January 29, 2012    Volume 8 Number 5

    Sober thinking people fully understand the family, one man, one woman, and offspring, is the foundation of society!  God started the human family in just this manner: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. … and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply…” (Gen. 1:27-28).  The bodies of the male and female are designed for reproduction.  Jesus addressed the natural order of marriage: “… Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh” (Matt. 19:4-5). In these words God has described the family, and from one family comes another!

    The battle has raged for a number of years over just what is a family.  The dictionary gives as the first meaning: “Parents and their children” (College Standard Dictionary, page 479, year 1966).  For many years this was the general meaning and everyone understood it.  However, it is also understood that the word “family” is used other ways, but in this article, as revealed in the Bible, the word family will be used with the meaning: husband (father), wife (mother), and offspring (child, children).  In a larger context it may include grandparents, uncles, aunts, and cousins (etc.). But the bed rock of society is a married man and women and their offspring: the family!

    Homosexual couples do not make a family! Two men, or two women, cannot reproduce with each other; it is against nature, as Paul wrote of some: “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly,…” (Rom. 1:26-27).  Paul is describing the sin of homosexuality!  Two men, or two women, is not the family upon which a sound society may be built!  No offspring can be reproduced between two men, or two women; therefore, other means must be used.  Thus, it is not natural, but against nature!

    There is a move, which has been ongoing for a number of years, to legitimize homosexuality.  First, the effort was to make all of us accept homosexuality as natural. The second effort is to force all people to accept homosexual marriages.  A number of states have passed laws giving the “right of marriage” to homosexual couples.  This effort will not stop until all states have been brought under the “gay banner,” and homosexual couples are made equal to the marriage of one man and one woman.  America needs a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman!  This would remove the subject, of what is a marriage, out of the hands of each state.  Our national leaders need to step up and nail down the “bed rock of society:” marriage, one man and one woman!

    The subject is not just that of two of the same sex; no, sin is never satisfied!  Those who desire to perpetrate the sin of homosexuality upon us, now desire to take children, by adoption, and make them part of their sin!  The result, a child will be raised by a male daddy and a male mommy; or by a female daddy and a female mommy.  Through these efforts sin is multiplied!

    Friends, it must be remembered: “sin is a reproach to any people!” Will the United States of America continue on the road to such a “reproach?” Let your voice be heard!

    — Frank R. Williams

January 22, 2012    Volume 8 Number 4

    Liberals do not like to accept the results of their policies! They believe what they think is right, and cannot be wrong.  Therefore, no matter the present results, the final result will be good for all.  Even more than this, when the same actions produce the same bad results, over and over, liberals just do not believe it is the result of their policies. No, there must be some other reason!  The correct answer is more of the same and the results will get better!  Pro 14:12  “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.”

    It may surprise you to learn, that the teen birth rate was 50% higher in 1957 than it is now. It was reported in the last article, 64.4% of abortions were performed on never-married women in the years 1996. But the increase was in women in their 20′s and 30′s. Nevertheless, each abortion in these cases evidences at least one act of fornication, which is sin!  Abortion is the killing of the unborn child, another sin! John, the apostle wrote: “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4). So why do we as a nation “need” to have abortions? It sure is not a move toward “righteousness!” But, it is the teaching of liberals that sex out of marriage is not sin, and that one is free to engage in sex outside of marriage.  When a child is the result, just abort!  No, liberals will not accept the results of their policies!  They just commit another sin, as they have made “wrong, right and right, wrong.” Their manner of life is nearly as old as time; in the time of the Judges, the police of liberals was: “every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” So it is in America today!

    A report from Washington: “Unmarried mothers gave birth to 4 out of every 10 babies born in the United States in 2007, a share that is increasing rapidly both here and abroad, according to government figures released Wednesday” (May 13, 2009, by Gardiner Harris).  In the same report the following was given: “Before 1970, most unmarried mothers were teenagers. But in recent years the birthrate among unmarried women in their 20s and 30s has soared rising 34 percent since 2002, for example, in women ages 30 to 34. In 2007, women in their 20s had 60 percent of all babies born out of wedlock, teenagers had 23 percent and women 30 and older had 17 percent.” Question, where is the family? Read the following, coming from the same report: “Much of the increase in unmarried births has occurred among parents who are living together but are not married, cohabitation arrangements that tend to be less stable than marriages, studies show.” Yes, this is the result of liberal policies and teachings: “Don’t bind your morals on me!”

    Friends, would you please notice the changes that have taken place in America. Before 1970, most unmarried mothers were teenagers, but that was not the case in 2002. The percent of unmarried mothers soared in women in their 20′s and 30′s!  Then, in women ages 30 to 34, the birth rate rose 34 percent since 2002!  As a nation due to the teachings of liberals, we are becoming quickly a nation of children born outside of marriage! Just for your information, in our nation’s capital, The District of Columbia, had the highest rates of out-of-wedlock births, a rate of 59 percent in 2007.  It sure is not a “city set on a hill” of moral righteousness! Oh, please forgive me; there I go again trying to bind my morals on others! Where is the family?

    The result of the teachings and polices of liberals is the destruction of the family. Friends, this is their aim!  The first assault came in the form of “sexual freedom.”  Women are now planning on having babies without marriage!  They have no desire to marry, no desire of a husband; thus, there is no family as revealed in the Bible.  Just a note, looking at many of the male genre of today, I have some sympathy with these women, but not enough to condone sin!  In the larger context, families of the past have failed to provide a moral base for the family of today!  When America moved away and left behind the one moral standard, the word of God, the results will never get better!

    May we remember: “Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people” (Pro. 14:34).  God’s people must stand up and speak the God’s truth!

                                    — Frank R. Williams

January 15, 2012    Volume 8 Number 3

    Liberals do not like to take the responsibility for the results of their teachings.  Sorry, it is understood that one should not start an article with the word “liberal,” but when the intent is to write about the teachings of liberals; it is necessary to use the word.  Therefore, it is necessary that the word be understood.

    The word “liberal” means: “Characterized by or inclining toward opinions or policies favoring progress or reform, as in politics or religion” (Standard College Dictionary, page 779).  The purpose of these articles is to address opinions and policies in politics.  The discussion will be limited to the moral issues in politics.  No references will be made to any party!  It is the intent to show that the teachings and policies that have been put in place have results.  It is admitted, at the start, that not all changes and reforms are bad; but when addressing the “moral issues” of our nation, generally the results are bad.

    Liberals work from the principle, “people are going to do it anyway.” Parents have been hearing the teenage version of this for years, “Everyone is doing it.” Liberals just use the “adult” version! In the time of the Judges in the Old Testament, when Israel went in and out of oppression; the oppression was the result of: “every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25).  Truly “sin is a reproach to any people;” be it in olden times, or the present time.  The grandparents of today can remember when fornication was looked down upon and regarded as sin. Then, the liberal teaching was heard throughout the land and polices favoring progress and reform took place.  The nation began to change; first in the big cities, then, in the smaller cities; and finally, it reached the country communities. When the cry was heard, “sin is overtaking us;” the reply was, “people are going to do it any way.” Then, a voice could be heard, fornication is sin; it is wrong!  Over the hill came the reply, “Don’t bind your morals on me.”  In these words the nation had reached the question of authority; what is the standard of right and wrong?  The liberals were telling the rest of us, there is no absolute standard!  Yet, every city, big and little, and every country village had been raised up to believe the Bible was that absolute unchangeable standard. Jesus put it this way: “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken the same shall judge him in the last day” (John 12:48).  But liberals had long ago rejected the Bible; therefore, “every man did that which was right in his own eyes!”

    Let us notice a few results of liberal teachings and or policies. Starting with the sin of fornication, let us see what the results have been. Grandparents can remember when abortion was nearly an unknown word. In America in 1996, 1.37 million abortions took place. That means that approximately 3,700 abortions took place per day. Among this number, 64.4 % of these abortions were performed on never-married women. Let us not forget, there is at least one act of formation, one act of sin, in each case, of the never-married woman.  But, how did we as a nation ever get to this state?  Liberals taught that women, young and old, were free to engage in per-marital sex.  After all, “they are going to do it anyway.”

    What was the result of the liberal teaching and policies, “they are going to do it anyway?” Fornication, then, abortion!  Abortions were needed to remove the result of fornication! What is the result of abortion? It is murder!  No, liberals do not accept the results; they object to the charge that an abortion is murder; however, truth is truth and it is unchangeable! Friends abortion is murder!

                       — Frank R. Williams

January 8, 2012    Volume 8 Number 2

    The word “Sin,” like the “horse and buggy,” is outdated in today’s world.  Like the “buggy” which was put in the old barn to rot and never to be seen and the “old gray mare” was turned out to pasture; so sin is not to be identified, or heard from today.  We have all learned that pleasure is the aim and the end of all!  It has been pointed out many times, “history repeats itself;” and those who refuse to learn from history are bound to repeat it!  So it is today in America! Way back in the Old Testament, before Israel even had an earthly king, during the time of the Judges, it was written: “… every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25).

    Sin is growing in our land, the “land of milk and honey,” to the point that right is wrong and wrong is right; and dare  anyone say otherwise!  The person, who dares to stand for the morally right, is attacked, belittled, and “tarred and feathered,” then run out of town on “a rail.” Sin is not new, it started in the “garden of Eden,” as Eve saw the forbidden tree, with its “knowledge of good and evil,” and that it was “good for food,” and “pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise” (Gen. 3:6).  With the eating, innocence was lost!  This is like the little child who learns the heated stove will burn the hand when touched.   The stove never is seen in the same light; before it was for keeping the body warm, but now it also poses a danger.  Most things may be used for good, or bad; the wise know the difference!   As Solomon wrote: “A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels” (Pro, 1:5).  On the other hand, he wrote: “… but fools despise wisdom and instruction” (Pro, 1:7).  It is a desire of the heart; as Solomon also wrote: “Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life” (Pro. 4:23). It is a personal responsibility, but many reject all such responsibility!  It is never “my fault!”

    Eyes need to be opened, ears need to be cleaned out, and the heart needs to stop and think; God is God, right is right, and wrong is wrong!  The wise man wrote: “He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condmeneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD” (Pro. 17:15).  Therefore, “Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people” (Pro. 14:34).  The child, who touches the heated stove for the first time, learns that it possesses a danger; so it does not need to be touched a second time.  Stand at a safe distance, receive the good it has to offer, but do not partake of its danger.  America has “touched the heated stove,” but has been unwilling to learn the lesson; repeat touching the stove and the “conscience” becomes “seared with a hot iron” (1 Tim. 4:2). That is how right becomes wrong and wrong becomes right; and every man does “that which was right in his own eyes.”

    Unmarried mothers gave birth to 4 out of every 10 babies born in the United States in 2007, a shameful figure that is increasing rapidly both here and abroad, according to government figures.  Friends, we are nearing the 50% mark of babies being born without marriage. How did it happen?  As a young boy growing up in Oklahoma and Arkansas, one might hear of a young girl becoming pregnant; that is a long way from “4 out of every 10” babies born in the United States being born outside of marriage. A little for food for thought: this figure does not include those aborted! Yet, when one tries to teach the young people the rightness of abstinence; only laughs are heard throughout the land.  We are repeatedly told, “abstinence” does not, and will not work.  Thus, right is called wrong and wrong is called right! When has abstinence not worked?  It never produces a child outside of marriage; it never brings into this land an unwanted child!

    To correct one wrong, another wrong is introduced.  We have a young girl, a child herself, who becomes pregnant and the answer becomes abortion! To remove the result of one sin, a second sin is committed; abortion on demand!  Businesses spring up to help remove the unwanted, helpless baby. Friends, the unwanted helpless baby was never  the result of abstinence!  “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4).  Will America ever again confess  sin?

                         — Frank R. Williams

January 1, 2012    Volume 8 Number 1

    The final article is at hand under the above title. This article will be somewhat different from the other four, but not altogether different.  The subject will continue to be Stanley and his thoughts as they relate to the principles of the teaching of Christ.  Even though he was not a believer in God, or the teachings of Christ, nevertheless, Stanley displayed some of these principles in his life.

    First, notice what Stanley called, “self-forgetfulness” (Smithsonian, page 84).  Here attention is called to the “classic marshmallow experiment.” Children are “typically left in a room with a marshmallow and told they could have two if they waited until the researcher returned” (page 84).  It was learned that those who continued to look at the marshmallow quickly lost their “will-power” and gave in to the temptation and ate the marshmallow.  On the other hand, those who distracted themselves, some by just covering their eyes with their hands, managed to hold out.  The article pointed out, paramedics use this same principle as they distract patients from their pain by talking about other things. The paramedics and others, recognize the benefits of what Stanley called, “self-forgetfulness.”

    The apostle Paul wrote: “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain” (Phil. 1:21).  He was looking forward and not giving his attention to the present rewards of the flesh!  He had just written, thus the context of verse twenty-one: “… so now also Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether it be by life, or by death. For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” The apostle had suffered much physically and if he gave his attention to his sufferings, he might have given up.  It is important to understand his state as he addressed the subject; therefore, he wrote: “For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you” (verses 23-24).  It is clear the apostle took his eyes off himself and looked at the need of others!  Therefore, he continued: “… I know that I shall abide and continue with you all for your furtherance and joy of faith” (verse 25).  Like Paul, we have a choice, we can give in to our physical pain and suffering, or we can look to the greater good that we may do. If we just look upon the abundance of sin all around us; if we just think about the pain of our physical body; if we just see the problems that our family may be having; if we just talk about the troubles within the church; and fail to see the good that one faithful life, devoted to Christ, as a “light in the world,” has to offer, then, we may just give up and fail.  Total “self-forgetfulness” of reality may not be good, but being able to see and enjoy the blessings of the day and the final reward of a faithful life in Christ will take us on to victory in Christ!

    What keeps our lives normal? How do we keep our sanity? No, these questions are not submitted with the idea of when things are going well, but when things are at their worst.  Even here Stanley, the one who did not believe in God, nor the teaching of Christ, had an answer.  On one of his expeditions things got so bad, that dozens were so crippled, from hunger, disease, injuries and festering sores (Smithsonian, page 82); that they had to leave them behind in what became known as “Starvation Camp.” The healthier ones went out looking for food, but they were dropping dead along the way. In this setting, what did Stanley do? He got up in the morning and shaved!  His wife wrote: “He had often told me that, on his various expeditions, he had a made rule, always to shave carefully. In the Great Forest, in the ‘Starvation Camp,” on the mornings of battle, he had never neglected this custom, however great the difficulty” (Smithsonian, page 82).  What was Stanley’ thinking?  Why would a person nearly starving to death insist on shaving every morning?  His wife wrote: “Stanley always tried to keep a neat appearance …” (page 82).  According to his wife, he said: “I always presented as decent an appearance as possible, both for self-discipline and for self-respect” (page 82).

    What does this have to do with Christians? Paul wrote: “… present your bodies a living sacrifice, … And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of the mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God” (Rom. 12:1-2).  Friends, the question to each of us: “Does our light shine during the good times and the bad times?”  As we are clothed with Christ, both self-discipline and self-respect, are required! Do we have what it takes?

    In the concluding remarks, let it be said, that even the unbelieving Henry Morton Stanley, without even knowing it, lived some of the principles of the teaching of Christ; and so it is with many others.  The teaching of Christ is the best way to live now and has the greatest reward in the hereafter!

                                — Frank R. Williams

December 25, 2011    Volume 7 Number 52

     The fourth article under the above title will deal with the subject, “sacred task.”   As in each article, it is not merely a study of the life of Henry Morton Stanley, “the Breaker of Rocks,” the African Explorer, but to see a few of the principles of the teaching of Christ which found their way into his life.  As written earlier, he was not a believer in God, nor the teaching of Christ.    Stanley gave his life to what he called his “sacred task.” The article in the “Smithsonian,” from which the material of these articles is drawn, wrote: “What sustained Stanley through the jungle, and through the rejections from his family and his fiancée and the British establishment, was his stated belief that he was engaged in a ”sacred task.” (page 86).  His use of the word “sacred” requires a very brief look at the word.  Bible believing folks generally relate the word with things “related to deity, religion, or hallowed” (Standard College Dictionary, page 1181).  As related to Stanley it appears to be a contradiction, he being a non-believer.  Yet, it might give us a look into the person of Stanley.  The dictionary gives the meaning of the word: “1. Set apart or dedicated to religious use; hallowed: a sacred edifice: opposed to profane.  2. Pertaining or related to deity, religion, or hallowed places or things. 3. Consecrated or dedicated to a person or purpose.  4. Entitled to reverence or respect; not to be profaned; inviolable.” So, what did Stanley have in mind when he used the words “sacred task?”  Stanley might have answered our question, I regard my “sacred task,” as my consecrated, dedicated purpose in life, to be the abolition of slavery!  So, here are the words of another that might help our search: “Such sacred salubriousness is the province of everyone, believers and nonbelievers who will themselves to loftier purposes.” (This quote is taken from the internet in a study of “will-power.”). Stanley devoted his life, which required his “self-control,”  his will-power to the abolition of slavery, his “sacred task;” the thing to which he gave his life!  He said: “I was not sent into the world to be happy. I was sent for a special work.” (Smithsonian, page 86).  So, the abolition of slavery to which he devoted himself, though he would be denied it, was in fact, a principle of the teaching of Christ; as Jesus said: “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise” (Luke 6:31). What person among us would desire to be a slave as in the day of Stanley? No Stanley, not I, and not you!

    The question might be asked: “Why did Stanley devote his life to the abolition of slavery?” The answer, it was not because he believed in God, or the teaching of Christ.  Yet, when Stanley was in one of his most despondent moments, when two of his close companions had drowned and when he was close to starving himself, how did he console himself? The Smithsonian writers point out he summoned the most loftiest thought he could; Stanley wrote: “This poor body of mine has suffered terribly … it has been degraded, pained, wearied & sickened and has well nigh sunk under the task imposed on it; but this was but a small portion of myself. For my real self lay darkly encased, & was ever too haughty & soaring for such miserable environments as the body that encumbered it daily,” (Smithsonian, page 86).  The Smithsonian writers asked: “Was Stanley, in his moment of despair, succumbing to religion and imagining himself with a soul?” The answer, more than likely not!  Even though he embraced some of the principles of the teaching of Christ; sadly, there is no evidence that Stanley had anything more in mind than, as the Smithsonian writers put it: “His ‘real self,’ as the Breaker of Rocks saw it, was his will.”

    As Jesus said of some in his day: “By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them” (Matt. 13:14-15).  So it was in Stanley’s day and today.  Yet, as Peter wrote of the loving Lord: “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9).

    My friends, why not open your ears to hear and your eyes to see, the beauty, the life improving, and the soul saving gospel of Christ?  It is best now and in the hereafter!

                                — Frank R. Williams

December 18, 2011    Volume 7 Number 51

    The “Breaker of Rocks” is what the Africans called the explorer Henry Morton Stanley, better known by one name, “Stanley.” The words that serve as the title of these articles are well known throughout the world.  Of course, they refer to the doctor who Stanley sought, the well-known and great African explorer, David Livingstone.  Mark Twain predicted of Stanley’s achievements, “When I contrast what I have achieved in my measurably brief life with what [Stanley] has achieved in his possibly briefer one, the effect is to sweep utterly away the ten-story edifice of my own self-appreciation and leave nothing behind but the cellar” (SMITHSONIAN,  December, 2011). Stanley’s achievements are not the reason for these articles, however; the reason is to show that some professed non-believers in God and the teaching of Christ; nevertheless, embrace some of the principles of the teaching of Christ.

   The reason Stanley embraced some of the principles of the teaching of Christ was that he saw their goodness.  In this article, attention is called to Stanley’s desire to be “good.”  The Smithsonian article, written by Roy F. Baumeister and John Tierney, wrote of Stanley: “Stanley, who always combined his ambitions for personal glory with a desire to be ‘good,’ found his calling along with Livingstone when he saw firsthand the devastation wrought by the expanding network of Arab and East African slave traders.  From then on, he considered it a mission to end the slave trade.” (page 86). Stanley’s approach to life was one that “embodied an acknowledged principle of self-control: Focus on lofty thoughts.” (page 86).  The article pointed out that this strategy was tested at New York University; they “found that self-control improved among people who were encouraged to think in high-level terms (Why do you maintain good health?).  After engaging high-level thinking, people were more likely to pass up a quick reward for something better in the future.  This is a principle of the teaching of Christ.

    The apostle Paul wrote: “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things” (Phil. 4:8). Here is the “high-level thinking,” which, according to the tested strategy, produces improvement in self-control and causes one to “pass up a quick reward for something better in the future.” Now, read the words of Paul to Timothy: “For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come” (1 Tim. 4:8).  It is a principle of the teaching of Christ, to cause people to “engage in high-level thinking,” and make decisions by passing “up a quick reward for something better in the future.” The principles of the teaching of Christ are the best way to live life “here and now,” but more importantly, the greater reward is the final result, eternal life!  The apostle describes the life of living for “the here and now”: “But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth” (1 Tim. 5:6).

    So, what is the “high-level thinking” toward which the principles of the teaching of Christ guide us? Let Paul answer: “If ye then be risen with Christ (pointing to being raised in baptism, FRW), seek those things which are above (the high-level thinking, FRW), where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God” (Col. 3:1).  But the apostle did not stop there, he went on to write: “Set your affection on things above (the high-level thinking, FRW), not on things on the earth (the lower-level thinking, FRW)” (Col. 3:2).  Should we be surprised that a clear thinking man, such as Stanley, would reach the same conclusion of New York University, which Jesus taught first?  No!  One of the results of the test (referenced above) showed: “that a narrow, concrete, here-and-now focus works against self-control, whereas a broad, abstract, long-term focus supports it.” (Smithsonian, page 86).  Here recall the words of Jesus: “For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul” (Matt. 16:26).  We must not forget Jesus also said: “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone (the short term thinking, FRW), but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God (the long term thinking, FRW)” (Matt. 4:4).

    Friends, it appears to this humble scribe that we are living in a world of “low-level thinking” and the result is one of little, to no self-control!  So, where are your thoughts; in the “here and now,” or on the eternal?

                                — Frank R. Williams

December 11, 2011    Volume 7 Number 50

    John Rowlands is an unknown, who was sent into the African interior in 1871 in search of Dr. Livingstone, but is well known by one name, Stanley.  The first being his birth name; the second in full, Henry Morton Stanley, is a name he gave himself while living in New Orleans.  There are many interesting points in his life.  One, he became engaged to Alice Pike, who was nineteen years old at the time, when he was thirty-five.  He wrote of her: “You are my dream, my stay, my hope, and my beacon.”

    Stanley set off, traveling from the east coast of Africa and having traveled 3,500 miles, he continued westward into the most dangerous part of the trip.  He planned to travel down the Lualaba River, which Livingstone believed was the Nile; before leaving he would write his beloved that he weighed 118 pounds, as he had lost sixty pounds and he was suffering from another bout of malaria.  Along with the words above, he wrote: “My love towards you is unchanged, … I shall cherish you in this light until I meet you, or death meets me.” Sadly, he would receive a note from his publisher: “I may as well tell you at once that your friend Alice Pike is married!” Many may have given up, but not Stanley, as he lived a life of “precommitment.”

    At one time Stanley learned of the cruelties and depredations of the “Rear Column” of his group.  He would note that most people would conclude that these were “originally wicked” people.  Perhaps pointing to what is known as “Total hereditary depravity” of man. Stanley called such a conclusion erroneous! Here, though without knowing it, he expressed what the Bible teaches; as the Bible nowhere teaches such a doctrine and even the non-believing Stanley understood it was “erroneous!” He, in the context of people back in civilization who could not imagine the changes undergone by men who had committed such cruelties and depredations. He wrote: “deprived of butcher’s meat & bread & wine, books, newspapers, the society & influence of minds and bodies.  Good nature was banished by anxiety … until they became but shadows, morally & physically of what they had been in English society,” The “Smithsonian” identifies that “Stanley was describing what the economist George Loewenstein calls the ‘the-hot-cold empathy gap:’ the inability, during a rational, peaceful moment, to appreciate how we’ll behave during a time of great hardship or temptation.” It is then pointed out: “It’s really easy to agree to diet when you’re not hungry”  to make his point!  (Loewenstein, professor at Carnegie Melon University.)

    Stanley, as noted in the last article, believed in what psychologists call “precommitment.”  Remember, as written in the first article, he was not a man who believed in the God of the Bible, nor did he “precommit” to live according to the teaching of Christ.  Yet, he understood the importance of “precommitment;” thus, the non-believer understood a point in the teaching of Christ. Christ taught through his apostles, that when one confesses to believe in Christ, that he is “precommiting” to obey the teaching of Christ even in times of great hardship and temptation.  James even wrote: “My brethren count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations” (James 1:2). James did not leave us to wonder, why we must do so: “Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience (endurance, FRW) .  But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing” (verses 3-4).  Thus, a non-believer such as Stanley understood the importance of “precommitment!”  It is hard to reach a goal, if there is no committed goal in the first place!  Peter addressed the Christian’s “precommitment,” when he wrote: “Because it is written (in the Old Testament, FRW), Be ye holy; for I am holy” (1 Peter 1:16).  When we made the good confession: “I believe that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God,” we  “precommited” to be “holy.”

    The word “holy” (hagios) expresses the thought that one is set apart from the common, to the sacred (physically pure, morally blameless) service of God. Many “Christians” fail to understand this teaching. Therefore, failure is always at their door!  My friends, did you understand that when you confessed the beautiful name of Christ, that you were “precommiting” to live according to the teaching of Christ in times of great hardship or temptation?  If not, just what did you think you were doing in uttering those cherished words: “Yes, I believe that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God?”

                — Frank R. Williams

December 4, 2011    Volume 7 Number 49

    Recently, while reading the “Smithsonian” magazine, I came across an article about Henry Stanley and in the first paragraph the words under which this article is being written appeared.  Many of the older generation, will remember the story and the movies made about the African expedition of Stanley and Dr. Livingstone.  In 1939, Spencer Tracy was in the starring role.

    A number of interesting things were noticed as the article was read. They were: 1) Henry Morton Stanley was not his real name, as he was born, John Rowlands, 2) when he came face to face with Dr. Livingstone, he did not say the well-known words: “Dr. Livingstone, I presume,”  but they were written later, and 3) he also claimed to be an American, but was born in Wales. 4) In 1871 the “New York Herald” sent the 30 year-old Stanley to Africa to find Dr. Livingstone. These are interesting points, but they are not the reason for this article. So, what is the purpose of this article as it relates to Stanley?  It is to call attention to some of the points in the “philosophy, the system of values” by which Stanley lived. It is reported that Stanley was not a “believer” in God; as he lost his “faith in God and religion” as he witnessed the slaughter in the American Civil War.

    At the early age of 11, Stanley began his study of “the will,” as in “will-power.  While working in a “workhouse in Wales” he started imposing extra hardships on himself. He wrote: “I would promise to abstain from wishing for more food, and, to show how I despised the stomach and its pains, I would divide one meal out of the three among my neighbours; half my suet pudding should be given to Ffoulkes, who was afflicted with greed, and, if ever I possessed anything that excited the envy of another, I would at once surrender it.” This self-control, which psychologists call pre-commitment, is seen in his words when slogging through a swamp while suffering with malaria and his expedition dwindled to a quarter of the size he started with; he wrote himself a note: “I have taken a solemn, enduring oath, an oath to be kept while the least hope of life remains in me, not to be tempted to break the resolution I have formed, never to give up the search, until I find Livingstone alive, or find his dead body ,,, No living man, or living men, shall stop me, only death can prevent me. But death  not even this; I shall not die, I will not die, I cannot die!” There is pre-commitment!

    Also, it is not the purpose of this series of articles to just write about the ““philosophy, the system of values” by which Stanley lived.  No, it is to show how those in the world, those who confess to not being a believer in God, yet, when seeking the best way to live, embrace some of the principles of the teaching of Christ; though no such confession would ever be heard! Two of the cardinal teachings of Christ are pre-commitment and self-control!  In the plan of salvation is the confession of faith in Christ.  As Philip was teaching the “man of Ethiopia” of Jesus, the eunuch questioned: “See, here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized? (Acts 8:36). To which Philip replied: “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.” And the man in charge of the treasure of Queen Candace, then said: “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God” (verse 37).  This confession, a pre-commitment, is an oath to live in faithfulness to Christ so long as one lives! This commitment will require self-control throughout one’s life. Paul wrote: “So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also” (Rom. 1:15).

      Paul wrote: “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved” (Rom. 10:9).  Then the apostle reveals why this is true: “For (reason for the truth in verse 9, FRW) with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (verse 10).  In both cases the word “unto,” is the Greek “ace” and means in the direction of “righteousness” and “salvation.” The mouth confesses, and commits to, what the heart believes: “that God hath raised” Jesus “from the dead.” And it prepares one for baptism, which is “unto remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). This “pre-commitment” to faithfulness to Christ is in view of the judgment: “Because he (God, FRW) hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead” (Acts 17:31).  One obeys God’s plan of salvation in view of the judgment!

    Keep in mind, it is in the gospel of Christ that “the righteousness of God” is revealed and it is “the power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1:16-17).  A pre-commitment is required, and it will aid one in continuing a life of self-control in faithfulness!

                                — Frank R. Williams

November 27, 2011    Volume 7 Number 48

    The fourth Thursday in November of every year is set apart in America as “The Day of Thanksgiving.” It is a totally human appointed day, yet, it is good when Americans have a day to give “Thanks” for what we have.  The history of “Thanksgiving” in America is well known to older Americans, as we look back to early school years, to our class rooms and the fact that “Turkey” posters were all around the room.  Think about how many Turkeys you colored in those young years. However, the old story of those sweet years is not so well known today. Therefore, a brief history is in order.

     Like most stories of “Thanksgiving” history, let us start with the harvest celebration of the pilgrims and the Native Americans that took place in the autumn of 1621. It was not the first “Thanksgiving Day,” however.  They did have a three-day feast in celebration of a good harvest, and the local natives did participate; however, more than likely, it was not turkey that appeared on the plate. The story is told, that Governor William Bradford sent “four men fowling” after wild ducks and geese, but there may have been a turkey or two brought back. Thus, the first “thanksgiving day;” however it was not a holiday, only a simple gathering of people giving thanks! The actual celebration of “Thanksgiving Day” may be traced back to Abraham Lincoln.  In 1863, President Lincoln became the first President to proclaim “Thanksgiving Day!” Therefore, the United States of America has a fixed day in late November as “Thanksgiving Day.”

    Though our day of “Thanksgiving” is of man and not of God, it has the principles of God within it.  The two words: thanksgiving and gratitude are well founded in the word of God. First, let us notice the meaning of each word: 1) gratitude, “Appreciation or thanksgiving for having received any good, or kindness;” and 2) thanksgiving, “The act of giving thanks, as to God; an expression of gratitude.” It is easy to see the relationship of the two words.  Paul wrote: “… meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer” (1 Tim. 4:3).  The Greek word here used (eucharistia) means: gratitude,” “actually grateful language” of “thankfulness, (giving of) thanks (-giving).” Thus, the words heard at the table, “Let us give thanks,” express a Biblical principle! However, having gratitude and being thankful is much larger than a mere meal.  Jesus said: “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4). Therefore, it is “bread” and “every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” by which man shall live, but the word of God is more important than bread!  Most of us eat three times a day, but how many times a day do we read and study the word of God?

    The apostle Paul enlarged the subject as he wrote: “Pray without ceasing. In everything give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you” (1 Thess. 5:18). We have heard the words, “Pray without ceasing,” many times, but how many times have we heard them with the second part, “In everything give thanks?” God’s people have many reasons for giving thanks!  It is impossible to number them “one by one,” but let us here list a few. I give thanks to God for his creation, which he crowned with man (Gen. 1 and 2). I give thanks to God for his love which compelled him to send his “only begotten Son” to die upon the cross, so that I can be saved (John 3:16). I give thanks to God for his plan of salvation, which when obeyed, allows me to call him “Father” (Gal. 4:6).  I give thanks to God for giving me his word, which “is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path” (Psa. 119:105). I give thanks to God for the gospel of Christ, his power unto salvation (Rom. 1:16).  I give thanks to God for his people, “the churches of Christ,” my brothers and sisters in Christ (Rom. 16:16), who are the best people living upon this earth: “Ye are the light of the world.  A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid” (Matt. 5:14).  I give thanks to God for my wife, “Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD” (Pro. 18:22). I give thanks to God for my children, “Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward” (Psa. 127:3); and it is written, “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it” (Pro. 22:6). Here like many, somewhere, somehow, I failed with one and our tears flow together. I give thanks to God that “body exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come” (1 Tim. 4:8). Yes, the list could and should go on, but space will not allow it.

    Finally, I give thanks to God for the “hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began” (Titus 1:2).  Are you a person of gratitude and thanksgiving? If not, your life is incomplete!

                                — Frank R. Williams