Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

The Devil never ceases to assault the Lord’s church. From generation to generation he attacks the church, both from within and without. After the Devil tried to destroy the Son of God, he turned to destroy his disciples. The book of Revelation pictures the Devil as a dragon attacking the children of the woman saying, “And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ” (Rev. 12:17). That spiritual conflict is still in progress.

Sometimes the enemies of the church dress up the same old-fashioned error in new clothes to make its assault. Many are taken in by the new dress, failing to recognize the false doctrines which are hidden by the transformation of false teachers into “apostles of light” (2 Cor. 11:13-15). This is happening now, especially among our liberal brethren. This article shall call attention to some of these assaults, especially as they are expressed in two recent publications: The Worldly Church (later referred to as WC) by C. Leonard Allen, Richard T. Hughes, and Michael R. Weed and The Cruciform Church (later referred to as CC) by C. Leonard Allen. Both of these books are published by Abilene Christian University Press.

The guise under which the assaults are made appear, innocuous. The authors are calling their brethren back to a “cross-centered” gospel. Who can oppose the preaching of the cross? Like Paul, we need to commit ourselves to preaching nothing except Jesus Christ and him crucified (1 Cor. 2:1-5). However, the message which is presented under the banner of a “cross-centered” gospel is far afield from the revealed religion of the New Testament. Here are some of the things opposed and promoted in this preaching of a “cross-centered” gospel:

1. The restoration plea is condemned and rejected. The idea that one can restore the New Testament church is condemned as a hermeneutical approach which is not only wrong but damaging to a cross-centered gospel. Lest someone think I have misrepresented the authors, let them speak for themselves.

It is one of the great conceits of our time to imagine that we can sweep away the past and simply begin all over again at the beginning. We cannot (CC x).

In this work, Allen charged that it was naive to believe we can restore the New Testament church (14,25,74). He charged that the restoration movement devalues church history (5,11), creates a duty to conform (24), and devalues the Old Testament and gospels (52,54,55,57). He condemned the restoration plea for creating the attitude that the Bible should be viewed as a blueprint or law (19,31).

He emphasized that we must restore the “mystery” of the gospel, implying that we cannot comprehend the revelation given to us by God (24,44,48).

The restoration concept has led us to bibliolatry (worship of the Bible, 88), church idolatry (88-89), and doctrine idolatry (89).

The call for a “cross-centered” gospel is not a call for Bible preaching. It is a plea for the abandonment of Book, chapter, and verse preaching in favor of an allegiance to Christ – an allegiance unexplained and unexplainable. It cannot be established by an appeal to the Bible, for that would be a call for a restoration of the ancient order. It must be an open-ended allegiance that is defined by experience whereby every individual decides for himself what his allegiance to Christ involves.

2. Preaching on obedience to the gospel is condemned as a departurefrom cross-centered preaching. Allen states that we have moved away from a cross-centered message to preach a gospel of self-reliance, and boot-strap religion when we emphasize gospel obedience. He stated that when restoration preachers have preached on salvation, they have not preached on the centrality of the cross but concentrated on what man must do to be saved. Here are his words:

. . . There was affirmation of the fact of the atonement but reluctance to delve much into its meaning. Thus preachers could preach sermons entitled “What Must I Do To Be Saved?” and scarcely even mention the crucifixion or atonement of Christ (120).

He cited the example of T.W. Brents’ book The Gospel Plan of Salvation as an example of preaching which was not cross-centered. He charged that a book which purports to study the gospel plan of salvation while only devoting five pages to the cross, but 306 pages to water baptism, is “a sign of something deeply awry in the theology of the movement” (120).

Allen concluded that the theology of restoration preaching shifted from salvation by grace to salvation by works legalism. He wrote,

The most common traditional formulation of the gospel reflects this shift. The gospel consisted of three facts to be believed (Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection), three commands to be obeyed (believe, repent, and be baptized upon a confession of faith), and three promises to be received (forgiveness of sin, the gift of the Spirit, and hope of eternal life). God had already fulfilled his part of the contract; human beings must now fulfill all their obligations or else the contract was broken. All benefits promised in the contract depended entirely upon the exact fulfillment of all contractual obligations” (123).

Hence, the appeal of a cross-centered gospel, as expressed by Allen, is not an appeal to Book, chapter, and verse preaching. It is a subtle shift away from the Bible preaching whereby under the guise of “cross-centered” preaching, a person preaches different conditions for salvation by grace. There are only two alternatives: (a) God saves all men unconditionally (universalism); (b) Salvation is conditional. If salvation is conditional, then men need to know what conditions are necessary to be saved by the grace of God. Allen’s condemnation of preaching the conditions for salvation as a departure from “cross-centered” preaching results in a message about the cross’s saving benefits without an expression of what man must do to receive those benefits. A gospel which tells men that they can be saved without telling them how to be saved is impotent. Allen’s thesis implies that when Peter told the Pentecostians what to do to be saved by grace, he had departed from the cross (Acts 2:38).

This is the old doctrine of denominationalism in a new dress. “Preach the man, not the plan.” Preaching the plan is not gospel preaching. Leroy Garrett, relying on the same study by Bill Love as cited by Allen, makes the same charge about preaching on baptism:

. . . We have been critical of big-time evangelists Eke Billy Graham for “not preaching the gospel” since he does not preach baptism. We fail to apply the same rule to the Apostle Paul who insisted that “Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel.” If this means anything it means that there is a distinction between preaching the gospel and preaching baptism. Did any New Testament evangelist ever “preach” baptism? They preached “the gospel of the grace of God” and they preached “Jesus Christ and him crucified,” but did they ever proclaim any ordinance? Was it not always a person, the Person of Jesus Christ, that they proclaimed?

Would it not follow then that anyone who proclaims Jesus as the risen Christ and the Savior of the world is preaching the good news of the gospel, all of the gospel? Granted, the likes of Billy Graham may err in not properly instructing people how to respond to the good news by repenting of their sins and being baptized for the remission of their sins like Peter did on the day of Pentecost. But if one preaches Jesus Christ as the Savior of the world he is preaching the gospel, apart from what he might or might not say about baptism (Restoration Review [May 1992] 288).

The emphasis on “cross-centered” preaching is a call for a departure from preaching, clearly defining and emphasizing the conditions for salvation by the grace of God!

3. Preaching on the New Testament church is opposed to cross-centered preaching. Allen condemned the “doctrine-idolater” who makes correct doctrinal beliefs that which saves. He said, “Doctrines do not save us; we are saved by Christ. Doctrines do not cleanse us from our sins; it is the efficacious blood of Christ” (89). The self-contradiction of this should be apparent: must one believe the doctrines that state what occurred on Calvary to be cleansed from sin? This is a false dichotomy invented by Allen, not condemned in the Bible. The assertion that “we are saved by Christ” in some sense which excludes Christ’s doctrine is itself a doctrine – a false doctrine!

Allen charged that in preaching a church centered message we have tended to make orthodoxy more a test of the correct doctrinal beliefs than being Christ-like. “This separation between doctrine and life has created a narrow and stunted measure of orthodoxy. A church can be ‘sound’ while excluding black people from its midst. A church can be doctrinally correct while virtually ignoring the poor and hungry living down the street” (174-175). This has driven us into doctrinal isolationism.

Such statements imply that we have departed from cross-centered preaching and started preaching a church-centered message when we preach sermons on the church, including its organization, names, worship, conditions for membership, work and other distinctive marks revealed in the New Testament. Allen condemned as sectarianism our debates with our religious neighbors and belittled books designed to answer the apostasies introduced by men (7). He wrote of the rejection of the restoration hermeneutics in search for a new hermeneutics saying, “Some have consciously rejected this method of interpretation and begun casting about for new ones. Many others, it seems, have not intentionally rejected the traditional method but, weary with the pugnacious, debate-all-comers attitude it nurtured, have found themselves spiritually malnourished, hungry for the things of the Spirit” (19-20). In The Worldly Church the old preaching which must be discarded was described as “sectarian divisiveness,” “debating,” and “the argumentative spirit” (38).

The agenda of the “cross-centered” preaching advocated by Allen is a departure from Book, chapter, and verse preaching. He rejects preaching a restoration of the pattern of the first century church because he does not believe there is any such pattern revealed in the New Testament (contrary to 2 Tim. 1:13; 1 Tim. 3:14-15). Rejecting the principle that there is a pattern to be restored, the church is left to adjust itself to the changing culture as need so requires. This is the essence of the difference between revealed and unrevealed religion. Under the guise of “cross-centered” preaching, Allen takes us away from divinely revealed religion into the morass of unrevealed religion.

Sectarianism is equated with preaching the pattern of the New Testament church in contrast to the departures of denominationalism. To preach such sermons is to depart from a cross-centered message to a church-centered message. Lip service may be given to these sermons (“this is not to minimize the importance of any doctrines about the church”), but the bottom line is that a “core gospel” which is essential is distinguished from a body of “doctrine” which is optional. The former must be preached and believed for salvation; the latter is optional.

In the name of “cross-centered” preaching, positive preaching which does not condemn denominationalism is commended (see The Worldly Church 2,7,38-39; The Cruciform Church 19). The older preachers are condemned for having departed from cross-centered preaching when they preached sermons contrasting the Baptist Church with the Lord’s church, condemned Pentecostalism, and such like sermons. Again, I emphasize that under the guise of “cross-centered” preaching, Allen calls us away from the Book, chapter, and verse preaching commended in 2 Timothy 3:14-17; 4:1-5; 1 Corinthians 1:20; 4:6 Titus 2:15; John 17:17; 1 Peter 4:11 and many other familiar passages.

Conclusion

We need to be aware of Satan’s devices. Satan would lead us to believe that when we emphasize and teach those things which the Lord Jesus commanded, we have somehow departed from cross-centered preaching. Quite the opposite is true.

Preaching the word of God’s grace is teaching all that Christ revealed (Acts 20:20,24-27,32). Paul said, “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works” (Tit. 2:11-14). Preaching the grace of God involves condemning ungodliness and worldly lusts. We are preaching the grace of God when we are condemning worldliness.

We are preaching the grace of God when we preach baptism. The Scriptures teach us to baptize people into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:18-20) and to preach baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38). I cannot preach Bible baptism without preaching Christ. When we preach what Christ said about baptism, we are preaching his grace.

We are preaching the grace of God when we teach, “Children obey your parents in the Lord” (Eph. 6:1). This makes obedience to one’s parents reach much beyond the social relationship between the parent and the child to a relationship between the obedient child and his God.

We are preaching the grace of God when we teach servants to obey their masters “with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as unto Christ” (Eph. 6:5). This passage emphasizes that the relationship between a servant and his master (or employer and employee) reaches much beyond the social relationship of the two to one’s relationship to Christ. We are preaching Christ when we preach what he commanded about this relationship.

This “cross-centered” preaching advocated by Allen invents a false dichotomy which separates Christ from his word. Those who claim allegiance to Christ while disobeying or preaching something contrary to his word are not in his fellowship. John said, “If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth” (1 Jn. 1:6). That truth has not changed through the ages. We need to be sure that we echo the clear and certain sounds of the Scriptures in gospel preaching, not the uncertain sounds of such books as The Worldly Church and The Cruciform Church. “For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?” (1 Cor. 14:8)

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 17, pp. 514, 534-536
September 3, 1992

By James P. Needham

Much is being said today, both in and out of the church, about the way a man preaches. The two terms most frequently used are “hard” preachers and “soft” preachers. Usually one can determine the definition of the words “hard” and “soft” if he can stand to listen to the whole conversation! A “hard preacher” is usually one who (1) calls the names of the false religions the Bible condemns, (2) identifies sin by their specific, scriptural titles, (3) tells people that “hell” (but that world just must never be used!) awaits them if they die in their sins, etc. A “soft preacher” is usually one who doesn’t do these things. For a long time it has appeared to me that this business of “hard preachers” and “soft preachers” is not legitimate! The New Testament recognizes no such terms. One is not a “hard preacher” if he calls the names of false religions, identifies sins by title, and tells people they will go to hell if they die in their sins – the Bible doesn’t say he is a “hard preacher” – but rather a gospel preacher. One is not a “soft preacher” because he fails or refuses to do these things either – the Bible doesn’t call him a “soft preacher” – but rather a “false” preacher.

The terms hard and soft leave the wrong ideas. Those who don’t like to hear the plain truth attach the term “hard” to the one who declares “the whole counsel of God,” and thus causes a certain amount of ill feeling toward him and his preaching among the people who don’t know what the Bible teaches, and hence succeed in covering up the fact that he is in reality a scriptural preacher. To identify one who is afraid to preach the whole truth under all circumstances as a “soft preacher” is to white wash the facts in the case and cause him to be better thought of than he deserves according to the Scriptures. Too, these words generally leave the idea that there are two kinds of gospel preachers: those who are “hard” and those who are “soft.” The Bible does not teach any such idea. A gospel preacher is one who preaches the gospel without fear of or favor toward any man or group of men. To attach the word “hard preacher” to him is to attach something to him the Bible knows nothing about, and succeed in prejudicing many minds against him.

Once a brother said to me just before a service at which I was scheduled to preach, “Bro. Needham, Mr. Black is here today, show him how hard you can be.” On a similar occasion another brother asked me to soften up because he had brought a Catholic with him. We should not be interested in showing anyone how hard we can be, and to soften up because someone is present who may not appreciate the gospel truth is nothing short of sheer compromise, and such action would destroy our right to call ourselves gospel preachers. We should desire to preach the gospel! If the gospel is hard (and it definitely is from the worldling’s viewpoint) don’t blame the preacher, and call him “hard.” He is not the source of the hardness – it’s the gospel that is hard, the preacher simply delivers it. That makes the proclaimer a gospel preacher, not a “hard preacher” and anything else makes him a “false,” unscriptural. preacher – let’s call a spade a spade!

(Reprint from Truth Magazine [II:180]).

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 17, p. 515
September 3, 1992

By Harry R. Osborne

On April 29th of this year, Steve Wallace, Kieran Murphy and I flew into Vilnius, Lithuania to begin a six weeks stay in that city to preach the gospel. Kieran came for two weeks before returning to Ireland. I was able to stay for one month, but Derek Chambers came the same day to join Steve for the remainder of the stay. During our third week, Mary Wallace (Steve’s wife) and Liz Smith brought more material to replenish our stock and help in any way possible.

Steve and Derek had been to Vilnius last November and were impressed with the openness of the people to hearing the truth. We found that spirit still very much present in our journey. We had scores of studies with very good contacts who seemed genuinely interested in the word of God. One soul was baptized into Christ during the stay, but later returned to Catholicism. Though we were saddened by this departure, we are hopeful that an effort being planned for this Fall may be successful in turning her heart back to the Lord and in converting others who seemed on the verge of obedience at the end of our first stay. All of us believe there is a great door open for the gospel in Vilnius and that the field is white unto harvest!

Lithuania is one of the Baltic States that was a part of the old Soviet Union. The country came under domination by the Soviet Union in about 1940. Vilnius, the capitol city, is inhabited by about an equal number of ethnic Russians and Lithuanians. A small minority of Polish people also live in the city. The Russian language is spoken by almost everyone – the exception being a small number of very old Lithuanians. However, the Lithuanian language is very much preferred by the proud and independently minded Lithuanians who sometimes resist the use of Russian.

During the first part of our stay, there were several disconcerting occasions when it was feared by many that the Russian army might try to reestablish control over Lithuania. During that time, the government was in a constant flux with one coup after another. However, none of us was ever in danger by any of these events and we continued studies with those on various sides of the conflicts. We refused to get involved or even comment on political matters in that country or any other. We made it clear that our purpose was solely to preach the gospel. The political unrest did divert many people’s attention to civil matters on two or three occasions and made it difficult to focus attention on spiritual things for a short time. For example, the attendance at our Bible lectures one Lord’s Day was drastically reduced due to a nationwide rally at the parliament building. However, this was the exception to the rule. Most of the time we were busy with as many Bible studies as we could handle.

Literature Distributed

After doing a great deal of work in Eastern European cities over the past few years, Steve and Derek have discovered that mass handouts of Bibles are not very effective. Almost everyone wants a free Bible, but not always for the purpose of reading it. On the black market, a Bible can be sold for a good sum of money. Hence, many of the free Bibles handed out are pawned on the black market for other items wanted by the recipient. We bought a number of Bibles to use in studies with people and then gave them to individuals when we found that they were sincerely interested in Bible study. We hope that this was a more effective way in getting Bibles to people who will actually use them to search for the truth.

A word of warning about one Russian Bible being published by our liberal brethren may be helpful to those considering its use. It was translated by the World Bible Translation Center out of Fort Worth, Texas. The Bible has a 1989 copyright date and is published in Vienna. It is done in very modern Russian and has some very serious errors! I am preparing an article for future publication which documents and details these errors in various passages. If anyone desires a reliable modern Russian translation, the Slavic Gospel Association in Wheaton, Illinois, publishes the best one available. However, we found the old Synodal translation more in use among Russian speakers and very understandable in most cases.

We did offer free study material at a table we set up every day, Monday through Saturday, for several hours on the central square. Most of the buses and trolleys stopped at the square which made it ideal to get maximum exposure. The lunch time was especially busy as people took a midday break and were very willing to examine Bible material and often come back to discuss it. The weather cooperated amazingly, allowing us to set up each day while there without a single rain-out. Anyone familiar with European weather realizes the rarity of such a string of good weather.

Whenever anyone took some material, we handed him an announcement of our Bible lectures on Sunday afternoons. We also tried to arrange private studies with those taking literature. This was not always possible due to the language barrier and our failure to have an interpreter with us at all times on the square. Towards the end of the stay, arrangements were made to have at least one interpreter present at all times while set up on the square. This greatly facilitated immediate studies and the ability to communicate with the crowd around our table.

In making preparations for this trip, we knew of no tracts available in Lithuanian. Therefore, Steve got two tracts translated into Lithuanian by a man he and Derek met last November. I got both of them printed here in the USA and shipped them to Germany, from whence we carried them into Lithuania. One of those tracts turned out to have several translation errors and we had to discontinue its use. The other, “What Must I Do To Be Saved?” by Robert Farrish, was very useful. About 3000 of those tracts were taken by interested people. While in Vilnius, we were able to get another tract, “What Is Wrong With Denominational Baptism?” by Cecil Willis, translated into Lithuanian with some changes which customized its use in that culture by dealing with the specific denominations found there. About 2000 of these tracts were printed and given out. Much good teaching will continue to be done through these sources as they are passed to others to read.

Securing acceptable material in Russian also proved to be difficult. Before our trip, we knew of only two small tracts written by conservative brethren which had been translated into Russian. We got in touch with some among the liberal brethren who had several tracts published in Russian, but only a minority turned out to be usable. Several had been translated very badly. A few contained some teaching which compromised with denominationalism and other errors. Out of the ten to twelve tracts we found, we ultimately used only three. One on the origin of the material universe was very helpful in teaching about Evidences. We also gave out the first lesson to a Russian correspondence course, “Can The Thinking Man Believe In God?” In all, about 10,000 to 12,000 copies of Bible study material in Russian were taken by interested people.

While in Vilnius, we took advantage of several excellent translators we contacted and had six tracts translated into Russian. In this country, each tract would have cost several hundred dollars to translate. We paid only $25 for translating each tract. The tracts include “Why I Oppose Instrumental Music In Worship” by Mike Willis, “The Papacy” by Jimmy Thomas, “Scriptural Worship” by Tom Roberts, “What Is Conversion?” by James Cooper, “Why I Believe That Jesus Lived” by Colly Caldwell, and “Why I Believe Jesus Is The Son Of God” by Dan King. Several others are in the process of being translated which we hope to have by the end of the year.

We are now in the process of getting the first six tracts into print so that they can be used by brethren who desire to use them in Russian speaking areas. I bought a computer program which I am using to typeset material in Russian and Lithuanian. David Shaw, a fluent Russian speaker who is a deacon at the Kleinwood congregation in Houston, is presently helping me get the material ready for print. When ready for reproduction, these tracts will be extremely helpful in efforts to preach the truth in this area of the world.

We found it much cheaper and easier to have the printing done in Vilnius. What cost me in excess of $2000 here to print and ship could have been done for less than $200 there. That price would have also included collating, folding and stapling which took the members here in Alvin a full day to do. Printing the material in Vilnius would also have saved the back-breaking work of carrying the material into the country. However, we had no contacts at that time to do this work and have it ready upon our arrival.

Religious Error Faced

The most prevalent religious error faced was Roman Catholicism. Most of the ethnic Lithuanians are Catholic, at least in name. One of the many cathedrals is visible from almost any point in the city. We were asked many questions regarding Catholicism both by individuals and the media. We were interviewed by journalists for national television and radio as well as by several newspapers. Each asked about our views on such subjects as the papacy, veneration to Mary and miracles attributed to Mary. It was very helpful to have both Kieran and Steve present since both were formerly Catholics.

To the average Lithuanian, being Catholic is a part of his national identity and patriotism. Many Lithuanians believe that it was a return to Catholicism by the people which made their independence possible. Our struggle was to get this segment of people to open a Bible and see what it says. When they did so, they would see the difference between God’s word and Catholic teaching. Thus, our efforts with them centered on establishing the authority of the word and getting them to study it with us.

Studies with Catholic contacts were complicated by the fact that the Catholic translation into Lithuanian in many passages serves as a commentary rather than a translation. For instance, the word used to translate “church” means “a church building.” In their thinking, the Roman Catholic Church’s teachings must be correct because they came from the cathedral which is a holy place. Teaching about the nature of the one true church had to begin by defining the word “church” correctly and proving such from the Scripture itself. From Acts 8:1-3, we repeatedly showed that the church was made up of men and women, not bricks and mortar. It could be “persecuted” and “made havoc of” by persecuting the Christians who comprised it. Similar problems were experienced with other words as well. Overall, we found the “Protestant” Bible a more accurate translation into the Lithuanian.

The Pentecostal movement was also very strong in Vilnius. Most of the Pentecostals and Charismatics with whom we talked were young people in their twenties or younger. For the first two weeks of our stay, we made contact with numerous people on the square from a group called “The Word of Faith Church,” a charismatic group. This church has several thousand at their services. Their biggest attraction seems to be the rock band which now plays at their services, but which was formerly the most popular rock group in the Vilnius bars. Like Pentecostals and Charismatics in this country, these people were ruled by emotion and very little Bible. As is the case in this country, they believed their so-called “tongue speaking” was proof that God was with them. We concentrated on getting them to see that New Testament “tongues” were identifiable human languages, not ecstatic gibberish as they were practicing (Acts 2:4,6,8,11). We also pressed them regarding the regulation of the use of tongues given by Paul:

If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret (1 Cor. 14:27).

Upon further discussion, they were amazed and somewhat shaken to find out that what they called “tongue speaking” was a common practice among those worshiping idols in ancient times.

Many of the discussions with these Charismatics took place on the square. Often, they would try to take over by “witnessing,” as they called it, and we would have to engage them at that point or allow error to be taught to those gathered where we were set up. Many of these Charismatics spoke broken English which made a discussion a little easier.

(I wonder why they could not speak perfect English if they had the gift of tongues and the Holy Spirit was helping them!) When we pressed them with Bible teaching and handed them a Bible asking them to produce book, chapter and verse to justify their practice, they became very agitated. Though some of the people around did not understand English, it was amazing how they caught the gist of the conversation. Afterwards they would comment on the fact that the Charismatics did not turn to the Bible. The onlookers understood that the Charismatics were doing things which the Bible did not approve. We got several studies with people observing and with our interpreters because they saw the power of God’s truth to refute human error.

Other religious errors faced included Russian Orthodoxy, “Jehovah’s Witness” doctrine, Evangelical teaching done mostly by the “Campus Crusade for Christ Ministries,” the Hare Krishna cult, various Eastern religious philosophies (especially Hinduism), and the Reformed Church with the teachings of John Calvin. The delusion that we would be going in to teach on the blank slate to those untouched by much denominational error was quickly dashed. Though the errors may be less instilled (with the exception of Catholicism), there is a great deal of “unteaching” to be done before one can effectively teach the truth. We believe a good start in this process was made in our visit and hope that future efforts will be able to build upon that work.

Besides all of this, a vast number of people (especially ethnic Russians) show the results of several generations taught the official line of atheism. Many came to us saying they wanted to believe in a God, but they had never heard about Him. One man even asked me, “What do you mean by this word God?” It was somewhat difficult to go back and explain concepts so fundamental that we often take them for granted. When working through an interpreter, it also takes a great deal of time to get from such elementary points to teaching about the whole plan of God for man’s salvation. For a large number of people with whom we studied, the Bible they read with us was the first Bible they had seen.

In studying with people so influenced by atheism, we recognized the great need for some extensive material regarding evidences to be translated into Russian. Under communism, every young person going through school since 1940 was taught that there is no God. They were taught the general theory of evolution as fact rather than a theory. They have been told that the geological record proves this theory beyond any doubt. They have been told that the Bible is a product of second and third century writers rather than first century as it claims. They have been told that the Bible rests on spurious manuscript evidence and that the Dead Sea scrolls have been kept from publication because they show that the Bible is a fraud.

Showing the truth on all of these subjects is made easier in this country by the abundance of material on the subjects, but that material is not available in Russian. We desperately need clear and extensive material from competent, faithful brethren translated on these subjects. The Evangelicals are getting some of Josh McDowell’s material translated with its premillennial slant, but that is the only extensive material available at present.

In dealing with the various errors, we found the people very willing to listen to the truth. They were especially receptive when we stated the conflict between their belief and the Bible in clear and forceful terms. Direct confrontation did not turn the people off, but caused a greater interest. They wanted to know about the differences between their beliefs and the Bible teaching. The questions asked were direct and to the point. We answered their questions with a passage of Scripture and then made the application pointedly. When this was done, the people expressed their thanks to us rather than outrage.

It might be added that the vast majority of the people wanted us to talk with them extensively about such matters. Our Bible lectures on Sunday afternoons lasted for four hours and sometimes went beyond that limit. How is it that some brethren who are supposed to love the Lord and his truth above all gripe and whine about a service lasting over an hour when alien sinners searching for the truth are ready to listen for four hours or more? Those people put many brethren to shame in their desire to hear the truth.

An Open Door

The opportunity available in Lithuania is hard to overstate. As already noted, people want to hear the gospel. While in Vilnius, we were invited to study with an amazing variety of people. There was much interest among both Lithuanians and Russians. We had numerous studies with a total of 16 Russian soldiers who were attending the Military Academy which was the old Soviet counterpart to West Point in this country. At the same time, we had studies with some actively involved in efforts to expel the Russian army from Lithuanian soil. Both older and younger people invited us to study with them. People from various religious backgrounds were genuinely interested in our plea to return to New Testament Christianity with the Bible as our only guide. We even got one opportunity to speak at a Baptist -Pentecostal Union Church. Such doors are not often open to us in this country, but they are open in Lithuania at this time.

Other factors make this a prime time to concentrate further efforts in Lithuania. The political situation is now even more stable than it was during our journey. This should help to remove some distractions that were there earlier this year. Lodging and food, though not very good by our standards, are available at very inexpensive prices. Interpreters are readily available at the cost of $1 an hour. Meeting places in excellent locations may be rented at extremely low rates. Contacts for printing, advertising and other logistical needs have already been worked out. Those interested in getting to work can go right to teaching from the first day in Vilnius.

A return trip to Vilnius is now being planned for this Fall. All of us would like to see a continuing presence established there through at least the end of the year. We believe this should provide enough time to begin a local work in that city. It was hoped that our six weeks stay might have the results of establishing a local congregation. In New Testament times, the visit of Paul to Thessalonica lasted three sabbath days allowing a strong church to be started in that city (Acts 17:1-4). However, it became obvious very quickly that more time was going to be needed in Vilnius. We also hope that someone who comes over for a month or so may see the need and move to Vilnius for a few years. If you have an interest in helping in this work, please call Harry Osborne at 713-331-9305 or 331-4953 for more information. He can also help in getting the material in Russian and Lithuanian if you need it.

We need only look at the cases where open doors have presented themselves in the past to see how quickly the opportunities may close. For instance, in the Summer of 1978, a two part series on the opportunities for spreading the gospel in Iran written by James Needham appeared in Vanguard. A year later the Islamic revolution closed the doors on such efforts. Brethren, we do not know how long this door may be open either. Though the situation may be stable at the present, the situation in Iran also appeared stable until shortly before its fall. Lithuania is a logical first step for further efforts at evangelism in other parts of the former Soviet Union.

Faithful men are needed who are willing to sacrifice some of the luxuries of home. It will not be a Scottish golf vacation. If this work is to be done, faithful churches will also need to make a priority of supporting gospel preachers to do such work over building extravagant buildings and paving the parking lot. Derek Chambers has committed to stay for the long term in the East European work and is now preaching in Leipzig, Germany (formerly East Germany) without adequate support. If any church or individual could help him, I would be glad to inform you further of his good work and his address. He is a strong and faithful man who is deserving of your support. Please remember the efforts to preach the gospel going on in this and other parts of the world in your prayers daily.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 17, pp. 518-521
September 3, 1992

By Harold E. Turner

It may just be my imagination (naturally I don’t think so) that all of a sudden the word “traditional” has taken on an air of something sinister or at least something for sure suspect.

If you happen to be running around the country preaching and teaching the “traditional” about a matter, you had better get back to the office, the dictionaries and brother Warren’s rules of logic. And until the time you can cipher sufficiently to come up with a new or novel way of getting the job done, it might be best for you to stay home.

If you should be one of those fellows who preaches that if a person puts his mate away for some reason other than unfaithfulness and marries another he becomes an adulterer, then shame on you for you have fallen into the old trap of “traditional” (oh, me) teaching, and having thus fallen, you should be ashamed of yourself and seek to be more original in your approach. For after all, if it takes 55 dictionaries, the help of Solomon and 13 professors from the University of Lebanon, then we’re really whizzing along, and the new and novel approach that might be forthcoming from such is to be viewed immediately as the preferred thing.

Never mind the fact that a thing just might be ‘ traditional” because it is so, and never mind the fact that if anything should be suspect (at least for a while) it is the novel and something that takes four days to explain when the Lord did it in one verse.

I find myself almost wishing (I said almost) that the view that anything that is not specifically condemned on the day of Pentecost is fine and allowable would just go ahead and become that “traditional” point of view, because it would then become automatically suspect, and we might just be able then to deal with it.

If that view is true and solid (after all, it doesn’t belong in that trashy “traditional” bucket) then we can beat our wives half to death anytime we choose, cheat on our taxes at will, crook up our business endeavors to whatever extent we desire to do so consistent with Christ. Wouldn’t you reckon there was at least one crooked business man in the three thousand? Yet not one word of condemnation in Acts 2. And, of course, this is to say nothing of “alternate lifestyles” that to my knowledge were not mentioned in Acts 2 either.

If this line of thinking can ever reach the “traditional” class of things then woe be to it, for just the reminder now and again that that’s what it is will surely do it in, or at least will cast a dark ominous cloud over that ole traditional stuff.

And need we discuss other matters? Be honest now, how many of you fellows are still preaching baptism as unto salvation? Is that pretty much “traditional” or what? And don’t you think it might be a good thing to start giving more thought to the dead man under the tree down by the creek? After all, that view is a little more novel insofar as our brethren are concerned, and to emphasize that the intent is probably sufficient to get the job done (including all the ramifications and implications of that) would tend to be considerable more non-traditional than to just run around preaching Mark 16:16, don’t you think?

Personally, I don’t give two hoots about “traditional” or non-traditional in the whole thing, and would like to make an appeal to anyone who might be feeling the pressure of the non-traditional use of the word “traditional” these days. Don’t be too quick to apologize for preaching and teaching that which has characteristically been taught, for there is at least an outside chance that the reason that bit of teaching is “traditional” is because it is so. (Reprinted from The Preceptor, April 1992.)

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 17, p. 516
September 3, 1992