As the presidential campaign grinds on toward the day of the election, everyone agrees that this political season has degraded into one of the meanest in recent memory. TownHall.com quotes Prison Fellowship founder Chuck Colson as saying, "When I was in politics, I was accused of being Nixon's 'dirty tricks expert'—but I never rose to the heights, or rather sank to the depths, of this year's campaign." Colson writes in his column, "Campaign of Hate," on September 16, 2004: In one sense, the degrading of political discourse is part of a broader pattern in American life: the coarsening of culture. You see it in the clothing people wear (or don't wear), the lack of manners, and the vulgar language that has become commonplace. Cultures coarsen when morality declines.
But this year there's something more to it.
We have come to expect mudslinging and attack ads, especially during the waning days of presidential campaigns. Two and a quarter centuries of such campaigns have produced mean-spirited personal attacks on candidates, from opponents calling James Madison a pygmy to Southern cartoonists depicting Abraham Lincoln as an ape. George W. Bush joins Dan Quayle and Ronald Reagan in the dunce club, while John Kerry can claim John F. Kennedy and Michael Dukakis as fellow elitist, New England liberals.
The "something more" that Colson senses consists of two elements: 1) an attitude of utter hatred behind the attacks, and 2) a fundamental disregard for the truth. The attacks are more bitter, visceral, and partisan than in former years, and the candidates and their proxies are issuing them in a game of one-upmanship with insufficient concern for their accuracy. It is almost as if both sides have determined that the campaign that strikes last before Election Day will win at the polls, and whether their punches are fair or not matters little. Anything goes for such a prize.
It is ironic that a central issue of the campaign is honesty—both sides have accused the other of lying, resulting in the suffering and death of many: Kerry about Vietnam and Bush about Iraq—yet neither side has qualms about shading the facts to its advantage or lying outright. Spin is in, and perception is everything. Truth does not even enter into this equation. If it does, it is in the form of what the recently out-of-the-closet New Jersey Governor James McGreevey calls "one's unique truth."
However, in today's political world, what is truth to one may not be truth to another. For instance, the Bush administration's truth about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) is totally different from the Kerry campaign's truth. Even though major stockpiles of WMD have not been found in Iraq, enough small finds have been made to allow the Bush team to trumpet their contention that America's attack was justified. Kerry supporters, though, take the exact opposite view, arguing that the little that has been found proves America's war in Iraq was illegal, imperial, unjustified, and rash.
What is the truth? Saddam Hussein had and used WMDs both against Iran and against the Kurds in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Throughout the Clinton administration and into the Bush administration, Hussein made it known that he still had such weapons and had no reluctance about employing them again. He publicized that his scientists were hard at work on delivery systems and new terrors. What he actually had to work with is unknown, but every nation's intelligence of the situation agreed that Iraq was a WMD threat.
Bush acted on this by going to war, believing that removing the threat was vital in winning the War on Terror. In his place, Kerry says, he would not have taken such a drastic measure, believing that further negotiation, continuing the economic embargo, and increasing pressure from a larger coalition would have solved the crisis.
The key to understanding this is that neither side is dealing with the truth but with belief. They have believed something to be true and acted on it—campaigned on it—whether it was true or not. Belief, however, has no foundation without real, authoritative truth. One can believe the moon is made of green cheese all he wants, but such belief does not make it true. In fact, this belief is really folly.
The prophet Isaiah writes concerning the Israel of his day, which parallels the societal state of modern America: "Justice is turned back, and righteousness stands afar off; for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter. So truth fails, and he who departs from evil makes himself a prey" (Isaiah 59:14-15). We have come to the point that truth does not matter anymore, which means that justice, righteousness, equity, and goodness are no longer goals people strive to attain. What most people seek is whatever they believe is best for them; this is the new standard of "truth."
Truth, which has "fallen in the street," is the victim of man's human nature running roughshod over everything to get for itself. Who will brave the mean streets to revive it?
As I neared the intersection of two four-lane streets on my way to work a few days ago, I was suddenly forced to jump on my brakes. In front of my truck rolled a line of a half-dozen cars preparing to make a left turn, but the driver of the SUV at the head of line had unexpectedly stopped—despite the green arrow—to allow a man standing at the right-hand corner to cross the street in front of her! This was against the light, against all the horns blaring behind her, against the laws of the road, against all reason!
At first, I thought she was distracted by something: talking on her cell phone, eating her breakfast, applying makeup, reading a newspaper, scolding a child, or something similar. However, when she finally turned, allowing me to see into her SUV better, none of those things appeared to have been a factor. She had simply decided to halt all traffic to let the man cross five lanes of a large, big-city intersection against the dictates of traffic law.
What prompted her to do this? The man had made no effort to cross against the light. If she had just made her left turn, the traffic would have cleared quickly, the signal would have changed in about a minute, and the man could have crossed safely and legally. Instead, she risked being nailed in her rear bumper or causing a similar accident among the vehicles behind her. Happily, all the drivers behind her were alert, and nothing untoward occurred.
In thinking about this incident since then, it appears to be a kind of metaphor for life in America these days. We are checking ourselves unnecessarily and dangerously to tolerate—even facilitate—others' immoral or unethical behaviors. We are too eager to display our permissiveness in face of all we know to be against it, from traditional, biblical morality to plain old common sense.
Perhaps the most easily seen example is this nation's tolerance of homosexuality, a practice thoroughly condemned both by Scripture and—not long ago—by American churches and society in general. Most Americans, though, have chosen to support supposed Constitutional rights and freedoms over real biblical standards, ignoring historical societal decay after the acceptance of homosexuality, as well as obvious public health consequences. They have, in effect, given sodomy a pass despite everything to the contrary.
We also tolerate public theft of the citizenry by our very own government, and many vote to accelerate it every few years! Politicians make long careers out of promising largesse from the local, state, or national treasury, bribing the people with the heavily taxed earnings of their fellow citizens. This national sin—ever-growing entitlements and pork-barrel spending—has landed the United States in a precarious financial position, one that can only grow worse. Counting future guaranteed outlays from Social Security and Medicare, total indebtedness in America is now upwards of $60 trillion! Most Americans are willing to tolerate such fiscal incompetence and indiscretion as long as it works in their favor.
The Western world has made a god out of the concept of tolerance. If nothing else, it has become a chief virtue of modern man, but how is it virtuous to accept destructive behaviors? Would we tolerate sharks in our swimming pools? A little arsenic in our drinking water? Dynamite among our firewood? Do we allow automobile manufacturers to sell us unsafe vehicles? Are we happy to let unlicensed doctors and dentists ply their trades on our bodies? Why, then, are we so eager to tolerate moral and ethical dangers in our society?
Wise Solomon says something similar concerning adultery: "Can a man take fire to his bosom, and his clothes not be burned? Can one walk on hot coals, and his feet not be seared? So is he who goes in to his neighbor's wife; whoever touches her shall not be innocent" (Proverbs 6:27-29). If we tolerate sin, there will be consequences. Society as a whole will certainly decline, and as individuals, we and our children will "be burned."
Unlike the lady in the SUV who facilitated an illegal deed, putting others in danger, we need to follow the rules of the road. For Christians, the rules are laid down in God's Word, and the safest, most beneficial course for all along the road of life is to put them into constant practice.
On Thursday afternoon's show, Rush Limbaugh joked about Hurricane Frances bearing down on Palm Beach County, Florida, where he lives. He said, paraphrasing, "Since Palm Beach County has voting irregularities like a Third World nation, maybe God decided Palm Beach County should be devastated to be, in fact, Third World."
Many in his audience probably laughed and promptly forgot about it. His observation, however, has a serious side that modern, sophisticated, and predominantly secular Americans never consider—at least seriously. They snicker at insurance policies that refer to hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, and other natural disasters as "acts of God," when they, in their scientific arrogance, prefer to call them "acts of nature" or "weather events." Even those who are moderately religious, like the Deists of the Enlightenment, do not believe that God is active in earth's events, whether natural or human. To them, He may be watching, but He certainly is not involved in human affairs.
This points out how utterly blind to God most people are, even Christians. For starters, because they are not looking for God's hand of intervention in their lives, they are certainly not going to see it. Having become so secular and scientific in their outlook, the miraculous is totally off their radar. They consider those who report of miracles to be medieval in their thinking and the miracles themselves to be mere coincidences of natural phenomena or overstatements of what actually occurred. To them, miracles are impossible because, by definition, they are unverifiable by scientific methods and therefore do not and never have happened.
Today's thoroughly modern Christian does not derive this negative view of God's intervention from His Book. In the Bible, divine involvement in human affairs occurs from cover to cover—in fact, it is the central fact of human existence, which the Bible takes great pains to reveal. At every critical point in man's history, God has been involved. At Creation, before and after the Flood, at the dispersal of the nations from Babel, in the history of Israel, among the great empires of ancient history from Egypt to Rome—God was instrumental. God Himself, in the person of Jesus Christ, came to this earth and lived among us, bringing us the good news of His Kingdom and dying for our salvation. Then He sent His apostles to the four corners of the globe to spread the word among those He would call.
That sounds as if God is active and involved in human affairs.
As Creator, He certainly has power over the various elements of His creation. Manipulating the weather is like child's play to Him. He can send rain or drought anywhere, anytime. He flooded the entire earth to a depth greater than the height of the tallest mountain, so flashfloods, coastal floods, and river floods are easy. Spinning tornadoes is like breathing to Him, and earthquakes rumble and tumble at His command. The Bible makes many claims about His power over the elements (Job 26:7-12; Psalm 147:15-18; Nahum 1:3-6; etc.). Jesus Himself calmed the storm with a word (Matthew 8:24-26).
In the book of Amos, God shows that He uses "natural" disasters to teach people lessons, to bring them to repentance, to correct their ways. In this passage, He also admits that most people fail to make the connection between the disaster and their sins. Notice Amos 4:6-13:
"Also I gave you cleanness of teeth [famine] in all your cities, and lack of bread in all your places; yet you have not returned to Me," says the LORD. "I also withheld rain from you [drought], when there were still three months to the harvest. I made it rain on one city, I withheld rain from another city. One part was rained upon, and where it did not rain the part withered. So two or three cities wandered to another city to drink water, but they were not satisfied; yet you have not returned to Me," says the LORD. "I blasted you with blight and mildew. When your gardens increased, your vineyards, your fig trees, and your olive trees, the locust devoured them; yet you have not returned to Me," says the LORD. "I overthrew some of you, as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, . . . yet you have not returned to Me," says the LORD. "I sent among you a plague after the manner of Egypt; your young men I killed with a sword, . . . yet you have not returned to Me," says the LORD. "Therefore thus will I do to you, O Israel; because I will do this to you, prepare to meet your God, O Israel!" For behold, He who forms mountains, and creates the wind, who declares to man what his thought is, and makes the morning darkness, who treads the high places of the earth—the LORD God of hosts is His name.
He also says He will continue to do this in His Millennial Kingdom: He will send drought on areas that refuse to keep His feasts (Zechariah 14:16-19). Are we to assume that, for some reason, He does not punish for sin now?
Maybe Rush was right.
On Wednesday morning, news outlets carried the story of the Texas Faith Network conference in Austin attended by "religious leaders" on Tuesday. The Associated Press reported:
James Moore, co-author of "Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George Bush Presidential," drew laughter and applause when he offered his view to the moderate to left-leaning crowd of about 250 clergy and lay leaders.
"If ever there were a bleeding-heart liberal, it was Jesus Christ," Moore said at Congregation Agudas Achim synagogue. "I think the carpenter from Galilee was the original Democrat."
Obviously, this was intended as a laugh line in Moore's speech, but "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks" (Matthew 12:34). Partisans on both sides of the political aisle claim Jesus' support for their policies, but as far as can be told, none of them has truly studied Jesus thoroughly and honestly enough to determine what initiatives He would indeed support. The article quotes a handful of clergy regarding their views of Christ's "political ideology":
- Timothy Tutt, pastor of United Christian Church in Austin: "As I read the Scriptures and as I understand faith, God's side is the group that's feeding the poor, caring about children, making sure that people have enough food to eat—not killing others."
- Michael Jinkins, a pastoral theology professor at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary: "Based on my reading of the Gospels, I think Jesus might surprise us all on his voting record. He was far less 'religious' than the people who criticized him most."
One says He was all about social responsibility, another opines that He was less fundamentalist and more secular than the Pharisees, who were by all accounts conservative and nationalistic in their politics. Yet, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham, and other conservative ministers would point to Jesus' moral teachings and claim He would support life (anti-abortion), virtue (pro-morality), freedom (patriotic and pro-Democracy), and strength (pro-business and pro-war, particularly Iraq and the War on Terror).
What side would Jesus endorse? Neither.
The article surprisingly ends with a proper conclusion on this point:
In fact, Jesus might not support Bush or Kerry or anyone else, for that matter.
"Jesus was not one to take sides on political issues," said Derek Davis, director of the J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies at Baylor University in Waco.
While there were obviously no Democrats or Republicans during the time of Jesus, different groups vied for attention, including the fundamentalist Pharisees, the aristocratic Sadducees, the spiritually devout Essenes and the revolutionist Zealots.
"Interestingly, Jesus never sided with any of these groups but remained above such earthly disputes," Davis said.
Jesus never said anything remotely political. The closest He came was in His adroit answer to the Pharisees' crafty question regarding paying taxes to Caesar: "Why do you test Me? . . . Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" (Luke 20:23-25). To paraphrase, he tells us to give government its due—but God or religion is an entirely different matter. The politics of this world and the true religion of God do not mix well.
At His trial before Pilate, the Roman procurator asks, "Are You the King of the Jews?" (John 18:33). Jesus replies, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here" (verse 36). Jesus' Kingdom is still not of this world, as its King remains in heaven at His Father's right hand until the appointed time for His return. Therefore, His servants still should not be involved in the political battles of this world either.
It is interesting to notice that when Jesus returns, He does not join the "right" or "correct" political party, but "in righteousness He judges and makes war. . . . Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God" (Revelation 19:11, 15).
It seems clear that Jesus does not think highly of any human government of any political stripe. In fact, He seems to be for, in today's terms, total war, worldwide imperialism, and installing Himself as benevolent dictator for eternity. The question, then, is not, whose side is He on, but who is on His side?
The Carolinas are about to experience a one-two, tropical storm punch that it has not been seen in nearly 75 years, according to a local meteorologist. Tropical storm Bonnie, not as strong as expected, dumped needed rain on areas east and south of Charlotte, while the city itself slogged through steady rain for half a day. That was Thursday. Today, Friday, Hurricane Charley, just upgraded to category four, packing sustained winds of 145 mph and gusts up to 160 mph, is set to make landfall near Tampa, Florida, soon. The storm is expected to reach the Carolinas by Saturday evening.
After Hurricane Andrew, Americans became far more sensitive to these mammoth storms. Although only a few each year make landfall, when they do, they make a terrific mess and cause considerable injuries and deaths. Andrew wreaked $25-30 billion in damages and killed 65 people, an exceptionally low figure over which experts still shake their heads in wonder. The Galveston Hurricane of 1900 killed six to eight thousand people, the most by a hurricane in U.S. history. In 1970, a cyclone that hit East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, killed at least 200,000—some say half a million—and another 100,000 were reported missing.
Sebastian Junger, author of The Perfect Storm, gives us an idea of the power within a hurricane:
A mature hurricane is by far the most powerful event on earth; the combined nuclear arsenals of the United States and the former Soviet Union don't contain enough energy to keep a hurricane going for one day. A typical hurricane encompasses a million cubic miles of atmosphere and could provide all the electric power needed by the United States for three or four years. During the Labor Day Hurricane of 1935, winds surpassed 200 miles an hour and people caught outside were sandblasted to death. Rescue workers found nothing but their shoes and belt buckles. So much rain can fall during a hurricane—up to five inches an hour—that the soil liquefies. Hillsides slump into valleys and birds drown in flight, unable to shield their upward-facing nostrils. . . . In 1938, a hurricane put downtown Providence, Rhode Island, under ten feet of ocean. The waves generated by that storm were so huge that they literally shook the earth; seismographs in Alaska picked up their impact five thousand miles away. (p. 102)
Such power is nothing to trifle with, which is why emergency management officials recommend wholesale evacuations of areas near a hurricane's landfall.
Beyond its powerful winds, the most lethal part of a hurricane is the sheer amount of water it brings. Most people think of massive amounts of rain, but more deadly is the ocean's storm surge. Water piles up in front of the high winds, flooding the coastal areas up to about 25 feet, as occurred in Mississippi during Hurricane Camille in 1969. If the hurricane's right-front quadrant should hit shore at high tide, the storm surge could be as devastating as thousands of rampaging bulldozers. In both the Galveston and Bangladesh hurricanes, storm-surge flooding caused the most deaths.
We know how hurricanes form and develop, how various factors steer them, and what to expect from them. Our forecasting has improved tremendously, with computer simulations providing highly accurate tracks out to 36 or 48 hours. This allows emergency crews to set up and get the word out to residents and tourists. Building codes have also been stiffened in high-risk areas, reducing property damage and providing better shelter for those who dare to ride them out. These factors are largely responsible for the declining death totals due to these huge storms.
But man may as well be a mouse when it comes to controlling them. The forces that cause and sustain hurricanes are so massive that nothing man can do has any serious effect on their strength or destination. In reality, we just have to take whatever the storm brings. How humbling.
We gain some perspective when we read the words from Job 36:26-33:
Behold, God is great, and we do not know Him. . . . For He draws up drops of water, which distill as rain from the mist, which the clouds drop down and pour abundantly on man. Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds, the thunder from His canopy? Look, He scatters His light upon it, and covers the depths of the sea. For by these He judges the peoples; He gives food in abundance. He covers His hands with lightning, and commands it to strike. His thunder declares it, . . . concerning the rising storm.
Consider this when watching the weather this weekend.
Our culture is wearying. Not only is it non-stop and fast-paced, but it is also so full of contention and controversy that it is maddening, stressful, and frustrating. It says something about the way God made us that we can even stand it!
God accurately catches the essence of our time when He tells Daniel, "Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase" (Daniel 12:4). The word picture is of a multitude of people scurrying around like ants, but unlike ants, their scurrying is erratic, futile, and unproductive. The New English Bible creatively renders this, "Many will be at their wits' end," suggesting both frustration and a kind of psychosis in the people as they struggle to keep up with and understand what is happening around them.
It is no wonder that many throw up their hands and give up trying to battle the culture. Some of these simply give in and go with the flow, while others check out altogether, finding a place out in the country, throwing out their televisions and having as little to do with the rest of us as possible. Many others, knowing they cannot escape to rural tranquility due to job or family commitments, do their best to withdraw privately from the exasperating culture.
Yet, there is no way to avoid it altogether. Jesus Himself admits this in John 17:15, "I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one." Christians have to live in the world, and we rely on the Father's protection against the worst that Satan and "this present evil age" (Galatians 1:4) can throw at us. In this sense, we have to learn to live with some of the unsavory aspects of society because we are too weak to make any effective change in them.
The presidential race is a prime example of American culture gone berserk, and Christians have no chance of altering it for the better. The "apex" of American politics pits two wealthy, egotistical candidates of New England elite extraction against each other. Both candidates employ every dirty, political trick in the book to gain an advantage over the other. The lies, misinformation, spin, and defamation that flood from each campaign staff make the late Baghdad Bob look like a saint. And Americans are supposed to choose which of these two should be Chief Executive?
Perhaps this is overly cynical, but it does point out how our culture, with its 24-hour news cycle and information overload, obfuscates every important matter. Who can be trusted? Fox News? CNN? MSNBC? The 700 Club? The BBC? NPR? Reuters? The New York Times? The Washington Post? The Christian Science Monitor? The Wall Street Journal? WorldNetDaily? The Drudge Report? Who?
These news outlets will run contradictory stories about the candidates. Was John Kerry a military hero in Vietnam—or was he an uninspiring SWIFT boat captain who often disregarded orders and dishonestly won his Silver Star? Did George Bush exhaust all diplomatic solutions to the Saddam Hussein dilemma before committing America to war—or did he, cowboy-style, plan to avenge his father's attempted assassination before he was even elected? We may have opinions about these matters, but do we really know the truth? Can we know the truth?
Modern thinkers would say, no, there is no such thing as absolute truth, and even facts about a situation or an issue are merely data to be manipulated by each observer. The truth is in the eye of the beholder. That is a terribly shifty basis on which to build a functioning and productive society. If a person cannot honestly ascertain whether a thing is true or false, it will not be long before he loses his grip on reality—which truth defines—and begins to behave in anti-social ways. We see this process already at work in our universities, where religious or conservative values are hostilely opposed, contrary to even the First Amendment rights academics so ardently cherish for themselves.
We are warned that things will only get worse as the end approaches (Matthew 24:6, 8, 21; II Timothy 3:1, 13). Society will continue to break down, violence and deception will increase, and persecution of those who live morally will intensify—not a positive outlook as we prepare for the Kingdom of God. Christ, though, advises us, "But he who endures to the end shall be saved" (Matthew 24:13). If He says it can be done, we can do it!
What would you consider to be the most dangerous element in society? Al Queda? Gangs? Hezbollah? Private militias? Chechen terrorists? Environmental militants? Rogue nations? AIDS and other STDs? Hamas? Drug cartels? Neo-Nazis? Pollution?
Not according to former Clinton-era Labor Secretary Robert B. Reich. In "The Last Word: Bush's God" (American Prospect, July 2004, subscription only), he writes that the thing we need to be most concerned about is you and me—those who believe in God:
The great conflict of the 21st century will not be between the West and terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic, not a belief. The true battle will be between modern civilization and anti-modernists; between those who believe in the primacy of the individual and those who believe that human beings owe their allegiance and identity to a higher authority; between those who give priority to life in this world and those who believe that human life is mere preparation for an existence beyond life; between those who believe in science, reason, and logic and those who believe that truth is revealed through Scripture and religious dogma. Terrorism will disrupt and destroy lives. But terrorism itself is not the greatest danger we face.
Ramesh Ponnuru, a senior editor at National Review Online, summarizes what Reich means in his article, "Robert Reich's Religion Problem":
It is a denunciation—as a graver threat than terrorists—of people who believe that the world to come is more important than this world, or that all human beings owe their allegiance to God.
Many millions of Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other religious believers will reject Reich's witless rhetorical oppositions.
Let us hope Ponnuru is right, but Reich's sentiments are becoming more commonly uttered in public by leading progressives in academia and government. The central theme is that America's social and political problems would simply disappear if those with Judeo-Christian values would just shut up and go away. They gripe that religious people keep dragging up "anti-modern," "traditional," "backward" ideas, beliefs, values, and methods and injecting them into the modern or post-modern world where they just do not fit! For instance, according to such people, the "archaic" belief in the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman may have suited society in earlier centuries, but it is today outmoded, unnecessary, and overly restrictive.
Even if Christians and Jews hold such old-fashioned notions, why do the Robert Reichs of the world consider believers dangerous? Do they not realize that truly devout people are usually the last to resort to violence, terror, and offensive action? To whom are they a danger? Simply put, they are a danger to the Robert Reichs of the world! They are a danger because they hold the principled, ideological sword that threatens to dethrone progressives and their liberal views from the powerful positions they have held. Thus, liberals must tar and feather believing Jews and Christians and run them out of society on a rail because it is far easier to advance one's agenda if no opposition exists. (By the way, Reich is currently promoting his latest book, Reason: Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America.)
Over the long haul, Reich's comments are nothing to get excited about, but they do point out a growing trend to sideline those who believe God. In time, if rabid liberals gained political power (note that by their voting records, Democrats John Kerry and John Edwards are the first and fourth most liberal Senators in that august chamber), marginalizing could lead to persecution—and even to governmental restrictions on worship. In the short term, they will continue to coarsen the culture and take victories where they can on such issues as gay "marriage," welfare, military (un)preparedness, diversity, education, sexual freedom, and separation of church and state. These are the frontline issues, and each minor victory enhances their power.
Paul gives us some sound advice for these times:
Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. But evil men and imposters will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. But as for you, continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. (II Timothy 3:12-15)
