ then ‘science must be allowed to modify our exegesis of Scripture’” (Davis A. Young, The Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Church’s Response to Extrabiblical Evidence 146). The compromiser is neither a Bible believer nor accepted by scientists. His naturalist scientific model is destroyed by his injection of the supernatural, whether by a little or a lot. 

Let us accept the authority of Scripture knowing that “the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple” (Ps. 19:7).

6567 Kings Ct., Avon, IN 46123, mikewillis1@compuserve

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice (Phil. 1:18).

Proper attitudes are so important in our dealings with other folks. Right motives are essential to our pleasing God. Brethren have been justly criticized at times for their attitudes and motives — including myself. A few speakers (and writers) among us have seemed to be more interested in making points with brethren by skinning the opposition alive than by trying to reach them with truth — as though being confident of the truth gives one the license to be rude, crude, and down right obnoxious. This by no means is intended to indict all those great men of the past (or present) who obviously have preached and defended the truth in love.

As is so often the case, we tend to swing from one extreme to the other. I am beginning to detect a dangerous preoccupation with attitudes and motives — especially among some younger brethren. Whereas, at times, it seemed that it mattered little how or why one preached, just so what he preached was the truth — it seems that many are more concerned now with how and why one presents a lesson than what is taught and practiced. I even heard one preacher state in a prayer that love is more important than being right!

It is not uncommon for such brethren to scathingly criticize and even turn away from brethren, admitting that what they teach and practice is the truth but they don’t like their attitudes. And at the same time lavishly praising and even embracing others, who admittedly teach questionable doctrines, because they think these have a better attitude than the others. So, when controversy arises (as it inevitably will) these attitude watchers will base where they will stand upon who has the best attitude and disposition — rather than the merit of the positions taken by the disputants. We need to remember that no side on any religious question has a monopoly on any attitude — good or bad! You will find hate, envy, strife, and general ugliness among the advocates of every position known. You will find kindness, love, peacefulness, and general sweetness among all. You will find all of these in all churches and among those of every religious persuasion known to man. Am I defending the improper attitudes among those who agree with me on doctrinal matters? No, a thousand times no! If we “preach Christ from selfish ambition, nor sincerely” or “from envy and strife” without love — we will have to answer to God for such ungodly attitudes and motives!

Yet, if one hears and obeys the truth taught in an improper spirit and from an improper motive — it will save him. The teacher may be lost for his attitude – but the hearer will be saved if he obeys that truth from the heart. If one hears and obeys a lie taught in a proper spirit and from a sincere motive — it will condemn him just as much as it would if it had been preached to him by one with an ungodly attitude. A preacher may have the best “way about him” in the world, but if he keeps from me some vital truth that I need to know his “way about him” will not save me — but the truth that was withheld would have!

If one works and worships in a congregation that practices the truth (i.e., what is done is scriptural), thus joining in that work and worship, he can be right even if some of the others do it from an improper spirit and motive. However, if one works and worships in a congregation that, as a congregation, practices error — thus joining in that unscriptural worship and work — he is still worshiping and working in vain even if every member there is sincere, concerned, and loving in his attitudes.

If our attitudes are wrong let’s correct them. If we detect wrong attitudes in others try to help them correct them. But, let us not get so obsessed with looking at the attitudes and motives of brethren that we decide the merits of what they advocate based upon these factors. It is a dangerous obsession. It can cause us to miss some vital truth because we didn’t like the way it was said or we didn’t like the personality of the one presenting it. It can cause us to believe a lie because it was presented in such a splendid manner by a personality that you could not help but admire. It can cause one to think that a man’s message cannot be right because  his attitude is bad or that a man’s message must be right because his attitude is good. In fact, the most dangerous person in the world in an advocate of error who lovingly presents his error from an obviously sincere heart — like, Absalom, he steals the hearts of the people blinding them to the true nature what he teaches.

Sure, I had rather a man tell me the truth in a way that impresses me with his concern for my feelings as well as the salvation of my soul. I had rather that he didn’t come across in a harsh and abrasive way. But, if I must chose between him and one that has a smile that would qualify him for a Pepsodent commercial and shows me all the understanding, love, and concern that anyone could possibly show, but keeps the truth from me — I will take the one who tells me the truth every time.

Let us learn to receive the word with all readiness of mind and search the Scriptures to see if it is so (cf. Acts 17:11) and take our stand based upon that, rather than based upon the attitude, either good or bad, of those who teach us. Let us be concerned about attitudes among us but let us not become so preoccupied with them that we make them blind us to either truth or error. Nor let them be the primary factor in deciding where we will attend services regularly. Let us learn to rejoice when the truth is preached — even when attitudes need improvement. If Paul could rejoice that “Christ is preached,” even in pretense, why can’t we?

(Author’s note: This article first appeared in The Reflector in July 1983. What I said then still needs to be said today. If anything the problem has worsened.)

223 First St., Russellville, Alabama 35653