The article on the front page was satire, of course; there is no such thing as the As Practiced Version—yet. But the problem highlighted in that piece is, unfortunately, real. Brethren that once were conscientious about applying New Testament teaching regarding fellowship now could not care a withered fig tree about it. Or so it seems. It appears that many who were once quite scrupulous in that regard are eager to go anywhere and speak on any program—regardless of who is on it that they will be fellowshipping.
It would be a simple thing to name names, and some have already done so, but the purpose of this article is to show that brethren have always stood where some of us still stand with respect to truth and fellowship—and not that long ago. Within the past two decades, numerous brethren stood together in their understanding and application of the Bible’s doctrine in these important subjects. It’s “the way we were.” Many churches once posted on their signs out front: “If you’re not as close to God as you once were, guess who moved.” Similarly, if all of us brethren are not standing where we once did, guess who moved?
The point here is to demonstrate that we once all believed the same teaching; this is not particularly difficult to show. Citations from a few books should establish it. The first quote is from Roy Deaver, which appeared in the Annual Denton lectureship book, Studies in 1, 2, 3 John (325).
We are to “…have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather even reprove them” (Eph. 5:11). God’s people are in a very definite sense “custodians” of the faith, and as such are obligated (and privileged) to “…contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). May God help us to be faithful to the solemn charge. The Lord Himself was the Master Controversialist. Mr. Campbell said about the Lord: “Hence, the Prince of Peace never sheathed the sword of the Spirit while he lived. He drew it on the banks of the Jordan and threw the scabbard away.”
These words were published in 1987; they were and are true. Does everyone still agree with brother Deaver? But, speaking of fellowship, how about a definition for the term? The Florida School of Preaching included one in their 2003 book, Do You Understand Fellowship? Micky Bell wrote that fellowship can also be translated as “partner,” “communion,” and “partaker” (18). He also wrote:
The phrase “Christian fellowship” brings to mind the sweet spirit of love that is to exist among brethren, those of like precious faith. It is among the most precious gifts that God allows us to enjoy while here on this earth… (24).
We are called into the fellowship of God’s Son when we obey the gospel. We have no right to extend that fellowship to those who have not complied with the God-given conditions of entering into that realm of fellowship. Christian fellowship is not something we can extend, or withhold, based solely on our own judgment. It is based on truth, on God’s word.
For us to have fellowship with one another, we must first be in fellowship with God and Christ. As discussed earlier, this involves belief of the truth, obedience to the truth, and a manner of life and service rendered in harmony with the truth (Eph. 5:15-17) (25).
He then cites the warning John gave in 2 John 10. Just 13 years ago, brethren believed in this passage. Studies in Jeremiah and Lamentations (Volume 1), edited by Devin Dean for Schertz, Texas, also contained some thoughts along these lines. Rob Whitacre expressed the situation clearly:
How sad when good and wise men in elderships across our land, on boards of education in our schools, and in pulpits of churches see the warning signs but refuse to sound the alarm and become activists for Christ. How many of you have heard brethren say, “I did not agree,” while standing in their shadows. Fellowship with sin is no different than committing the sin (2 John 9-11). We all need to be announcers and activists of the truth (105).
Then he cited James 1:22 (being doers and not just hearers). Who agrees with the following sentence?
Fellowship with sin is no different than committing the sin (2 John 9-11).
So, should a man who has written a book promoting the idea of Annihilationism, (as F. LaGard Smith did in After Life), be invited to a college lectureship to be fellowshipped by other speakers, the students, and attendees? Isn’t the invitation alone a matter of bidding him Godspeed? How does 2 John 9-11 not apply in this instance?
How does a man who directed Pepperdine’s lectures for 32 years (who invited Shelly and others to appear on their programs), also get invited to that same college lectureship (Faulkner) without 2 John 9-11 being violated? If brethren insist on tossing these Scriptures out of the Bible, why don’t they rewrite the Bible, if they do not intend to honor verses inspired by the Holy Spirit?
However, this is not the way we have been. In perusing the 2003 Florida School of Preaching book, for example, Jackie Stearsman wrote the following comments on page 525.
What should an individual do who finds the con-gregation he is a part of does not have the fellowship of God (2 Jn. 9-11)? What should a congregation (group of individuals) do when they recognize they are not in fellowship with God (2 Jn. 9-11)?
2 John 9-11 is then quoted in its entirety. One might ask a few more questions, such as: “How should brethren respond when false teachers are invited to speak at lectureships or at neighboring congregations?” “What should be our attitude toward those who appear on lectureships with false teachers?” However, the point is that we did not used to be afraid to cite and apply 2 John 9-11.
Brian Kenyon, who edited this book, also cited 2 John 9-11 on pages 544-45 and then made these comments a paragraph later:
To emphasize the importance of the doctrine of Christ, John says the faithful are not to receive those who do not bring this doctrine. Like today, there were those in the first century who brought false doctrine to the homes and meetings of the church (cf. Gal. 1:6-9; 1 Jn. 4:1). To endorse false doctrine in any way is to become a participant in it (545).
Keeping that last sentence in mind, it is worth asking again: “What should be our attitude toward those who appear on lectureships with false teachers?” In his chapter of this same book, Terry Hightower also cited 2 John 9-11, along with Ephesians 5:11 and Romans 6:17-18, in making this point: “God’s divine word requires that we uphold and apply such disciplinary verses…” (260). Consider these thoughtful words by Marlin Kilpatrick:
Respecting doctrinal issues by following the teaching of the Scriptures is the key to Scriptural fellowship. This fellowship is desirable, but not at any price. Too many brethren have simply agreed to disagree. Apparently, they think they can continue to walk with Christ in such an “arrangement.” Such “thinking” is a sad mistake.
One of the saddest spectacles in the Lord’s church in recent years is the continued division which has plagued us since the last century. Brethren who are not content with following the New Testament pattern for Scriptural fellowship are at the very root of the problem(s) the church faces today (381-82).
What else can one say but, “Amen!”? But that chorus of voices has diminished since 2003, when this book was published.
In his chapter on, “With Whom Do the Saved Have Fellowship?” Kent Bailey mentions the necessity of “withdrawing fellowship from brethren when they will not repent of sin.” He further explained this statement for the 2004 Memphis School of Preaching lectures on Sin and Salvation: Volume 1 by providing a list of categories of brethren we must withdraw fellowship from. The first one mentioned was those “who abide not in the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9-11).” He also added several sins from 1 Corinthians 5:11, those unwilling to work (2 Thess. 3:1-15), those guilty of the works of the flesh (Gal. 5:19-21), and those who preach “another gospel” (Gal. 1:6-9) (484).
Just a dozen years ago, we all agreed with material that expressed these sentiments. Do we still? This may be a surprise for some, but, while reading the following words, try to imagine who wrote them:
Liberal elements within the churches of Christ have been making great strides toward turning the church into a denomination. Although many brethren seem not to have realized it, we are being influenced to abandon our distinctiveness and extend fellowship to all who profess Christianity.
Truth cannot fellowship error.
Whoa! This preacher was right on, wasn’t he? He published these and other similar sentiments in the 1970s in a book he titled, “Liberalism’s Threat to the Faith (11, 19). The author of these words was none other than Rubel Shelly. Within ten years he became one of the liberals that he describes and decries in his book! Bobby Liddell called attention to this material for the 1997 Power lectures in Southaven, Mississippi, in the book, Dangerous ’Isms, edited by B. J. Clarke. Liddell goes on to say that liberals, which Shelly now was, “praise men who are leading folks to hell!!” (575). Liddell insists that, rather than extending fellowship to men like Shelly, we “must be in fellowship with, and encourage those who, courageously, are standing in the gap (Eze. 22:20; 1 John 1:6-10; Eph. 5:11; 2 John 9-11).”
What was advocated above is the truth, and it is where we all stood at one time. It’s the way we were. But a shift has occurred. Rubel Shelly is still invited to speak at Pepperdine and other locations. How can a brother be considered faithful when he speaks at Pepperdine or fellowships the false teachers who do speak there? How can someone fellowship the Deavers with their error on the Holy Spirit, and no one raise an eyebrow over it? Yes, it has been and is being done.
How can F. LaGard Smith be invited to speak and “faithful” brethren appear on the same program? How many doctrines does a man need to be in error about before he is labeled a false teacher? How many false teachers must a brother fellowship before he is considered in violation of 2 John 9-11? We used to know the answers to these questions. Why don’t we now? A few of us are still standing in the gap, upholding the truth. Some are no longer there; why have they moved?