Truth Magazine

By Dan Walters

The New Testament speaks of only two kinds of doctrine: that which is of God and is, therefore, sound doctrine; and that which is of man and, thus, unsound. The doctrine which God has revealed to man is called “sound doctrine” (Titus 1:9; 2:1; 2 Tim. 4:3), “the apostles’ doctrine” (Acts 2:42), “good doctrine” (I Tim. 4:6), “the doctrine of Christ” (2 John 9). and “the doctrine which is according to godliness” (1 Tim. 6:3). The doctrine which is of man’s own invention is called “other doctrine” (1 Tim. 1:3), “doctrines of devils” (I Tim. 4:1), “doctrines of men” (Col. 2:22), and “strange doctrines” (Heb. 13:9).

The doctrine which is of God has a positive effect upon those who believe and obey it. It changes their lives for the better and leads to eternal salvation. The doctrine which is of man has the opposite effect. Teaching and obeying the doctrine of God brings salvation to the teacher and to those who hear him (1 Tim. 4:16). Teaching and obeying the doctrines of men causes one to worship in vain (Matt. 15:9), to “depart from the faith” (1 Tim. 4:1), to have not God (2 John 9), to be childish and unstable (Eph. 4:14), to be “proud, knowing nothing” (1 Tim. 6:4), and to be “accursed” (Gal. 1:8).

Some Christians have become discontent with this simple classification of sound and unsound doctrine. The advocates of unity-in-diversity have found it necessary to divide the doctrine contained in the New Testament into three kinds: (1) that which must be obeyed in order to become a Christian, (2) that which is of a purely moral nature, and (3) that which is of a specifically religious nature and applies to those who have already become Christians. They argue that the first is essential; if this is disregarded, one remains a lost alien sinner. They say that the second is also essential; one who violates God’s moral law and will not repent should be withdrawn from. But they maintain that the third may be violated with impunity; one who is already a Christian may teach and practice man’s doctrine without the need of repentance, so long as he is sincere.

The most effective argument in support of this position is that since salvation is by the grace of God and must not rest upon the wisdom of man, a Christian must not be expected to understand all of God’s teaching, especially that part that must be determined by deductive reasoning. Some brethren have come to the conclusion that direct commands must be obeyed, but that approved apostolic examples and necessary inferences are optional. But even if this were valid, it would not end the problem of division. “Let your women keep silence in the churches” (1 Cor. 14:34) is a direct command. Yet brethren argue about whether this and certain other commands apply to modern Christians. There is no point of doctrine so clear that it is not disputed by some sincere person who believes that he is a faithful Christian. Thus the unity-in-diversity position must eventually lead to a belief in salvation by faith only.

Pat Boone, the apostate, now believes that a faithful Christian can continue to be a member of any Prostestant denomination or of the Roman Catholic Church. He believes that no one should be withdrawn from except for being a moral reprobate. His position is more logical than that of many of our brethren who are following the Ketcherside line. It is a fact that many good and sincere persons misunderstand the action and purpose of baptism. If we insist that they must understand and obey this doctrine to be saved, is not this allowing salvation to depend upon man’s wisdom rather than God’s grace, according to the familiar logic?

If all the references to doctrine in the New Testament, both sound and unsound, are noted, it will be seen that the word applies to the first principles of the gospel (Heb. 6:1, 2), to morality (Rev. 2:14, 15), and to religious teaching applying to Christians (Col. 2:22; 1 Tim. 4:1-3; Rom. 16:17). All of the directions we have received from Christ are essential doctrine. They are also law. Those who have respect of persons “are convinced of the law as transgressors (Jas. 2:9). First John 3:4 says, “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law.” So if it is possible for a Christian to commit sin, then a Christian lives under the rule of God’s law. Under every dispensation of religion God’s law has included those things which we call “moral” and those things we call “religious.” God has never allowed the religious part of the law to be disregarded. In fact, religious sins under the Law of Moses were punished even more severely than moral sins. Will any brother affirm that we are no longer subject to any religious laws, or that breaking a religious law of the New Testament is not a sin? If not, then teaching or practicing an unsound religious doctrine is a sin that requires repentance. There is no promise of salvation to those who die in sin, whether they be alien or Christian. “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive our sins” (1 John I :9). Where does this leave the Christian who refuses to repent, confess, and ask forgiveness?

The whole question boils down to whether God has promised to save every sincere believer in Christ, even if he has been deceived into a continual practice of sin, moral or religious. Brethren of the modern persuasion are heading toward “faith only” and “once saved, always saved.” There is no scriptural support for the idea that some doctrine is essential and some is not.

One is made to wonder why so many intelligent young men are attracted to this worn-out theory which is the essence of denominationalism. The answer seems to be a widespread disillusionment with the restoration movement because it is assumed to be a failure. This assumption is based upon two facts: (1) that the majority of the so-called Christian world has not accepted it, and (2) that those who have accepted the basic principle are divided into many hostile parties.

It must be realized that numbers are relatively unimportant, and that faithful children of God have been a minority in every age. In the time of Noah there were only eight; in the time of Elijah there were 7,000, still a small remnant of Israel. All the preaching of John the Baptist and of the Savior resulted in only 120 faithful disciples who waited for the kingdom on the day of Pentecost. Yet this does not indicate that John and Jesus were failures!

It must also be realized that religious division and hostility have occurred among God’s people since the day of Cain and Abel. 1 Cor. 11:19 says, “For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.” “Heresies” means factions or sects; they will continue to be born, to grow, and to die. Yet this does not prove that those who are faithful to God and His doctrine have failed, or that they are responsible for the divisions. It is our duty to preach and practice sound doctrine without counting heads to see how many are in agreement. If we are in agreement with Christ, it is enough.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 12, pp. 203-204
March 22, 1979

By Earl Robertson

The apostle John wrote, “Love not the world”, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever” (1 John 2:15-17).

This is not popular language to the world or worldly people in various churches. The command of John is imperative making it a prohibition. The fight God waged through Christ against the world must likewise be seen by every armor- carrying saint today. Some people seem to think the world does not need fighting-just do not love it! To have the love of God (objective) one must oppose the world; having such is the very antithesis to loving the world.

John declares, “The world passeth away, and the lust thereof.” This just means that all who love and gain the world cannot keep it. Neither can one take it with him when he leaves (1 Tim. 6:7). Furthermore, the world can never completely satisfy one who indulges in it. Man lives by every word that comes from God (Matt. 4:4), and this is what satisfies.

John says the world is made up of three things: (1) Lust of the flesh, (2) Lust of the eyes, (3) Pride of life. These three cover all the means through which sin becomes a reality. Giving vent to sensual passions is sin. All who do so do it at the expense of virtue and man-hood. While one lives like an alley cat he has no respect-from himself or others. The lust of the eyes involves the lust for wealth. With this motivation, one often lays aside his sympathy, benevolence, and honesty. In his madness he grabs even for that of others. One has to give away all his convictions in his “pride of life.” This man wants everybody to speak well of him and pat him on the back while he goes about being “every man’s dog who will hunt with him!” One who so loves the world has lost his virtue, his honesty, and his convictions! Of what value is this man to anything that is good? Of what value is he to a church? None at all! Yet some churches will keep such within their fellowship.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 12, p. 202
March 22, 1979

By Jeffrey Kingry

The Gnosticism of the first century, which gave the apostles and teachers so much trouble, was a religion, not a philosophy. It was grounded in Dualism, a view that the state of man was divided; that only spiritual things were good, and anything of matter is essentially evil. Man, they figured, was a spirit, a mind, the personality, reason, and intellect imprisoned within an evil body. That spirit was a seed, an effluence of God, who is altogether good. So then, the aim of life must be to release this heavenly seed which is held within the evil body. And that could only be done by an elaborate and secret knowledge and ritual and initiation which only true gnostics could apply. According to Schaff-Herzog, “In the sense of the Gnostics, gnosis (Greek word for knowledge) is religion; knowledge is redemption: to know, that is to be redeemed, is only possible for the `spiritual man,’ sufficiently elevated by knowledge . . . The surest sign that this gnosis was a matter of religion and not of philosophy was the fact that its advocates made efforts to form associations; although it was not always clear where the school stopped and the church began” (Vol. 4, pp. 498, 499).

William Barclay commented on the gnostic, “Still further, this Gnosticism issued in an attitude towards men . . . the Gnostic aimed . . . at an elaborate, esoteric, and secret knowledge. Clearly such a knowledge was not for every man. Ordinary people were too involved in the everyday work and life of the world ever to have time for the study and training and discipline which were necessary; and, even if they had such time, there were many who were intellectually quite incapable of grasping and understanding the involved and elaborate mysteries of the theosophy. This produced quite an inevitable result: those qualified I and those not” (John and Jude’s Epistles, p. 13).

Not An Ancient Problem Alone

There is a proper place for education and intellectual effort. In the words of an old college professor of mine, “A man ought to get as much education as he can use.” A man aware of the world about him, informed in many areas, and familiar with some of the tools provided by modern education is better equipped to communicate to people in a meaningful way the truth he mines from the Bible. But, there is a sharp line that must be drawn between knowledge as a tool and knowledge as an end.

Several years ago I had dinner with a brilliant young man that was at that time working on his Master’s Degree in Biblical History. He was preaching “part-time,” actually filling a pulpit, and had expressed his desire to preach. I asked him why did he not just go ahead and preach. Surely he had all the schooling he could stomach by now. He had previously expressed great weariness at the grind of school and how it was prohibiting him from doing what he really wanted to do; preach. His reply at the time was quite humorous. He informed me that the church needed some scholars to write commentaries so that the brethren would not have to go to the commentaries of denominationalists or liberal brethren.

His view was and is not unique. More recently I heard of another young man who moved to work with a church that he might finish his Baccalaureate. Following his graduation, he left that church that he might follow after his Master’s and Doctorate. He also had made it his life’s ambition to write the “All-American Commentary” and go down in history as the Lord’s scholar.

A Life’s Dedication?

It is a marvel the degree of self-deception and justification men will arouse to give meaning and purpose to their deeds. Faith demands that we trust God and His methods in accomplishing His will. Commentaries, if they are good, are tools which direct us back to the Word itself. No man can be faulted for wishing to direct men to the Bible, yet in choosing a life’s ambition, God’s man is an evangelist, pastor, or teacher. There does not seem to be much room left in God’s scheme for the deskbound scholar whose only practical contact with others is through intellectualism.

Many young men’s view of themselves and their life’s work is indictative of the age we live in. It is a product of our time. Our age has produced “credential consciousness.” A man’s view is not determined by its worth, but his words are judged upon the scholastic, economic, or political endorsement of their speaker. This is the age of “expert knowledge.” Since the body’s complexity defies total understanding by one man, medical doctors “specialize” and become experts in only one area of medicine or anatomy. The same is true of historians, engineers, chemists, and many other sciences. But, in godly living, the Scriptures declare, “For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope . . . and I myself am persuaded of you my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, and filled witb all knowledge, able also to admonish one another” (Rom. 15:4, 14). Those Christians who are filled with a knowledge of the Word of God and goodness in its practice are “able (capable) to admonish one another.” They are fully equipped, throughly furnished, having all things necessary for life and godliness. Their endorsement is divine, from God, and not from man.

Modern Avarice

The continual adding of educational degree, the modern “quest for knowledge” has become our modern form of avarice. The world has substituted, the act of gathering and collating documentation for wisdom. This new system replaces truth with facts, mind for spirit, and knowledge for practice. Reading about how one church set up an “Intensive College-Level Bible Study Program” the writer frankly said, “Some will not be able to “cut it.” Do not be discouraged because some drop out. There is that element in every church.” How unlike the words of Paul when he instructed the brethren, “Knowledge puffeth up, but love builds up . . . wherefore exhort one another, and build one another up, even as also do ye ” (1 Cor. 8:1; 1 Thess. 5:11). Paul always sought to make all men perfect in Christ.

There is a “knowing” which is a thing only of the head (gnostos). And there is a “knowing” which is based on knowledge (ginosko) which is of the heart. Or, as Paul put it, “that rooted and grounded in love, you may be able to apprehend . . . and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge” (Eph. 2:14-19). A knowledge that goes beyond just knowing?

Wisdom is a divine gift, whose origin is from God and not men. It is first “from above” (Jas. 3:17). It is not-exclusively the possession of the specially trained in intellect, rather, “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given unto him” (Jas. 1:5). It is honed and developed in practice rather than a college classroom. “And this I pray, that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and in all judgment; that ye may approve (make a test by practice) things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ” (Phil. 1:9, 10).

The scholar presumes that the quality of life and understanding are a function of intellect, found in special training in language, history, or theology. It has always been a marvel that brethren could place such high trust in men, who with all their scholastic ability, were unable to see the simplest matters of truth as it applied to their lives. “I thank thee Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight” (Matt. 11:25, 26). The Lord knows the reasoning of the wise, that they are foolish, “Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours. Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours. And ye are Christ’s and Christ’s is God’s” (1 Cor. 3:18ff).

Paul of Tarsus, raised at the feet of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), who lived by the strictest discipline iof all Judaism (Acts 26:5), and who advanced in intellectual endorsement far beyond any of his own age (Gal. 1:4) load a very low view of the scholars of his day. “But, what things were gain to me, these I counted loss for Christ. Yea, doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Jesus Christ, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ” (Phil. 3:7, 8). “Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this world? Hath God not made foolish the wisdom of this world” (1 Cor. 1:20)? Do not set “dung” as your highest ambition, O man of God. What you sow that shall ye also reap. Indeed, “God taketh the wise in their own craftiness.”

Conclusion

God needs more disciples and fewer scholars. More martyrs and fewer talkers. Our God could have chosen any means he desired to accomplish His will. The most efficient, effective, and appealing method he could devise, with all of his infinite wisdom and power was what man called “weakness.” He sent His Son in the flesh, made a little lower than the angels, born to a carpenter’s family in a stable, raised in a town from which nothing good had ever come, untutored in the scholasticism of his day. He surrounded Himself with unlettered fishermen, publicans, farmers, political radicals, reformed refuse of society, and the poor heard him gladly. His only credentials were divine, in His teaching and works, and they were denied by the world as valid. But, He is my Lord and King, Jesus the Messiah.

I would that His brethren would not be ashamed of Him and His message of good news. We really do not need to see the church and Christianity “redeemed” in the sight of the world from its foolishness, a foolishness God designed it to bear. Deliver us from those who would change the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible men – in changing the simplicity and godly sincerity of our lives in this world into fleshly wisdom to be seen of men.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 12, pp. 200-202
March 22, 1979

By Wallace H. Little

Since this series deals with religion, something needs to be said about salvation and religion, considering the various forms existing in the Philippine Islands.

The claim is made by believers in Catholicism and repeated by those who do not bother to check that out, that “The Philippines is a Christian nation” equating Christianity with Catholicism. It is true that about 83% of the people hold to what they consider some form of Catholicism, but this is not even the same as saying it is a “Catholic nation.” Among the most faithful members of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC), their brands of Catholicism have been altered and adjusted over the centuries since it was originally introduced by the Spanish. These include a number of non-Catholic, strictly Philippine elements. Many of the traditional holidays (Holy Days) have been altered either in practice or date to include some pre-existing belief or practice among the people there. In some cases, if the Pope were to visit during that period, he would scarcely be able to recognize what he might have been assured was this particular occasion. The last figures I saw on the subject stated there were as many as twenty different branches of Roman Catholicism there today, each sufficiently distinct as to have evolved as organizational structure totally separate from every other RCC organizational structure there. In some cases, these are only nominally connected with Rome. For example, in one group, sometimes referred to as “Black Catholics,” there is the annual Flagalation on “Good Friday.” It is in imitation of Christ’s scourging, carrying His cross to Golgatha, and finally, his crucifixion. I have watched and photographed several of these. Those who participate are stripped to their waists, and blindfolded. Their hands are tied in front of them, and a whip is in their hands. They will walk for some distance alternately swinging these whips from one side to the other, until their backs look like a piece of raw hamburger. Then they may actually carry (drag, really) crosses for some additional distance. Finally, they are laid on the crosses and tied to them (I know of one instance, where the man was nailed and tied both) and the cross is placed upright and those on them are allowed to hang there for a time.

Paganism and animal sacrifice are not unknown there, even today. Occasionally we will hear of a tribe being discovered having a “stone-age” culture, with their worship pagan. In 1973 when Frank Butler, Jady Copeland and I were there, while taking an obscure trail from the road down to the river to baptize several, we found the remains of animal sacrifice. I have pictures.

The Spanish held sway in that nation for 350 years before the Spanish-American war at the turn of the century ended it. With the Spanish army came the Roman Catholic “priests.” In the decades which followed, Catholicism in variously modified forms became the religion of that nation, working its way into the warp and woof of its society until the impression was left that the Philippine Islands were indeed a “Catholic nation.” As far as a commitment to Catholicism on a religious basis is concerned, this is best measured by the emptiness of their places of worship except on important “holidays.” But it is well to remember that what the RCC may lack as far as religious commitment of its members, it strives to replace with its control of the society there through politics and other means. To a very large degree, it has been, and continues to be successful. It is a mistake to underestimate the real power of Catholicism there. Often the display of power is neither blatant nor even very obvious; but it is there nevertheless. It shows up in the conditioned reaction of the people. For example, a priest does not have to tell the Barrio Captain not to issue a gospel preacher a permit for an open-air meeting. The Captain, automatically “knowing” the RCC is the only real church, will refuse such a permit because his previous conditioning and beliefs will not permit him to allow disruption of what he sees as necessary religious Christian (i.e. Catholic) harmony.

The impact and effect of the Roman Church there is great. It has so many tentacles and tendrils that I am no longer surprised at anything I see which stems directly or indirectly from the RCC. My own guess as to the reason Mr. Marcos, President of that nation, has not moved against the RCC, to expropriate its vast land holdings and return these to the people, is the all-pervading influence of the RCC in that society. Rightfully, the land belongs to the people. It was taken from them unlawfully and unethically during the centuries of Spanish occupation. But the power of the RCC is so great that any attempt to take back that land would probably produce social chaos among the very people such expropriation would be designed to assist.

Prior to the Spanish-American war, the Spanish had effectively prevented any serious penetration by Protestantism in the Philippines. With the end of that war, came the end of Spanish control and the immediate introduction of various Protestant denominations. These groups generally taught a great deal more Bible truth then the RCC ever did, and numbers were attracted. But the total inroads were not great – something along the line of 3% of the population. In this figure, I have included God’s people. Numerically, we are so small, and so impossible to count, that computing a percentage is not practical.

In 1914, one Felix Manalo started his own Church (it surely was not the Lord’s!). It carries the name Iglesia ni Christo (Church of Christ). More than a religion, it is a political organization, a social one and one with tremendous power in the economic area. It is also very tightly-knit. In elections, the members vote as a block for whichever candidate or party its leaders select for them. In recent years, the government has taken action to curb its political and economic abuses. Indeed, the very fact of its tight organization has permitted the government to move against it more effectively than would be possible for it to act against the RCC. The central doctrine of the Iglesia ni Christo (commonly called the “Manaloists”) is that Christ is not divine, and that Felix Manalo was a prophet equal to Jesus. Felix Manalo has long since kept his appointment (Heb. 9:27) and today the organization is run by his son.

Converting folks out of both the RCC and the Manaloists, we face problems and difficulties erected by these organizations. Often, there is no direct opposition ordered or even condoned by the organizations themselves. But such obstruction results from the thinking of its members who occupy important governmental positions, because of their training and beliefs. These make them resist the pure Word of Truth. On some occasions, however, the opposition to teachers of God’s Word is both official and dangerous. I have been with a Filipino preacher when he was told by a Manaloist that, “If more of my people had been here, we would have hurt you.” The preacher believed the man; so did I.

Muslims comprise about 4% of the population, mostly in Mindanao. They have little influence beyond their own people and area.

The real beginning of New Testament Christianity in the modern period was in 1928 when George Benson was on his way to China. Due to a delay in obtaining permission to enter that country, he spent 8 months on the Philippine Island of Mindoro. While there, he converted a number of people. I know some of them who are alive today. They are still believing, living and teaching the truth Benson taught them – and it is a shame their teacher is not. The next year, Harold Cassells went there and converted more. God’s work there grew slowly for several decades. The Second World War greatly hindered its spread. Following hostilities, the church in many places almost had to begin again, so many had ceased to worship or were discouraged from it during the Japanese occupation that most of the congregations were no longer in existence. In 1948, our liberal brethren sent Ralph Brashears to that nation to establish a college. It started on the Island of Luzon, the city of Tayug. Several years later, it moved to Baguio City, where the Philippine Bible College (PBC) continues until today. Growth expanded somewhat, but is tainted by the loss of local autonomy which such centralized institutional activities always bring about. In the early 1960’s, Kenneth Wilkey became the president of the PBC, having ousted Brashears in a move which had all the ear marks of political ambition. By 1962, several U.S. military personnel were openly opposing the institutionalism of the PBC. One man, Dave Turner, a naval pilot at our base at Subic Bay, was the object of a campaign of the American liberals at the PBC to ruin his military career because of his opposition to their unscriptural activities.

But the tide had turned, and liberalism was beginning to lose ground there. On one island, not a single church nor preacher had defected to the liberals. Not that they had been specifically taught against it, but rather, they had been taught truth so well, liberalism had no appeal for them. Men such as Romula B. Agduma on Mindanao were openly opposing the institutional apostasy there. Castorio F. Famit and Victorio R. Tibayan, Sr. were seeing the errors of the PBC, especially as related to congregational activity, and teaching against it. They and others who did so, suffered as a result of their stand for truth.

Beginning in 1970, American preachers have gone to the Philippines to teach. Roy Cogdill and Cecil Willis were the first to do so. Others followed. In 1971, Connie Adams and J.T. Smith were there. in 1972, it was Jim Needham and Dudley Spears. In 1973, Frank Butler, Jady Copeland and I were there. In 1974, it was Larry Hafley and Earl Robertson. In 1975, Connie Adams and Cecil Willis returned. In 1976, Jady Copeland returned with Harold Trimble with him. In 1977, Keith Burnett and I went there. Keith stayed six weeks and I remained three months. During my last month there, I was joined by Paul Casebolt and Jim Puterbaugh. Jim remained a year, teaching the brethren much as he had done in the program at Kirkland, Washington. In 1978, Leo Plyler and Hiram Hutto went, and I made a hasty trip later, in mid-summer, to assist with a critical benevolent need in one area. Others plan to go in the years ahead.

Much good has come from these trips; Two of the greatest effects are the increased contact between the brethren there and those in the U.S., and the consequent support of native preachers there, most of whom are doing good and effective work.

Since 1973, the growth there has been explosive. Rarely has history recorded a growth such as has taken place in the Philippines. The early church, outlined in the book of Acts is one instance. Others I know of are: the U.S., both in the period of 1800-1850, and 1900-1940, and Nigeria, West Africa, 1955-1965. Today in the Philippines there are more than 500 preachers who oppose the institutional error. Of these, about 150 are supported, and many of these preach in at least two churches, sometimes three. There are at least 800 congregations, and possibly the number is a lot higher; there is no way to know for sure.

Several things hinder the work. One is the conduct of some who have made godliness a way of gain (1 Tim. 6:5), and the time it takes for these to be exposed and unmasked. Another is the lack of depth of so many of the preachers (Jim Puterbaugh did a great deal to help in improving this). A third is their lack of experience in methods of teaching. God willing, Jim plans to return to continue his work there for another year in 1980. In the same year, God also being willing for me to do so, I plan to return for three months to teach on methods of teaching. Then in 1982, or 1983, my family and I plan to move there, to work with the brethren for several years. Essentially, I would like to accomplish two things. First, help the churches by spending about half my time working with them in gospel meetings, which are very effective there. Second, I want to research the information necessary to write a book on the modern history since 1928) of God’s people there.

Another hindrance is the multiplicity of dialects. However, the three major dialects account for between 40 and 45 million people. Several of the more accomplished brethren are working on an Interlinear translation of the New Testament from the 1901, using these three basic dialects. The value of such a tool in reaching people there would be difficult to over-estimate. I am in the process of trying to raise the necessary funds to assist these men in their work, and see to the publication of it.

Helpfully simple and direct, this manual presents overhead transparencies and the many other audiovisual materials that can be utilized as teaching tools. Includes many helpful charts, diagrams and pictures.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 12, pp. 198-200
March 22, 1979