----------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1994 by the Christian Research Institute.
----------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION LIMITATIONS:
This data file is the sole property of the Christian Research
Institute. It may not be altered or edited in any way. It may
be reproduced only in its entirety for circulation as "freeware,"
without charge. All reproductions of this data file must contain
the copyright notice (i.e., "Copyright 1994 by the Christian
Research Institute"). This data file may not be used without the
permission of the Christian Research Institute for resale or the
enhancement of any other product sold. This includes all of its
content with the exception of a few brief quotations not to
exceed more than 500 words.
If you desire to reproduce less than 500 words of this data file
for resale or the enhancement of any other product for resale,
please give the following source credit: Copyright 1994 by the
Christian Research Institute, P.O. Box 500-TC, San Juan
Capistrano, CA 92693.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"The Worldwide Church of God: Acknowledging the 'Plain Truth' about
the Trinity?" (an article from the Christian Research Journal,
Spring/Summer 1994, page 29) by Alan W. Gomes.
The Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Research Journal is
Elliot Miller.
-------------
Since Herbert W. Armstrong's death in 1986, cult apologists
have watched the 100,000-member Worldwide Church of God (WCG) move
"tentatively in the direction of orthodoxy."[1] As Ruth A. Tucker
observes, "I can't recall a movement that has made change from the
top down in similar circumstances."[2] Though Christian apologists
to this point have not been "ready to issue a clean bill of
theological health"[3] to the WCG, that time may be soon
approaching if the present trajectory of doctrinal change
continues.
The WCG leadership has instituted changes on a wide range of
issues, touching matters both practical and theological.[4] Of all
the changes taking place, the most remarkable is their new position
on the Trinity. To appreciate fully the magnitude of the changes,
some only months old, it will first be helpful to examine
Armstrong's position on the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and the
Incarnation.
ARMSTRONG ON CHRIST AND THE TRINITY
Armstrong assailed the doctrine of the Trinity as
pagan-inspired.[5] In his _attack_ he sounds much like the
Jehovah's Witnesses. Armstrong's _positive_ teaching, however, has
little in common with the Watchtower.
Armstrong seems to start out on a much more orthodox footing,
ascribing both deity and eternality to Christ. Speaking of Christ
as the Word in John 1:1, Armstrong states: "The Greek word [in John
1:1] is 'Logos.'...who co-existed with the Father from eternity --
who always existed -- who is one with the Father...the 'WORD,' who
was the ETERNAL...the very GOD Himself -- HE WAS MADE FLESH."[6] In
direct contradiction to the Watchtower position, Armstrong even
applies the title "Yahweh" to Jesus.[7]
The "Family of God" -- Armstrong Style
From this seemingly good beginning, Armstrong quickly dashes
our hopes when he introduces the odd notion that the Godhead is a
"family."[8] In classic WCG theology, this "family" is described as
"open," and not "intractably closed" like the Trinity.[9] In
eternity past there were only two members of this family: the
Father and the Son. During the three days Jesus was dead, there was
only one member. After Christ was raised there were again two. At
the Resurrection, when Christians _become God_ (not _gods_ but
_God_), they are added to the "God family." There is but one family
(i.e., God), but the family can have many members.[10]
All true Christians will be "born again" at the Resurrection,
when they will become God. The Christian will actually _be_ God,
"even as Jesus was and is God, and His Father, a different person,
also is God."[11] Armstrong's doctrine should be distinguished, at
least semantically, from the Mormon doctrine of plurality of gods.
Unlike Joseph Smith or Brigham Young, Armstrong does not speak of
more than one God, but of many members in the one God family. Yet,
the differences between this and polytheism appear more semantic
than real.
What about the Holy Spirit? In classic WCG theology, the Holy
Spirit is not a person but is variously described as a "force," a
"power," the "mind," or the "very essence" of God. Armstrong denied
that the Holy Spirit is "a distinct person as is the Father or
Christ."[12]
The Incarnation in Armstrong's Teaching
Armstrong states that Jesus lost his divinity in the
Incarnation and was _converted_ (Armstrong's word) into a human
being.[13] Armstrong takes the expression "the Word _became_ flesh"
in the literal sense of _conversion into_ flesh, not in the sense
of the Word assuming an additional, human nature. The Word, now
fully and _exclusively_ human, could die on the cross and make
redemption for our sins.[14] Though the Word experienced
metamorphosis into human flesh, he can still be called God because
he is the same person with the same will, simply transformed from
a spirit nature into corporeal humanity.
When Christ died, he literally ceased to exist. Armstrong
regarded death as the cessation of existence; he (like the
Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists) denied the
existence of an entity called the soul, which survives the death of
the body. But in a bizarre way, Armstrong's "God family" view
allows him to answer the common Watchtower objection, "If Jesus is
God, then who ran the universe while God was dead?" His answer:
"God the Father -- God in the First Person -- still reigned in His
Heaven...."[15] "If there was no FATHER in heaven while Jesus
Christ lay dead," Armstrong tells us, "then all life everywhere had
come to an end!"[16]
Orthodox Trinitarianism, Version 1.0
In June of 1993 some landmark meetings on the doctrine of the
Trinity took place at the WCG headquarters in Pasadena, California.
These conferences involved high-ranking directors, teachers,
administrators, and Ambassador College faculty.[17] In a three-part
series of articles in the _Worldwide News,_ current WCG president
Joseph Tkach explained the new teaching on the Godhead. (Note that
the _Worldwide News_ is not a public relations piece but is
intended for members only.)
Even before these meetings, church leaders had already
abandoned Armstrong's "God family" doctrine. Indeed, Tkach himself
compared "the idea of more than one being in a family or hierarchy
of gods" to "the concept that the polytheistic nations surrounding
Israel taught"[18] -- more than a little ironic when one recalls
that in the past it was the doctrine of the Trinity that the WCG
considered pagan! Also, before the meetings the church had affirmed
the full and _unique_ divinity of the Father and the Son, while
continuing to deny the personhood of the Holy Spirit.[19] Thus, the
personhood of the Holy Spirit remained the final stumbling block.
The WCG appears to have finally removed this stumbling block,
though they are quite sensitive about their mode of statement. On
the one hand, Tkach now unambiguously states that "the Holy Spirit
is personal."[20] Tkach provides a catena of citations -- ones
often cited by Trinitarians -- to demonstrate the personality of
the Holy Spirit. These passages show that the Holy Spirit speaks,
wills, sends, and so forth.[21] Yet, the WCG still does "not use
the pronoun 'he' when speaking of the Holy Spirit"; they continue
to use the pronoun "it."[22] Additionally, even though the members
of the Godhead are _personal,_ the WCG is reluctant to use the term
_person_ in reference to the three, preferring instead the Greek
term _hypostasis._
In Search of Just the Right Word
Tkach identifies a problem with the word "person" as applied to
the Godhead. It most naturally suggests three separate beings: "The
ordinary meaning of the word 'Person' is _misleading_ when it is
applied to God. It gives the impression that God has limits, and
that his threeness lies in his being three separate individuals --
which is not the case ..." (emphasis in original).[23] Thus, the
term "person" is unsuitable for the members of the Godhead, since
the word "is easily misunderstood by the average person when
referring to God, unless it is accompanied by an explanation that
'Persons' in the Godhead should not be thought of in the same way
as 'persons' like you and me...."[24]
Tkach points out that the original Latin word _persona_ did not
have the same connotation as the English word "person." The Latin
_persona_ carried the sense of a "mask" worn by the actors in a
play. This concept, though not subject to the tritheistic
interpretation suggested by the English understanding of person,
nevertheless is misleading in a different way: "It is misleading
because the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not mere roles
being played by God, and because an actor can play only one role at
a time, quite unlike God, who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all
the time...."[25]
Yet, God is certainly personal. It would be a serious error to
describe God as impersonal. Tkach states: "On the other hand, God
does interact with us in a personal way. It is wrong, therefore, to
say that God is _impersonal"_ (emphasis in original).[26] Thus,
even though the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are personal, the
"extra baggage"[27] carried by the term "person" makes it necessary
to seek other vocabulary to express the position.
The Holy Spirit: "He" or "It"?
Granting that the Holy Spirit is personal, Tkach asks, "Why
do we not use the pronoun 'he' when speaking of the Holy
Spirit?"[28] "The answer," he responds, "is a matter of grammar,
not a matter of whether the Spirit is personal."[29] Tkach
explains:
Let's look at John 14:16-17. The word "another," because
it is referring back to Jesus [sic],[30] is masculine,
and takes the pronoun "he." The word "Comforter" is
masculine and takes the pronoun "he." The word "Spirit"
is neuter and takes the pronoun "it." These are questions
of the grammar of the language, not questions of
theology.
In John 15:26, John uses "he" of the Comforter and
"it" of the Spirit -- because of the correct grammar, not
because of personality. The Holy Spirit is personal, but
the word "Spirit" takes the pronoun "it." The word
"Comforter" takes the pronoun "he."
Since it is correct to use "he" of the Comforter, and
since the Holy Spirit is the Comforter, some have
reasoned that it is acceptable to use "he" of the Holy
Spirit. However, it is _not_ grammatically correct to
refer to the Holy Spirit as "he," because "Spirit" is a
neuter word, both in Greek and English. (emphasis in
original)[31]
I shall comment momentarily on the validity of this argument.
At this point, it is sufficient to note that the ascription of "it"
to the Holy Spirit does not mean what it formerly did in WCG
theology -- that the Holy Spirit is impersonal. Though Tkach did
not draw the parallel, it is a bit like the King James translators
who rendered the neuter pronoun "it" in reference to the Holy
Spirit, though they themselves did not mean to undermine the
personhood of the Holy Spirit, rightly understood. Also, note that
when the Holy Spirit is described by the term "Counselor," then the
WCG does indeed use the pronoun "he" to refer to him.[32]
Hypostasis -- A Better Term than "Person"?
Tkach proclaims that the Worldwide Church now uses the Greek
term _hypostasis_ in preference to the English word "person": "Our
teaching is that God is one Being, existing eternally in three
hypostases: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."[33] Unlike the term
"person," the word _hypostasis_ is used biblically in a Trinitarian
context. Hebrews 1:3 states that the Son is the "brightness
[_apaugasma_] of his [God's] glory and the express image
[_charakter_] of his person/being [_hypostaseos_]."
The relationship between the Son and the Father expressed in
this verse is as the relationship between brightness and glory,
Tkach explains. In good Patristic[34] fashion (though without
mentioning any such writers), Tkach says, "One cannot simply have
radiance without the source of radiance, or a source of radiance
without the radiance itself. Yet we distinguish between God's glory
and the radiance of that glory. They are distinct, without being
separate...."[35]
Now, what of the word _hypostasis_ itself? How is it to be
translated? Tkach observes that some versions translate this as
"being," while others render it as "person." He defines
_hypostasis_ as follows: "The word means 'standing under' in
literal terms. It refers to that which 'stands under,' or that
which makes something what it is. Here's a good definition of
_hypostasis:_ 'That without which something cannot be.' It could be
called 'the ground of being.'"[36] In the next paragraph Tkach
concludes: "This is the word we have chosen to use of the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is a biblical term and it does not
confuse God's nature with the created order. Our teaching is that
God is one Being, existing eternally in three hypostases: Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit."[37]
EVEN GOOD PROGRAMS CAN HAVE BUGS
I believe the Worldwide Church of God is to be commended for
producing an explanation of the Trinity which, in the main,
addresses the concerns of thoughtful Trinitarians. It is thoroughly
Patristic in vocabulary (though not by design), and apparently in
intent, affirming one God who exists eternally in three hypostases:
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, a few critical
observations are in order.*
Hebrews 1:3 and Trinitarian Language
While Tkach has rightly understood the meaning of _hypostaseos_
in Hebrews 1:3, he has missed the obvious fact that _hypostasis_ so
defined does not provide him with the linguistic handle he needs to
speak of the personal distinctions in the Godhead. Tkach defines
_hypostasis_ as "that which makes something what it is."[38] This
is one of the correct definitions of the word _hypostasis,_ and is
the one to be adopted in translating Hebrews 1:3.[39] But
_hypostasis_ thus defined describes the divine _being,_ not the
personal distinctions within that being. The final form of the
Trinitarian formula used by the Christian church affirms "one
_ousia_ [i.e., 'being'], three _hypostases."_ In this formula the
word _hypostasis_ carries the sense of an individual instance of an
_ousia,_ that is, a person. The definition Tkach gives for
_hypostasis_ -- "that which makes something what it is" -- is the
equivalent of _ousia_ (Greek) or _substantia_ (Latin) as used in
the official Trinitarian formula, not the equivalent of
_hypostasis_ as used in that same formula. Yet, contrary to his
definition and to its use in Hebrews 1:3, Tkach wishes to use
_hypostasis_ for distinguishing the Trinitarian persons.
The range of meaning for the word _hypostasis_ posed challenges
to the early Fathers who used it in Trinitarian discussions. The
Nicene Creed of A.D. 325 explicitly anathematizes those who speak
of the Son as a "different _hypostasis_ or _ousia"_ from the
Father. Here the terms are precisely synonymous and refer to the
divine being itself, not to the personal distinctions. The Creed of
A.D. 325 provides no word to express the distinctions in the
Godhead. In this sense the Nicene formula was a bit of a
"theological halfway house," awaiting further refinements. Later,
the Cappadocian Fathers used the word _hypostasis_ to express the
distinctions in the Godhead.[40] At the Council of Constantinople
in A.D. 381, the previously mentioned anathema was removed and the
standard formula became "one _ousia,_ three _hypostases."_
Tkach is hamstrung by his insistence on using purely "biblical
language" (that is, words found verbatim in the Bible) to describe
the Trinity. Unfortunately, the biblical use of _hypostasis_ does
not serve the purpose he requires. Indeed, in Hebrews 1:3, it is
the words _apaugasma_ ["radiance"] and _charakter_ ["express
image"], not _hypostaseos,_ which more properly describe the Son as
a personal distinction in the Godhead. If we were to hold Tkach to
his "biblical" definition of _hypostasis,_ then he has certainly
taught tritheism in affirming three _hypostases_ in the Godhead.
However, because Tkach specifically denies tritheism, it seems to
be a case of imprecise thinking rather than of tritheistic intent.
Thus, Tkach has affirmed the correct formula, but for the wrong
reason. He could easily avoid this problem by recognizing that the
issue is not whether the words used are "biblical," but whether
that which is expressed by them is. Recall that the Arians (whom
Tkach regards as heretical) attacked the orthodox for using
"unbiblical" expressions such as _homoousios_ ["same being"] to
describe the relationship between the Father and the Son.[41]
Meanwhile, the "biblical" Arians referred to Christ by the biblical
phrase "only begotten" -- which they defined as "created." Yet,
which party reflected faithfully the teaching of Scripture?
Personal Pronouns and the Holy Spirit
For the sake of discussion, let us grant Tkach's thesis that we
should translate pronouns precisely according to their gender. What
then of John 16:13-14, which Tkach passes over in silence? In this
passage the _masculine_ pronoun _ekeinos,_ translated "he," is used
with the neuter noun _pneuma_ (Spirit), here stressing the
personality of the Holy Spirit. As Leon Morris cogently observes,
"The conjunction, _ekeinos,_ to _pneuma_ ['he, the Spirit']...is
noteworthy, with the masculine pronoun in immediate juxtaposition
to the neuter noun. It emphasizes the fact that John thought of the
Spirit as personal."[42] It would seem that John was willing at
times to bend the rules of Greek grammar to make the point that the
Holy Spirit is a person.
The WCG's decision to continue referring to the Holy Spirit as
"it" will certainly generate misunderstanding. Since the word "it"
in English connotes _impersonality,_ the WCG will give the
impression Tkach explicitly says they wish to avoid. Indeed, if
"the ordinary meaning of the word 'Person' is misleading when
applied to God,"[43] is it not equally misleading to speak of the
personal Holy Spirit as "it"? Will WCG writers provide a tortuous
(and linguistically flawed) discussion of grammatical gender at the
beginning of every publication referring to the Holy Spirit as
"it"?
WITH A FEW MORE CHANGES...
The WCG's newly revised statement on the Trinity is certainly
a step forward. It has adopted the proper and well-established
Trinitarian formula: one God in three hypostases. In using the term
_hypostases_ to denote the persons in the Godhead the church stands
in the centuries-old tradition of historic Christian orthodoxy.
Unfortunately, while the use of _hypostasis_ is fine, the attempt
to base it on Hebrews 1:3 involves difficulties. Also, the church
now affirms the personhood of the Holy Spirit, which is a vast
improvement -- even if WCG leaders are overly solicitous about
their choice of pronouns. These are problems that may be overcome
if there is a willingness to continue additional refinement.
-------------
* Editor's note: On April 14, 1994 the Christian Research Institute
held a promising initial meeting with officials of the Worldwide
Church of God. In that meeting the WCG officials brought to our
attention a recently revised booklet in which the church now
affirms that it is acceptable to use the term _persons_ of the
Father, Son and Holy Spirit, _if_ "one understands that _Person_
must not be confused with the way humans are persons." (_God
Is_..., [Pasadena: Worldwide Church of God, 1992, 1993].)
-------------
NOTES
1 Randy Frame, "Worldwide Church of God Edges toward Orthodoxy,"
_Christianity Today,_ 9 November 1992, 57-58. _See_ also Alan W.
Gomes and Kurt Van Gorden, "Special Report: The Worldwide Church
of God in Transition," _Christian Research Journal,_ Spring
1992, 35; Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, _The Deceivers: What
Cults Believe, How They Lure Followers_ (San Bernardino, CA:
Here's Life Publishers, 1992), 277-78; Ruth A. Tucker, _Another
Gospel_ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989), 215-16; _Watchman
Expositor_ 10, no. 7 (1993), the entire issue; James Walker,
"Update on Worldwide Church of God," _Watchman Expositor_ 10,
no. 8 (1993):19-21; and James Walker, "Doctrinal Changes at the
Worldwide Church of God," _Watchman Expositor_ 8, no. 5
(1991):1, 5.
2 Mark A. Kellner, "Mainstream Moves May Split Worldwide Church of
God," _Christianity Today,_ 8 November 1993, 63. In actuality,
the JOURNAL knows of at least one recognized (though smaller and
lesser known) cult that moved toward orthodoxy prior to the WCG.
_See_ "Holy Order of MANS Sect Changes Name, Joins Eastern
Orthodox Church," _Christian Research Journal,_ Summer 1988, 27.
3 Frame, 57-58.
4 Worldwide Church of God, "Summary of Doctrinal Statements and
Recent Changes Within the Worldwide Church of God: Comments from
Pastor General Joseph W. Tkach and Topics from Current Church
Literature" (paper presented at the 1991 Tanner Lecture Series,
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1991); _Statement of
Beliefs of the Worldwide Church of God,_ Fall 1992 edition;
James K. Walker, "Worldwide Church of God Accepts Trinity
Doctrine," _Watchman Expositor_ 10, no. 7 (1993):3.
5 Herbert W. Armstrong, _Just What Do You Mean -- Born Again?_
(Pasadena, CA: Ambassador Press, n.d.), 13.
6 Herbert W. Armstrong, "Why Christ Died -- and Rose Again!" _The
Plain Truth,_ April 1963, 9-10.
7 _Ibid.,_ 10.
8 Herbert W. Armstrong, "Millions Do Not Know What Christ Really
Was!" _The Plain Truth,_ November 1963, 11-12; cited in Paul N.
Benware, _Ambassadors of Armstrongism: An Analysis of the
History and Teachings of the Worldwide Church of God_
(Philipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1975), 45.
9 B. McDowell, "Is the Holy Spirit a Person?" _Tomorrow's World,_
September 1970, 31.
10 Armstrong, _Born Again?_ 16-21.
11 Herbert W. Armstrong, _Why Were You Born?_ (Pasadena, CA:
Ambassador Press, n.d.), 21-22.
12 David J. Hill, "Why Is God the Father Called a Father?"
_Tomorrow's World,_ September 1970, 28; cited in Benware, 43.
13 Armstrong, "Why Christ Died," 10.
14 _Ibid.,_ 40.
15 _Ibid._
16 _Ibid.,_ 10.
17 Joseph W. Tkach, "Personal from...Joseph W. Tkach: Why We
Believe in One God," _The Worldwide News,_ 3 August 1993, 1.
18 _Ibid.,_ 3. _See_ also K. J. Stavrinides, "Does _Elohim_ Refer
to a Family of Divine Beings?" _The Worldwide News,_ 3 August
1993, 4.
19 _Statement of Beliefs of the Worldwide Church of God,_ Fall 1992
edition.
20 Joseph W. Tkach, "Personal from...Joseph W. Tkach: One God,"
_The Worldwide News,_ 31 August 1993, 3.
21 Tkach, "Why We Believe," 3; Tkach, "Personal from ...Joseph W.
Tkach: The Biblical Teaching on the Holy Spirit," _The Worldwide
News,_ 17 August 1993, 5.
22 Tkach, "The Biblical Teaching," 5.
23 _Ibid.,_ 3.
24 _Ibid._
25 _Ibid._
26 Tkach, "One God," 3.
27 Tkach, "Why We Believe," 6.
28 _Ibid._
29 _Ibid._
30 The word "another" actually refers back to "Comforter," not to
"Jesus," as Tkach erroneously states.
31 _Ibid._
32 Tkach, "The Biblical Teaching," 5.
33 Tkach, "One God," 1.
34 The word _patristic_ refers to the early church fathers and
their writings.
35 Tkach, "One God," 1.
36 _Ibid._
37 _Ibid._
38 _Ibid._
39 _See_ Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, _A Greek-English Lexicon of
the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature,_ 1957
ed., s.v. "hypostasis."
40 The term "Cappadocian Fathers" refers to Gregory Nazianzus,
Gregory Nyssa, and Basil the Great.
41 The orthodox described Jesus as _homoousios_ to the Father,
meaning that they are the very same God.
42 Leon Morris, _The Gospel According to John,_ volume in _The New
International Commentary of the New Testament_ (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1971), 699, n. 26.
43 Tkach, "The Biblical Teaching," 3.
-------------
End of document, CRJ0175A.TXT (original CRI file name),
"The Worldwide Church of God: Acknowledging the 'Plain Truth'
about the Trinity?"
release A, February 28, 1995
R. Poll, CRI
(A special note of thanks to Bob and Pat Hunter for their help in
the preparation of this ASCII file for BBS circulation.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Christian Research Journal is published quarterly by the
Christian Research Institute (CRI) -- founded in 1960 by the late
Dr. Walter R. Martin. While CRI is concerned with and involved
in the general defense of the faith, our area of research
specialization is limited to elements within the modern religious
scene that compete with, assault, or undermine biblical
Christianity. These include cults (that is, groups which deny
essential Christian doctrines such as the deity of Christ and the
Trinity); the occult, much of which has become focused in the
contemporary New Age movement; the major world religions; and
aberrant Christian teachings (that is, teachings which compromise
or confuse essential biblical truth).
Regular features of the Journal include "Newswatch," witnessing
tips and book reviews.
CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL RATES: (subject to change)
One Year Two Years
U.S. Residents [ ] 20.00 [ ] 37.00
Canadian (U.S. funds) [ ] 24.00 [ ] 44.00
Other Foreign (U.S. funds) [ ] 36.00 [ ] 66.00
Please make checks payable to CRI
To place a credit card order by phone, call us toll-free at:
(800) 2-JOURNAL
To subscribe to the Christian Research Journal, please print this
coupon, fill in the necessary information and mail it with your
payment to:
CRI, P.O. Box 500-TC, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92693-0500
[ ] Yes! I want to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal.
Name: ___________________________________________________
Address: ___________________________________________________
Address: ___________________________________________________
City, State, ZIP: __________________________________________
Country: _______________ Phone: ____________________________
YOURS FOR THE ASKING
Did you know that CRI has a wealth of information on various
topics that is yours for the asking? In fact, a free
subscription to the Christian Research Newsletter is yours if you
contact CRI and ask for one saying that you found out about the
offer from this computer text file. We offer a wide variety of
articles and fact sheets free of charge. Write us today for
information on these or other topics. Our first-rate research
staff will do everything possible to help you.
Christian Research Institute
P.O. Box 500-TC
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92693
(714) 855-9926
---------------
End of file.