Pragmatism and the Collapse of Truth
July 22, 2024
Host: Hon. Sam Rohrer
Co-host: Dr. Renton Rathbun
Note: This transcript is taken from a Stand in the Gap Today program aired on 7/22/24. To listen to the podcast, click HERE.
Disclaimer: While reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate transcription, the following is a representation of a mechanical transcription and as such, may not be a word for word transcript. Please listen to the audio version for any questions concerning the following dialogue.
Sam Rohrer: Hello and welcome to this Monday edition of Stand In the Gap Today and an extraordinarily practical focus on the issue of pragmatism, consensus, and the truth in just a moment. Regular speaker for Biblical Worldview instruction and Bob Jones University and regular speaker four and a consultant two BJU press on all matters of biblical worldview instruction. Dr. Renton Rathbun is going to join me for a conversation on pragmatism and the collapse of truth. Before we get into that, here’s a quick look ahead to this week and the programs that are on tap at this point. Tomorrow, Albert Wexler, global director of the Jerusalem Prayer Breakfast will be joining me live from Jerusalem, can talk about the latest happenings in Israel, and to discuss the upcoming New York City Jerusalem Prayer breakfast event on September 15 and 16, which is designed to occur at the same time. The UN meets there with many things we know already on its agenda, including the expected harsh treatment and condemnation of Israel on a range of items on Wednesday.
Sam Rohrer: Twila Braves from Citizens Council for Health Freedom will join me as we consider latest challenges, encouragement in the area of health freedom on Thursday, independent journalist Leo Homan will join me as we review a number of vital themes that he’s recently researched and written about, including some further commentary on various themes including what’s happening in the unfolding saga regarding the attempt on the life of Donald Trump and the latest on how the global manipulators are orchestrating the replacement of Joe Biden on the Democratic ticket. Now on Friday, we’ll also deal with the most significant questions of the week linking the key themes of these programs plus other things that may come up at that point. But with that in mind, let me just introduce right now to the program Dr. Renton Rathburn Renton. Thanks for being back with me today. Thanks for having me. Renton. Lemme just do a little bit more of a preliminary update for our program today, ladies and gentlemen.
Sam Rohrer: I’m going to go now into our theme today and then we’ll get right into a lot to cover, but don’t walk away. This I think will be very, very practical program, but Renton, most of our standing in the gap today. Listeners have heard the word pragmatism or pragmatic as it’s become, in my opinion anyways, culturally mainstreamed, but another word that I encountered first in business then in politics is the word consensus. Yet I would submit that 95% do not know what these words mean or how their own thinking has been shaped by these strategies. Now in my experience, ladies and gentlemen, both were introduced as the latest and the best process for making group decisions always sounds good. They were sold as the process guaranteed to best reflect the input of everyone and what the early proponents, the teachers, the facilitators they called them, they said was to prevent the loud mouth lone dictator types in the group from exercising their own myopic will within a group.
Sam Rohrer: Now in my long professional work history, both the consensus process and the pragmatism were introduced as the newest and the best way to build teamwork and group buy-in. If any of you have been part of any kind of group, you know what I’m saying? There is true. It originally sounded good, very altruistic. However, early on I can say I felt uncomfortable but I couldn’t explain it. I ultimately came to realize that both through pragmatism and the consensus process, though it did produce a remarkable agreement and therefore support it came at the expense of truth and the silencing of the contrarian independent voice who held to a worldview of truth being absolute and being found within God’s word. Now as we observe the collapse of truth in government, truth in politics, truth in individuals who seek public office and the definition of educational standards, scientific policies, even preaching content for most pulpits, we wonder how we got here.
Sam Rohrer: We wonder how truth has so fallen in the streets with people once embracing absolute truth and still saying that they do. They now aggressively defend and justify people and policies who reject absolute truth and pursue positions. God declares to be either evil or abominable. And while not totally perhaps complete in all, it’s my contention that the embracing of pragmatism and the consensus process has been a major catalyst in the collapse of truth in America Now, Renton, that’s my first thoughts. Any response to that? And then if you could attempt to give a definition both of pragmatism and the consensus process.
Renton Rathbun: I think you’re exactly right. We like most problematic tactics we use to gain consensus in a group or even how we decide who we believe is a good leader or things like that, it all starts typically with good intentions. I mean, isn’t that the case? I mean, as noted in God’s word, we know that we need to be unified and scripture says that we need to be of one mind, but what typically happens due to our sin nature, we lose faith that God will do what he says he will do When we unify around the things God tells us to unify around. So in our lack of faith, we begin to believe we need to unify around something else. This usually comes when we start believing that desperate times call for desperate measures. And since Satan tricked Eve and Adam fell, we have been in desperate times and so you can see why this ends up happening.
Renton Rathbun: But really to be honest with you, when desperate times come, we need to compromise less, but what we end up doing is compromising more. And so I would define pragmatism this way. Pragmatism is a system of thought designed to derive meaning from a concept by way of experience. In other words, we find meaning in concepts or in ideas or events by way of accessing our own experiences to find the meaning of it, to define consensus. It’s a system of what I call a system of negotiation designed to garner agreement by way of a mono perspective or a single perspective. And usually that perspective is giving you the idea that there are no other choices out there, and if there are no other choices out there, you must comply.
Sam Rohrer: Renton, that was excellent. I didn’t think you could actually get that in that moment in time. Ladies and gentlemen, I want you to go back, I mean stay with us first of all. We’re going to further build this out. We’re going to talk about the origin. Where did this theory and it is a theory, where did this theory of pragmatism and consensus come from, when, who and why? Third segment, we’re going to talk about how these two things have impacted the contemporary Christian thought, particularly in America. Last segment we’re going to talk about rejecting pragmatism and this consensus process and how to re-embrace biblical truth and you’ll see how these all fit so well together. If you’re just joining me today, my title is this Pragmatism and the Collapse of Truth Pragmatism, and we threw into that consensus they go together, but pragmatism and the collapse of truth.
Sam Rohrer: My special guest is Dr. Renton Rathbun, director of the Center for Biblical Worldview at Bob Jones University and consultant and speaker for BJU Press on matters of biblical worldview. We’re dealing with this issue today because I have in my own mind asked the question again, how do we get to where we are anyway in this country where right seems to be wrong and good seems to be bad and so many people seem just to go along with it? Well, that’s the reason for this theme, pragmatism and the collapse of truth. Now, according to Wikipedia, the theory of pragmatism emerged in the United States in the 1870s. Its origins are most often attributed to three philosophers, Charles Sanders Pierce, William James and John Dewey. Now my words are as this, since that time until now, this theory though novel knew in the 1870s, I’m going to say it’s now fully mainstreamed, fully accepted, almost as sacred, having increasingly found its way into science, education, sociology, religion and politics, and virtually all aspects of modern America. Now, Renton, just before I asked you to go explain further about the background of these people and what brought it about, there was another question didn’t have time to ask you In the first segment on the process making it practical and that is this, why is understanding these terms in these theories and philosophies we’re talking about here so important to contemporary Christianity?
Renton Rathbun: The main reason is because what Christians often understand is that we live in desperate times. What they don’t understand is in desperate times when we become desperate, we do not realize how influential the world has been over our thinking, even back to the beginning of our education as children to now. And so what we end up doing is when desperate times come, we tend to believe that we’re out of choices, that we forget how God works in his word when it seemed that there were people that were so out of choices that they were left in hopelessness. And we forget the very, one of the most powerful phrases in scripture from Ephesians that says, but God, yes, there’s a lot of times where things are desperate even down to our salvation but God. And so we lose our faith very quickly, which we sometimes don’t even realize what we’re doing when we lose faith.
Sam Rohrer: Okay, let’s let that sit right there. Let’s get back into this now or back to these three men, Pierce, James and Dewey. What were the cultural conditions that may have contributed to bringing them together and just a little bit about themselves that make them their viewed as the fathers of these theories?
Renton Rathbun: Well, as academia was moving into from the 19th century into the 20th century, this idea that science had all the answers was begin to sputter. People were not buying it anymore. They were beginning to believe that science was based from human perspective, which meant science was very bias, but there were some people who wanted to double down on the reliability of scientific inquiry. And so those people were saying, no, science can still be relied upon. We just need better clarification. It needs to be more precise. And so around 1870 at Harvard, there was a metaphysical club that was invented by some faculty and students and that’s where Pierce or some people call him purse, whatever it is, he actually was the person that coined the term pragmaticism. He wanted to clarify ideas by way of observational data. If I can observe it or experience it, then I can know for sure about things.
Renton Rathbun: He felt this would be a way to get more clarity into science itself as well as into what we think of as truth. So in other words, he believed that human experience ought to be the grounding for knowledge. How do I justify my beliefs? I investigate my experiences as the grounding for what I think is true or false about the world. Now William James was his predecessor. He believed we can’t get to an objective account of the world. There’s nothing that can stand outside the world and tell us an account of how it all works. Therefore, we’re limited to trusting our feelings of satisfaction when we look at our experiences and they seem to align with an idea or concept. And so he used this with free will. Everyone was having a hard time knowing if free will was real or not. And he said, you can know you have free will because you have experienced free will.
Renton Rathbun: It seems that way, and you can find satisfaction in believing in free will through your own experiences. And John Dewey then came after them and he was probably the most evil of the three because he had the most influence of the three since he was the one that was kind of the father of public education, he was greatly influenced by Darwinism and used Darwinism as a way to shape the next generation. So he believed the new generation needed to be socialized, needed a consensus driven attitude so that they would be good citizens in their individual work and grounding truth in what they experience in the world. And that’s kind of where those three came in.
Sam Rohrer: And in short, because I’m going to ask you about consensus just a minute and bring it together, but the why touched on it, but it sounds to me like you are describing these three men, both as you’re saying, their view of the world. Could you put it in simple terms? Basically they were trying to figure out a way to determine what was truth, were they not?
Renton Rathbun: That’s correct. In fact, they were so jaded by that term because people were using it so much. They said, well, we can’t really know what’s true because we don’t have this objective worldview. All we have is the world and we’re in the world. And so we can’t stand outside the world to know anything, but we can know our experiences. So I can know what we call truth by the experiences we had. And William James actually was the one that was the most unsuccessful in mixing religion with pragmatism theoretically. But he was the most successful in convincing Christians that you can mix Christianity with pragmatism. And that’s how those two really influenced Christianity.
Sam Rohrer: Well, in reality, what you’re talking about Renton is what George Barna, who we know, it’s on a program a lot in his ascertainment and research of Americans, the biggest religion in America, he calls syncretism. And that’s where he says 95% of Americans are right now where they have actually constructed their view of what is religion and God and all of that based on how they feel. Sounds to me you’re describing exactly what we’re talking about. Now let me go into it and then you can comment on it if you want. And that is consensus back to Wikipedia. And I only cite them just because it’s out there in it’s the world’s definition. But they say this in regard to consensus. The formal consensus making can be traced significantly further back to the religious society of friends or Quakers who adopted this technique as early as the 17th century, it would be about 16 hundreds. Now, here’s my question. According to your research, when did consensus actually come about and when and how did it join in with the thoughts of pragmatism?
Renton Rathbun: So during the reformation, you had something happening that was where the question of doctrine was there. And so what you had was after Luther and Calvin and all those guys started changing and saying, we need to rely on scripture and not on the mass church and things like that. Well, they had to put together what were the non-negotiables of Christianity. And so that’s where you get creeds, confessions, catechisms. In fact, the first catechism came from Luther, not the Catholics, because they were trying to decide, okay, what are these non-negotiables of Christianity that if you fall off on one or the other side, you’re no longer with us. Now that was wonderful. That’s a good way of consensus that you want, you want some kind of consensus of that. But what eventually happened, and this is where consensus process began to infect Christianity, was in the 20th century.
Renton Rathbun: Again, 20th century became very problematic for Christianity. You had the P-C-U-S-A, the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America began to question the non-negotiables. And so those that were holding onto the non-negotiables like Mary was a virgin, or even Christ being God on earth, and those kind of non-negotiables, people were questioning those and saying, okay, well maybe those can be negotiable. And that’s where those people that were the truth tellers began to get in trouble because they wanted to hold the line. Well, the process that they used was to say, okay, well we have a big umbrella, so you conservatives are welcome here, but you need to leave room for those that have disagreed with you on the non-negotiables. And that’s how every liberal work in Christianity has found its way in.
Sam Rohrer: Ladies and gentlemen, did you hear that? Go back and listen to this again. Renton said a big umbrella, alright, in the political world it’s called the big tent called the big tent. Anybody can come in, change this a little bit, change a little bit that everybody come on in, you all find a home. Well, all right, what happens? Well, things happen. We come back and talk about pragmatism consensus. Now in the contemporary Christian, according to common cog.com, they say this epistemology is the part of philosophy concerned with the forms of truth. It asks, how do we know that something is true? And what bar for truth should we use to evaluate claims? Part of the article that’s off this site, it says this in epistemology, there are four classical or common theories of truth. They are useful because they give us a cheat sheet for critical thinking, evaluating a claim.
Sam Rohrer: Any claim demands that you use some sort of standard of truth in your head. It helps a great deal if you know there are really only four approaches that are worth talking about. The four theories are as follows. Now, again, this is all part of what’s on this site, and I give you the link if you would contact us, but here it goes here, the four theories, the first one, the correspondence theory of truth, that whatever corresponds to observable reality is true. Second, the coherence theory of truth that claims are true if they follow logically and coherently from a set of axioms or intermediate propositions. Third, the consensus theory of truth, that what is true is what everyone agrees to be true. And then the fourth one is the pragmatic theory of truth. That which is true is what is useful to you or beneficial for you.
Sam Rohrer: Okay, now that’s the end of that. Now my comments are this, for any believer, what I just read should cause the hairs on your head to stand up and your spirit to recoil because you know it’s not true. For instance, there are not four ways of determining truth, right? There is one way and that is God’s word. And today, in America and around the world, God’s word though has been placed on a shelf by people generally politicians, almost exclusively. And I’m going to say even by pastors predominantly. Alright, Renton, let’s get real practical here. Now, we’ve been working that way and have been I think from the beginning, but how has contemporary Christianity and the modern professing Christian embraced pragmatism and the consensus process, we’ve identified it, we’ve said where it came from, that it’s a process for trying to select truth. I’ve just shared these four approaches that the world says, but let’s go into this. Would you identify perhaps a leading way that it has been that pragmatism and consensus process for identifying truth has been adopted within the church and the consequence, and then we’ll go into the political process and some others?
Renton Rathbun: Well, religiously we are in desperate times as Americans, we’re not used to the government coming after us as Americans. We’re not used to academia and entertainment coming after us. And so we begin to believe that those things that are supposed to be non-negotiables start becoming negotiable. Because if we’re going to find any kind of peace and that becomes the God that we serve, that becomes the idol. That’s before our eyes is peace. And soon by consensus we start changing the non-negotiables to negotiable. And in church, in our churches, it happened. I think it began with our compromise in feminism. We began to despise Ephesians five in the home in which we see that men are supposed to lead in the home and the wife is to submit to the husband. And even saying that in a conservative church has become a scary thing to say.
Renton Rathbun: We joke around and we say happy wife, happy life and all that sort of stuff. And no one wants to deal with those things. That that scripture is very clear is non-negotiable. We now have made it negotiable by consensus. More and more churches are negotiating it all the way down to we accept different views of L-G-B-T-Q-I-A now because of those compromises that we started with gender problems even in the home where we’ve denied Ephesians five. And when that happens, when you start compromising the non-negotiables of the home, you start compromising the non-negotiables that are out there in the world, particularly even how we choose leaders in the world.
Sam Rohrer: We could go so much deeper, but ladies and gentlemen, I’m want to try and get some things on the table here. That’s one church and there’s so many areas, but what run just talked about very leading, I think we can identify with that. Okay, here’s, go another one, A leading way that pragmatism consensus has infiltrated, and I’m going to say shaped politics, political policy, the realm of government candidate selection and the consequence of that in that realm.
Renton Rathbun: I know that what I said about the church sounds like it’s not on the same topic as politics, but it’s the exact same topic. When you are compromising in the home over gender roles, what happens is you start understanding that, oh, the Bible is a little old fashioned. And when it comes to my moral choosings in my home, I see that there’s compromise there I can have. And so when I look out into the world, my bar goes down and what we see even politically that we’re in desperate times and as Americans, we’re not used to the kind of pressures we’re seeing today. So when the GOP is no longer a place that is identified as anti-abortion. Now as JD Vance has told us in his speech, it is a tent big enough to include people that are moral conservatives. So now they’re saying, we have a big tent here. It includes moral conservatives, so you’re included. Now, it’s no longer stands for this, but you’re included. And what we see is the same progress happening that we saw before.
Sam Rohrer: Okay, so I asked you about, and I’m doing this intentionally, God, ladies and gentlemen, as we talk about so often established three institutions, we call them of authority, started with the church, talks about civil government. That’s the area of the political, just gave some examples, could go so much deeper. Let’s go to the home now in maybe what you said about the feminization, all that certainly has impacted the home, but go a little bit further into the home. How has the adoption of the pragmatic and consensus building thought impacted and shaped the modern home? I’m going to say even the modern Christian contemporary home.
Renton Rathbun: Well as Christians, it all starts with God’s building of what he said the home should look like. It should look like Christ and his love for the church, the church, the church submits to Christ. Christ is head of the church. Christ does not submit to the church. And at no time does the church become head over Christ. Yet that is how we have run our homes. This is how Christians who have found churches that will not address these things have found a home at a church that will not address the men who have become children to their wives and their wives have become head over their husbands almost by default since their husbands have neglected their role as being head of the home. As such, what they end up doing is having children. And then they even think spanking is some kind of an abuse because they don’t even believe the Book of Proverbs anymore.
Renton Rathbun: And as such as their children grow up, they are against L-G-B-T-Q ideology all the way up until their own child has an issue. And then suddenly we see more compromise, more and more compromise. You can’t tell men there’s no difference between men and women that women can do anything a man can do. You can’t keep saying that and then think you’re going to have a strong belief system in gender when it comes to your children. And so they start compromising with, oh, well, my child has this issue and what I’ve come to see through my experience, this is where pragmatism come in. Through my experience with my child, I have found that we have just got to accept some of this. We have been too mean to that community. What I have found from my experience is that when I spank my child, they just don’t respond to it.
Renton Rathbun: So the Bible’s kind of old fashioned that way. What I have found with my experience is that when I tried to be head of my home, it just didn’t work out. Besides, my wife has to do the books with our finances because my experience is I’m just not very good that, and she’s better at that. And so she kind of leads and whoever holds the purse strings holds the power in the relationship. And so I know I’m saying a lot of very, very, I don’t know controversial things right now, but they’re only controversial because we have fallen asleep at the wheel of the non-negotiables of God’s word. And now the things that are non-negotiable sound very, very harsh to people because we’ve already embraced so many compromising positions
Sam Rohrer: And now we have the family, ladies and gentlemen, we’ve redefined marriage. It’s not just man and a woman, it’s whatever. We talked about it last week on this program, the Democrats. This is not a political discussion, but there is a thought out there on one party that’s never been an issue. But this week, even our real own Republican party, which grieves my heart because I am a Republican, I’m a Christian first, but they did away with the definition of marriage as a man and a woman. What is this process? It’s pragmatism, it’s consensus. And where does it lead us? I’m going to tell you where it leads us right to the bottom. When we come back, we’re going to deal with the issue of rejecting pragmatism, re-embracing biblical truth. Well, as we go into our final segment now, if you’ve been with us from the beginning, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for staying with us.
Sam Rohrer: If you joined us partway through, please go back and get this program on our website. Stand in the gap radio.com or off of our app Stand in the Gap. You’ll also be able in both places find a transcript of this program. Take it, read it because there’s a lot of information in here and consider it and pray over it. Well, this discussion today, our conversation that we’re having, Dr. Renton, Rathbun and myself, is on an issue that we’ve talked about, I’ve been thinking about for a long time because I’ve encountered these philosophies both in my business experience and in my time in office in extraordinary ways. But I’m also trying to deal in a practical sense with how did we get to this point in America where we have so many people who actually end up justifying sin and standards and policies as well. It’s just the way it has to be.
Sam Rohrer: How does God look at them? Well, when you consider what we’re talking about, pragmatism and consensus process are both techniques and strategies to determine truth. Well, why is a Christian involved in trying to figure out a way to determine truth? We already have it in our hands. Our problem is not doing it. Alright, with that in mind, I just put that before you, and a lot of these things I know today are probably maybe struck a chord in confirmation, you say, yeah, yeah, on other cases they may say and you respond and react in a negative way, but I asked you to consider it biblically trying to present a resolve here. Alright, Renton, in practical terms, how does a person, a person committed to fearing God, a God-fearing person, a person committed to being biblically obedient? God says, fear me and keep my commandments. That’s what we’re talking about. Those people fearing God, being biblically obedient. How do they fortify themselves as to the deception of pragmatism and the consensus process, which is all around us and combat it in a successful way?
Renton Rathbun: I think number one thing that we need to remember, especially as Christians, is that this is not our home. The reason why the political liberals out there are so passionate and so angry and so filled with rage about the warming of the planet and what should be done in politics is because this is their home. This is as good as it’s going to get for them. They don’t see anything beyond this. We should not be acting that way. Our home is first of all in Christ and eventually in a kingdom that Christ has made for us. Number two, I think practically one of the things we can do is begin studying what Christian orthodoxy really is. In other words, identify the non-negotiables of the Christian faith. You can do this by studying Christian history. You can go through some of the confessions or creeds or whatever it is, but start looking at what that is and the kind of work it went to accomplish that.
Renton Rathbun: And then I want you number three, to search out God’s word to ensure that those truths really are the non-negotiable truths. And start believing in what God’s word says are the non-negotiables. Number four, begin to believe that you need to be holy as God is holy as you begin to pursue holiness. This means being committed to God’s word through love and committed to the behavior that is demanded there through love for God, because God loves God. And so try to love God as God loves God. And what you begin to see is you’ll start being really offended by sin. And the more offended you are of sin, the more this world, even the things that you thought were your friend are not your friend. Number five, develop in for you and your family guidelines on how you’ll remain faithful to the non-negotiables of God’s word.
Renton Rathbun: This means having some kind of worship time with your family. Number six, begin making decisions that are not practical but are biblical. And I know that might, for some people that might be a false dichotomy, but sometimes biblical truths and holding to biblical truths aren’t very practical because the world is telling you you have limited choices and you don’t have limited choices. You can make choices that are biblical. You don’t have to give in to the narrative. Number seven, do a personal study on biblical faith. And then number eight, ask for more faith. We need to have the faith it takes to stand, to even stand for the sake of our children, our family. Number nine, place yourself under the authority of your church. If you have a good church and you still haven’t become a member yet, become a member and place yourself under the authority of your church, under your elders or deacons or whatever it is, so that you are held accountable to the non-negotiables of God’s word. And number 10, begin instilling these ways of coming to Bible-based judgments in your children. Show them how you’re going through that process and instill it in your kids.
Sam Rohrer: That’s fantastic. I am going to ask you one other question. We’ll have to continue this. I’m thinking of the program, but let me ask a real practical one because sometime recently I’ve had some professing believers who have said to me that it’s dangerous and actually it’s wrong to encourage the discussion of what the Bible says about God’s requirement, for instance, for him to bring national blessing, which is described in Deuteronomy 28. Fear me, keep my commandments and I will bless you. Or to bring up and identify those qualifications of what the Bible says about the righteous. When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice and say that raising of the ideal candidate has never existed. An ideal candidate has never, ever been. So don’t bring it up and don’t bring it up in an election year like now because it’s too difficult. Here’s my question. So how does one lift up God’s requirements which do not change and reject pragmatic conclusions? When we’re in a sinful world and we’ve been there from the beginning with imperfect people of which there are no perfect people,
Renton Rathbun: I think a great way to respond to someone that says, well, no candidate’s perfect, so we got to deal with what we have is say, well then what is the perfect candidate? Do you even have a list that would demonstrate from scripture what on earth you should be looking for in the first place? Or are you just assuming that what we haven’t done is we haven’t developed scriptural non-negotiables for governmental leaders? We haven’t done that, and therefore we have just said, well, there’s no one perfect. What can this person do for me? Will this person give us more freedom as Christians and all that sort of thing? And what’s interesting is scripture never talks about the rights of Christians. In fact, it just tells you how to live under persecution. It doesn’t tell you to even rise up against persecution. So the question is, what is that list that tells me what are the non-negotiables that if these things aren’t here, then I can’t vote for that person? Very few people have actually gone through the time of even creating that. So despite being in desperate times and despite believing that our individual decisions make no true difference, we must develop the faith to do what our conscience is telling us to do from the work we do in scripture, to hold and to listen to what God has to say and have the faith to do it.
Sam Rohrer: Dr. Renton Rathbun, praise the Lord. I think that is so clear, ladies and gentlemen, as we say, always do we believe that God’s word holds the answers to all issues? The things we’ve talked about are things we’re all facing. Let’s go to God’s word. God’s Word identifies what we believe. Let’s then embrace them and do them and trust God to work out the results, which in the end, that’s what it’s going to do. Exactly. Anyway, thanks for being with us today. God bless you all.
Recent Comments