from our readers
I'm Ron Wallen's
sister. In your article ["Notes and Quotes," Feb. 28]
you indicate that Ron Wallen is survived by his parents. Your report
is inaccurate. His parents are deceased. Ron's parents, Claude and
Alta Wallen, his oldest sister Phyllis and his older brother Ed
Wallen are all deceased.
However, Ron had
six brothers and two sisters, and, in addition to being survived
by his wife, Rosemary, daughter Ginger and son Brandon, his surviving
siblings, listed chronologically, are Dwayne, Bob, Don (Ron's twin
brother), Tony, Chris and myself.
Lest anyone be
confused, here is a minor correction to the article "Endowment
Has Funds Available for Ministries" in the May 31 Journal.
It lists a task-force member as "Robin Webber of Garden Grove,
Calif." Since October 2001 the pastor of UCG Garden Grove has
been Mario Seiglie, formerly serving in Chile. Mr. Webber continues
to pastor two other UCG churches, in Eagle Rock (Los Angeles) and
James to Jason
In the May edition
of The Journal, Jason Poole asked, in a letter to the editor on
page 2, a question of members of the WCG:
Why do members
of the Worldwide Church of God see and believe things differently
from the way they believed in the past?
It might just
be that those of us who are still a part of the WCG have had our
minds opened to understand the gospel of Jesus and the apostles.
Maybe we have come to see that we are individuals with free will
and that God has given us minds with which to think and that He
expects us to use them to study the Scriptures and believe what
the Scriptures teach.
It is not my purpose
to judge or condemn Herbert Armstrong, but maybe we have been led
by the Holy Spirit to see that some of Mr. Armstrong's teachings
and doctrines were not 100 percent correct.
When one reads
the Scriptures with an open mind and accepts what the Bible says
(without our own interpretation), the Bible becomes a new book.
The Scriptures come alive. What the church once called difficult
scriptures are no longer difficult.
The books of Romans,
Galatians and Colossians really do make sense, as do the other epistles
Paul wrote. They teach the way to repentance and salvation.
In the WCG we
were the one and only true church. All Sunday-keepers were a part
of Satan's church. We were not to associate with them nor to permit
our children to take part in any activity outside of our group.
How wrong we were.
These are just some of the errors in our past teachings.
In John 8:32 Jesus
told His disciples they would know the truth and the truth would
make them free. I believe true freedom is in Jesus Christ and in
our surrender to His will. When one really accepts Jesus as Lord
and Savior, the mind will be opened and the conscience will become
In 2 Corinthians
3:13-18 are a number of scriptures that are quite clear on coming
to understand what it means to be under the New Covenant.
We who are still
within the WCG have come to accept the Bible for what it says. We
give others the right to their own beliefs. We are free at last.
Jason Poole asked
some very good questions ["Burning Question," May 31,
page 2]. I will answer each of Mr. Poole's points concerning why
I stayed in the Worldwide Church of God.
its course. For the first 2,000 years it did not rain on the earth;
man and beast ate vegetables.
After the Flood,
Noah was given new diet laws, and the animals' nature was changed.
After the Exodus,
God dealt with only one family, Jacob's, and to Jacob God gave the
law, which was all physical. He made a covenant with Jacob (Israel)
The Old Covenant
ran its course, and there was need for a new covenant that would
include all people, everybody.
God gave His Son's
life to fulfill all that was spoken of Him in the Old Testament
and to reconcile mankind to the Father.
This too will
run its course, as I think Herbert W. Armstrong's purpose ran its
course (Acts 5:33-40).
Some were able
to free themselves from HWA and listen to Jesus, but some are using
his last book (Mystery of the Ages) as their guide.
To answer Mr.
I say of myself?
I do not know
exactly what Jason means by that question. I do know that it was
HWA's teaching that got me interested in religion, and that's why
I'm being converted.
I know why the
law was changed from physical to spiritual, why the New Covenant
was needed and that Colossians 2:16 is not a difficult scripture
anymore because I read verse 17 and I know what a shadow is.
Was I led
by the Holy Spirit at that time?
Yes. I think the
Holy Spirit was leading me all along to the point that I would accept
the truth when He revealed it to me. Why it took 30 years of HWA
doctrine I can't answer. That's just the way God did it for me.
God brought me
into the Radio Church of God and now the Worldwide Church of God.
I can't even think of God making a mistake, so I will stay where
He placed me.
Was I unconverted?
I can't say that
I'm fully converted now. At some point we make the turn, then the
Holy Spirit comes in and leads us into all truth. I think conversion
is an ongoing process until Christ returns to qualify us for the
Was I merely
following a man?
Yes, I was following
HWA's teaching. In 1995 I read Matthew 17 and found I am to listen
to Jesus Christ.
Was I blind?
Yes, I was blinded
by HWA's challenge for me to read for myself. It intimidated me,
made me think that I could not trust his teaching. You know what?
I was right because when I did study for myself I found that HWA
did not have a corner on understanding.
Was I deceived?
Yes, HWA taught
me the Jewish laws, holy days, diet, tithing (only the priest could
collect tithes), the 613 points of the law. These were HWA's foundation.
He never got to the spiritual law at all, and that's what Christianity
is all about.
Was I stupid?
You could say I was stupid. I know I lacked understanding, was dazed
by HWA's dogmatic teaching. In the full meaning of the word I can't
say that I was 100 percent stupid because if I were I would still
be using Mystery of the Ages instead of the Holy Bible.
on my mind
I have a friend who lives in Georgia. He has never attended any
Sabbath group and has little knowledge of any of them (only what
I have told him in the last three or four years).
had come to the conclusion--with God's inspiration, otherwise by
himself--that the Feast and all the other holy days should be kept,
including the Sabbath.
had never met nor heard of anyone who actually kept the holy days
or, for that matter, knew of them. It has amazed me the last four
years what this guy has really understood from the Bible without
the help of any human.
after all this time of talking to him about these things, he has
asked me to help him find someone in his area he can fellowship
with on the Sabbath.
would not recommend anyone to him whom I would not meet with myself.
don't know how dedicated he will be to the Sabbath or any of his
old customs, so members of his new fellowship will have to be willing
to accept him as he is (he is very willing to change as he learns)
and teach him by example and God's Word about the holy days and
the other blessings we all may have taken for granted.
lives in Baxley, which is halfway between Macon and Savannah. If
there is any independent group of two or more people meeting together
on the Sabbath in God's name that would welcome him, please respond
says: "It is the Lord your God you must follow, and him you
must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold
fast to him" (Deuteronomy 13:4).
is about serving the Holy One, not any man or group of men.
Lord Jesus Christ says:
lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen
plainly that what he has done has been done through God" (John
doing what is right, through God and to His glory and honor, will
not be found hiding what they are doing.
about the "disfellowshipping" of elder Dan Cafourek of
Colcord, Okla.? ["Church Alleges 'Discord' When Disfellowshipping
Elder," The Journal, June 30]. Reports I am reading lead me
to feel ashamed of and fearful for the United Church of God.
not show partiality in judging; hear both small and great alike.
Do not be afraid of any man, for judgment belongs to God" (Deuteronomy
with what belongs to Him at your peril!
because it's tongue in cheek doesn't mean it's not heresy
last I found the April issue of The Journal and read many of the
newsy articles. Now it seems I need to look over my shoulder lest
I be suspended from what few duties I may have--or worse. The articles
of caution were "Elder Protests UCG Move to Relieve Him of
Duties" and "UCG British-Council CEO Disfellowships, Fires
have a few reasons for me to beware, namely:
I've noticed my wife has determined her own Feast calendar for herself.
She hasn't really kept quiet about it.
I haven't been able to control her to stop her from spreading her
views about the calendar.
She seems to not "know her place."
what I mean: The wife typically wants to go someplace new for the
Feast each year, leading to some perplexity about "her place."
the Feast she comes back with a few rolls of pictures. She picks
out 12 of her favorite Feast-photo prints and takes them to Kinko's.
For $25 Kinko's scans and prints them onto a hanging 8 1/2-by-11-inch
custom calendar, glossy, full color.
for the coming year, she has her very own Feast calendar, to reminisce
about where her place once was! With obvious pleasure she shows
off her new Feast calendar to her friends, and I can't stop her.
whose blood pressure rose at the start of this letter should now
know it was a bit tongue in cheek and not heresy. Wait a sec. Is
that someone at the door? Uh-oh, excuse me ...
and reason are irrelevant
May 31 article on the "One God Seminars" screams for response.
It has been a long time since I have been so stricken with amazement.
I respect the education, sincerity and maturity of the men involved
in the seminars, they reminded me of a room full of monks sitting
in a circle around a cooking pot, each with a long stick, stirring
the soup in search of one tiny morsel of meat.
what I read, no one found the meat.
point of the whole thing seems to come back as a resounding echo
that we in the Church of God worship we know not what (at least
in the opinion of those at this conference).
question is: Is Jesus Christ our Savior? If so, we are saved to
what? Could one live, repent and be converted and baptized and go
to his grave assured of a resurrection and not know if the ancient
Hebrew word elohim is singular or plural?
learned years ago that eternity is a state of being rather than
a span of time. This is a doorway into a whole new realm of understanding.
an eternal being can manifest Himself as human, eat human fare and
drink water or wine and then suddenly disappear, we are dealing
with a phenomenon not governed by logic or the laws of physics,
biology or reason. This is why the seminar was futile before it
Studying words and word definitions is a vortex stepped into by
the so-called early-church fathers. We all know where that led.
It brought us transubstantiation, the Eucharist and Communion to
replace Passover, the Trinity, purgatory, the Holy Ghost personification
of God's Spirit and a myriad of other superstitious beliefs.
you decide about these ancient words through endless wrangling or
vain reasoning saves no one.
point is, everything is not for us to know; we are in a walk of
faith. How can you believe you will come out of your grave and be
given back your mind embellished totally by God's Spirit and in
a new body comprised of some sort of spirit and not believe that
you are following the pattern established by our Messiah?
He did this, and the Scriptures say He did, and went back to the
Father, this means He had to have been there before. That is obvious.
The Elohim (eternal being) who became the Father to Christ simply put the eternity state of being on hold for Christ, temporarily, as He does for us humans who await a resurrection.
act of Christ's conception by the power of the Holy Spirit in the
hands of the other Elohim made one the Father and one the Son. The
Father, being the Most High God, remained in total power and total
control in His eternal state of being while the other was subjected
to the temporary state of being human.
Most High thus became the father of a physical human being through
conception by the power of the Holy Spirit. This is not logical
by any of the physical laws or human reason, but it did occur.
chase an elusive phantom, taking up so much time, expense and space
in the paper, is just unbelievable. Are we seeing the next generation
of "early-church fathers" being formed? I wonder how many
of our once-credible evangelists and pastors will become the next
generation of monks.
doesn't mean 'spokesman'
you for your detailed account of Ken Westby's One G-d Seminars ["One-God
Seminars Near Seattle Promote Strict Monotheism," The Journal,
several years now I have thought how sad it is that Mr. Armstrong
turned the word of Someone into a "spokesman."
of the first scriptures I remember memorizing as a child was "By
the word of G-d were the heavens made ... For He spoke and it was
That was better than magic. That was power.
on I had to unlearn that because the Word of God was not the Word
but a second being; that is, another G-d.
when the First Commandment says, "You shall have no other gods
before Me," some have wanted us not to believe it.
portion of The Journal's article that impressed me was what was
said about Yeshua [Jesus]: that He did not grasp at the concept
of being "god" or in the likeness of "G-d,"
quite contrary to men whose physical lives cannot compare to Yeshua.
several thousand years the Jews have recited the Sh'ma [Deuteronomy
6:4] two and three times a day, the same Sh'ma that Yeshua (the
"Christian" savior Jesus) was quoted as having affirmed
was the greatest of all commands: "Hear O Israel, the Lord
our G-d, the Lord is one," and you shall love Him (not them)
with all your heart, with all your mind and all your strength.
Yeshua teach that one cannot serve two masters?
long as we are confused about the Holy One of Israel, we will fall
prey to all manner of pomposity, such as grasping at the satanic
concept of being "god like god is god." I use the lowercase
here for a reason.
to you and the readership of The Journal.
over a one-leaf clover
The Journal's recent coverage of the Seattle "One God"
conference ["One-God Seminars Near Seattle Promote Strict Monotheism,"
May 31], a quote of Anthony Buzzard was inadverdently attributed
to me. I had asked a question from the audience about Steve Collins'
point of binary reproduction as a type of the nature of the Godhead.
Buzzard said that based on such reasoning he could say that a three-leafed
clover could signify the Trinity (or words to that effect). The
clover answer by Mr. Buzzard was attributed to me.
to place too fine a point on things, I would like to state for the
record that, to the contrary, I place a high value on the typology
of the nature of binary reproduction as it relates to the nature
of God. The body is the church or the bride of Christ. Christ is
as the husband. The woman is the "body" in marriage because
it is in her womb that new life is conceived from a union of the
genetic essence of each parent.
say binary as opposed to binitary, however.
are to be coheirs with Christ. He is the firstborn of many brethren.
He is the elder brother as well as the husband of the church, being
the first of the firstfruits.
are the children of the Eternal Father. He is creating a family
of beings who shall inherit everlasting life, each one with its
own personality--just as with any parent's children.
of the best sermons I ever heard on this concept was when Ray Wooten
gave an eloquent explanation of the subject at the Feast in Gatlinburg
in 1998. It was a wonderful depiction, and I agree with everything
except I contend that there can never be but one eternal being because
that eternal being (the Eternal Father) said so repeatedly throughout
fact was also confirmed by his firstborn Son, Jesus. No one who
was ever born can ever be eternal because eternal goes backward
in time as well as forward.
actually transends time and is not contained within time and space.
We can, of course, be given everlasting life, which is eternal life
going forward, so to speak. The Bible uses the two terms interchangeably,
but the differences are assumed as understood.
and unitarians have a lot in common. I fully believe in a wonderful
plan of an Eternal Father to have an everlasting family. A "God
family"? Well, it depends on your definition of God. But "to
be God as God is God" as in eternal? You? Eternal? You have
to be kidding!
have come to the conviction that it is demeaning to both the Father
and His Son to say that there were always two eternal beings. Jesus,
the man, accomplished something much greater. He was 100 percent
man conceived of the Holy Spirit and is an amazing example for all
of us as to what can be done in this life when we are "at one"
with the Father and have the Holy Spirit without measure.
God-man accomplishes nothing. A God-man is not an example for us,
and we have no hope in such a creature, let alone a true mediator
between us and the Father. I have much more faith and hope in the
resurrection and salvation if I know that the Father resurrected
a man and not a God. God did not and could not die on the cross.
you ever have real hope for everlasting life if the only one whom
you believe in as being resurrected was a God-man? You are not a
God-man. For those who consider this blasphemy, I suggest you seriously
consider the matter because one of these two views of the Godhead
is blasphemous. Are you sure which one?
befuddles me that so many sanctimonious letters to the editor of
The Journal regarding the Seattle conference confidently quote scriptures
to "prove" their binitarian points without even going
to the trouble of getting tapes or papers of the conference to learn
the truth about those scriptures.
what about John 1:1-4"? they seem to say.
which I guess we are supposed to respond: "Nope, we never thought
of that one! Wow, you sure got us! Thar it is jus' starrin' us right
in the face and we didn't see it till you pointed it out. Thanks
for settin' us straight."
Father must not be robbed of His role as Creator. His Son, Yeshua,
must not be robbed of His role as Savior. Guess which view of the
Godhead does this to Satan-inspired perfection?
is dead and is not our mediator with the Father. Christ died and
is now the first of the resurrected firstfruits and is our true
Mediator. If Christ is "God the Son," how can He fulfill
this role, for there is one God, and one mediator between God and
men, the man Christ Jesus? (1 Timothy 2:5).
I refer to Robert Schmid's letter in the March 25 issue ["Plain
Confusion," page 4], not because he referred to me but because
he expresses something that is basic to Christianity, vital to righteousness.
find that in Genesis 15:6, where it says that "Abram believed
the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness" (NIV).
a statement and quite an individual. A simple faith is described
here, the same childlike faith the Christ spoke about many years
later that He, the Christ, declared essential for entrance into
of us who entered the WCG in the days long passed possessed that
faith. We had stars in our eyes, a song and first love in our hearts.
above all people on the earth, had been "called." The
Lord of all the earth had chosen us.
others went astray, will we go astray also? Because some doctrine
may have been found to be in error or even false, does that take
away from the faith once delivered?
anyone had reason or opportunity to change faith, God should be
the one to do so with the antics and unbelief expressed so many
anyone had reason to abort a mission, surely the Christ would have
been the one, but He believed His Father and got on with the job.
risked eternity because He knew He could make something of these
rebellious humans, and all we have to do is believe Him.
we think about it, do we really have a choice? We cannot give ourselves
what we want; that is, eternal life. It seems we must join with
Abram and believe Him or not.
applaud The Journal's staff for allowing the people of God an avenue
whereby they can express their views, though some may fear it encourages
discord and gives "free thinkers" a stage to divide and
allow me to remind us that the Israelites had the mind-set that
they, too, were pleasing God with how they were doing things, but
in actuality the Eternal hated their practices (Isaiah 1:3, 13-15).
Though we may adamantly disagree with our brother, we should each humbly seek God and obey what we feel is correct and always keep an open mind and never stop inquiring concerning how we can more fully and more accurately honor and obey the Creator.
obedience to the law and turning from our iniquities, God will grant
understanding of his truth (Daniel 9:13; Deuteronomy 4:29).
Presently we do not have a priesthood authorized by the Eternal whereby we can go and ask: What is the correct calendar? When is Passover? What laws have been done away?
if we are to truly understand His truth and His will, our prayer
must be: "Teach me, O Eternal, the way of your statutes, and
I shall keep it unto the end. Give me understanding and I shall
keep your law" (Psalm 19:33-34).
The Creator of the universe has one law for all people. Any can come, worship and obey and be blessed. He gave His laws to Israel and became Israel's God (Deuteronomy 7:6-11), yet Israel was a stiff-necked people that went after the other "gods" and forsook the Eternal.
Eternal is not a respecter of persons regarding salvation. The law
is everlasting. Elohim says, "I change not" (Malachi 3:6).
continue searching, but remember until the great God purifies the
priesthood we don't have complete knowledge. So please don't belittle
anyone's attempt at searching for the truth.
error of the NIV
Herrmann was right on ("Let's Keep the Proper Holy Days of
Unleavened Bread," Feb. 28 issue).
who disagreed pointed out there are two "first days" and
the 14th is a stand-alone first day or that Leviticus 23:6 shows
the feast begins on the 15th.
why would the 14th be called a first day if it stands alone and
is not the first of anything?
are only three annual festivals (Exodus 23:14-16). The other annual
holy days are sabbaths (see Leviticus 23:1-4 in the NASB). Therefore
the 14th and 15th21st are not separate, two, festivals, but
the first festival is the 14th20th.
have kept the Feast since 1966, so we have watched congregations
struggle with the question of the calendar, often to their demise.
appreciated the articles in the recent Journal dealing with this
problem and appreciated Ron Dart's input ["Ron Dart's Calendar
Challenge Deserves a Short Reply," by Frank Nelte, and "Forum
Comments Get Wide Play, So Here's a Reply to a Reply," by Mr.
Dart," both in the April 15 issue].
Nelte spoke to our group (The Bereans) on the subject of the calendar.
We think everyone should think through this question before any
group makes a decision because it will affect the group in more
ways than one.
questions we have in mind are from an article in Servants' News.
I thank Norman Edwards for that article. As we remember, the questions
were as follows:
Be careful of presenters who claim their proofs are from the Bible
and claim they do not use nonbiblical history.
Some people think the calendar could not be calculated until the
computer was invented. In that case, God gave us a calendar that
could not be calculated for thousands of years.
Before computers, people used the equinox to start their year by
putting a fixed pick in the ground and marking the end of its shadow
at noon. Hillel [the rabbi who announced the present Jewish calendar
about A.D. 359] had men observe the moon, then interviewed each
of them separately, showing them drawings of phases of the moon.
Only after he had established what they had seen did they make a
What about the variation from place to place in moon observation?
The first crescent will be observed at different times in different
places. Clouds and elevation can have an effect on the result.
We must be careful not to observe any of the things that are on
Satan's wish list.
Some believe calendar systems should be based on the barley harvest.
What about countries in which barley does not grow?
God has not called many great and wise, and we put ourselves in
that category. Must I again follow a man? If so, which man, since
there are many variations and opinions?
basic question is: To whom has God given the responsibility to blow
the trumpet, or shofar? Who was to announce the beginning of months,
holy days and festivals? Did He give that responsibility to the
priests? What part does the Sanhedrin play in calendar decisions?
us make it perfectly clear that we don't fault the people who have
done this research. We believe they may be correct. The question
is: Is the result God's will?
and Arlette Omick
isn't conscientious objection
I refer to Steven Collins' letter in The Journal, March 25, 2002,
page 2, column 1, "Oxen in Ditches." Steven feels I have
"missed [his] central point about Sabbath observance during
Collins' point, he writes, was that, "if warfare overtakes
a nation (or a person) on the Sabbath day, God does not regard it
as breaking the Sabbath. Defending ourselves abundantly satisfies
the biblically affirmed ox-in-the-ditch exception."
most certainly is a dilemma for people who would be pacifists, a
puzzle that lends itself to endless discussion. That is, it's one
thing to refuse to go to war, but, when someone actually attacks
you in the street or enters your house, how do you defend yourself?
women expect our men to defend us in our homes, so how can we expect
them not to use force?
is no easy answer to this, except to ask God to defend us. I apologize
for not acknowledging this aspect of the subject in my article ["Christians
Are Confused About Armed Forces," The Journal, Jan. 31]. However,
I don't see going to war as being in the same league as defending
don't think it is entirely fair to say that I missed Mr. Collins'
point when one paragraph in my essay states clearly:
there is something to be said for the nation-state defending itself
from attack, but the argument falls down for Christians when you
remember that we are not a nation-state and Christ requires us not
to live by the world's rules of engagement. To quote the part of
what Jesus said in Matthew 26 (verse 52) that Mr. Collins omitted:
'... All who take the sword will perish by the sword.'"
do accept that ancient Israel went to war and that this might have
involved fighting on the Sabbath. (Deuteronomy 20:19 tells me that
Israel sometimes went on long campaigns but doesn't tell me which
days of the week the Israelites fought on. I cannot assume that
the Sabbath was included. However, if Mr. Collins has more information,
then I shall stand corrected.)
the point I was trying to make was that Christians are not a nation-state
and Christ requires us to live differently from the world. If you
join the armed forces, you will have no option but to fight on the
Sabbath; it won't even be a matter of choice and free will.
there are many other reasons for not joining the armed forces, which
I gave in my article. Apart from the Fourth Commandment, at the
very least you will be breaking the First and Sixth Commandments.
may be misunderstanding the matter of the ox in the ditch, and,
if so, please, will an elder in the church correct me, but my understanding
is that it covers an accidental, unfortunate situation that arises
on the Sabbath.
the military, on the other hand, is a career choice; going to war
requires years of training and planning.
never suggested that healing, rescuing a trapped animal or helping
my neighbor on the Sabbath constituted breaking the Sabbath.
do accept that the ancient Israelites went to war and that the nation-state
must defend itself from attack. What I find hard to accept is that
the followers of Christ are to behave like ancient Israelites (the
reference to modern-day Israel and the Yom Kippur War was not in
Mr. Collins' original article) or to join national armies in the
it's beneficial that The Journal gives the brethren a forum in which
to discuss issues; it would be a truism to say that we don't know
what people are thinking unless they are allowed to express themselves.
vote for abstaining
letter is in response to the December 2001 letter in The Journal
titled "A Vote Against Errant Leadership," in which the
writer states that "it is not simply a matter of voting for
this man or that" when deciding whether to vote or not.
I vote for a particular man or a party, I exercise my right to elect
a man or party to office. If my candidate is elected, I go on record
as one who had endorsed him for the principles on which he stood.
he begins to speak lies, use deceit, break campaign promises, violate
God's laws repeatedly, approve of gay marriages and abortion, release
murderers into the streets and is lenient toward child pornography,
what have I done? I have elected a man of Satan, an endorser of
evil deeds, into office.
also desired the right to vote, but its best hopes turned into its
worst fears when it got Saul.
the Lord God voted for a king, He chose the right man. No matter
what political, moral or economic advantage you think you might
get by voting a particular candidate into office, the endorsement
you give empowers him to do both good and evil.
as much as you are partly responsible for the good he does, you
also are for the evil, because you voted for him, just as Israel
was guilty of rejecting the Lord when it wished for a man to lead
of what we wish for, God will set up in power those whom He wishes,
good men in good times and evil men in evil times--though we might
wish for good men at all times.
may indeed have the right to eat meat, eat flesh that was sacrificed
to an idol and later put on the market, choose to remarry, or cast
a vote, but, if that right causes you to sin, it is a right best
we put men in power who commit grievous sins against God and man,
we make ourselves partakers of their sins, do we not?
things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful" (same
The June 2002 issue of The Journal includes many photos and several other graphics, besides the Connections advertising section. Don't forget to subscribe to the print version of The Journal to read all the news and features previewed here.
© The Journal: News of the Churches of God