Because we are in the midst of a full-blown apostasy, reason would dictate that we all encourage one another to stand for the truth (John 17:17). We especially need to promote an understanding of the way God authorizes so that we may be correct in doctrine and pleasing to Him in worship (Col. 3:17). Unfortunately, the post-modern position of many brethren echoes Pilate’s skeptical remark: “What is truth?” (John 18:38). Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the current attitude amounts to: “Who cares what is truth?”
Since congregations are teetering daily on the brink of the hill overlooking liberalism, it is indeed unfortunate that some have taken it upon themselves to criticize brethren who have heeded the Biblical admonition to mark those “who cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine,” which the New Testament teaches (Rom. 16:17). The faithful who remain cannot afford sniping at one another; this is the time to support one another. It was therefore disillusioning to hear a prominent brother say these words a few months ago.
There are some preachers who think that they have been appointed of God to try to be pope over the church. And they find out everything they can about what’s wrong in other places, and they’re writing about it. Elders, know what your preachers are writing. And if they’re tearing down the church of our Lord, and they’re writing about things they shouldn’t be writing, then correct them on it. Don’t let them demote fellowship. But make them promote it in the brotherhood. And then all of us have an obligation to do that–and to love the entire church. We sometimes treat other congregations like they’re denominations.
Although we do not deny that someone somewhere might want to be the pope over the church, we have never met this fellow. This charge seems to be a bit on the trite side. If someone has some evidence to substantiate the charge, let him present it; otherwise, this hackneyed expression is worthy of a quick burial.
Likewise, who is the fellow spying on other congregations? Most of us hear more than we care to about other churches in the area, but who is the man running around collecting data? Because our society is highly mobile, we occasionally get visits from dissatisfied members of other congregations. Some leave an apostate church and of their own free will communicate the various problems that led to their decision. If the concerns they express are legitimate, then one congregation may decide not to fellowship another one until the matter can be resolved. Churches departing from God’s word, however, do not generally want to discuss such matters with those standing firm.
We receive many bulletins, and occasionally someone does write an article exposing a false teacher or apostate congregation. In the articles we have seen, evidence is offered to establish the case. Usually, the very words of the preacher or congregation in question are cited. We are grateful for the information because brethren are always asking about sound congregations they can safely worship with when they travel. Many people ask ahead of time because of bad previous experiences. There is an international publication that devotes itself to this topic, and it serves a useful purpose. Faithful brethren do not generally protest it.
Those who expose error are not guilty of tearing down the church. People such as Rubel Shelly and Max Lucado (and those who bask in their shadows) are the ones causing the problems and tearing down the Lord’s church. Those who expose their false, soul-damning doctrine are not the source of conflict any more than Elijah was the troubler of Israel. The guilt lies with the false teachers and those who are allowing them to corrupt God’s people.
If someone is spreading slander and gossip, that is wrong, and it ought to be stopped. If there are those who are just looking for something or someone to write up, they have the wrong motive and should be counseled to understand that brethren need to build up one another. Certainly, elders should know what their preachers are writing, but the idea should be applied to liberal preachers, also. (Why have elders with liberal preachers failed to rebuke their false doctrine?)
To the charge that we sometimes treat other congregations as if they are denominations we plead guilty. When “brethren” cease to teach baptism for the remission of sins, begin appointing women to leadership positions, introduce denominational concepts into worship, and fellowship denominations, exactly how are we supposed to treat them? There are many congregations that still refer to themselves as a “church of Christ” who ceased being such long ago. There may be a few brethren somewhere who insist on conformity with every optional matter before they will extend fellowship, but most brethren give as much slack as they can to avoid the charge of being opinionated.
To be fair, the brother who made these remarks also encouraged everyone to stand for the truth; perhaps he did not mean these things the way they came across. The elders and preacher of the host congregation made a response similar to this one in their church bulletin–and rightly so. We have no animosity toward this brother, but we disagreement his ideas was in order. To ignore or minimize a sister congregation’s errors is a sure path to oblivion for the Lord’s church.
The above-titled article appeared in the July Gospel Advocate, and it merits similar criticism. The author, “a recently retired professor of ministries at Abilene Christian University,” offers several kind remarks about watchdogs before he points out that some of them contract rabies. He does make an attempt to be fair in presenting the strengths and possible weaknesses of “whistle blowers.” And in a time of relative peace among brethren the article might, with a few changes, serve a useful purpose. But again, the brotherhood would better be served with exhortations to remain steadfast. Despite his efforts at objectivity, there are a few points that need to be made.
First, in the middle of page 17 in large bold letters is this statement: “Various self-appointed watchdogs have uselessly irritated faithful people and even bitten others whom they have had no right to bite.” The author is absolutely correct in this statement; everyone probably knows of a good brother who has been ill-treated at the hands of a jealous, spiritual pygmy. But one wonders two things: “Are all watchdogs self-appointed?” and “Exactly how is the author going to apply this prominently-displayed principle?”
Perhaps the answer to the first question is that the self-appointed watchdogs are the ones that create the most problems. But most literal watchdogs are bought or trained for that purpose by a master. Our master told us all to beware of false prophets (Matt. 7:15) and false doctrine (Matt. 16:12). Furthermore, He denounced the Pharisees and the scribes (Matt. 23). Paul cautioned all brethren to “beware of dogs” (Phil. 3:2), and Jude cautioned all brethren “to contend earnestly for the faith” (Jude 3). Do we not all have a responsibility to be a watchdog? And were we not appointed by our Master to fulfill that function?
To answer the question regarding the way this author applies the principles stated in the article, he applauds the work of F. LaGard Smith in his book, Who Is My Brother? Although he does not specifically state the reason for praising Smith, presumably he thinks Smith’s exegetical work qualifies him to openly rebuke Max Lucado and surreptitiously take issue with Mike Cope, which Smith does in the book.
The problem is that Smith is inconsistent on the issue of fellowship; he contradicts himself often, which Daniel Denham pointed out in his 90-page scholarly review of Who Is My Brother? in Bellview’s 1998 lectureship book, Fellowship (from Pensacola). Wayne Jackson, a brother never known for shoddy work, also exposed the weaknesses of Smith’s work. Smith leaves the door open for fellowshipping those in denominations, and by his own admission he does so himself during the months he spends in England each year.
In an e-mail from Keith Sisman to Dub McClish, dated June 15, 1999, brother Sisman writes concerning the Ashton-Under-Hill-Free-Church:
I have visited this church with other sound brethren. They are Calvinistic (predestination and direct action of the HS in conversion). They teach that baptism does NOT save. Women lead in prayer and give testimony. The instrument is used in worship, “But not when LaGard attends.”
They consider Smith a member! Smith I understand has also given financially to the work there.
Smith has criticised Lucado on his stance of failing to preach baptism, yet Smith openly worships in England with people who teach much the same thing as Lucado, plus Calvinism.
The warnings against self-appointed watchdogs begin to ring a little hollow when we see who and what the author of this article is willing to fellowship. Since he is recently retired from ACU, we might ask, “Did he not consider fellow faculty member Andre Resner’s blasphemous article, ‘Christmas At Matthew’s House,’ a barrier to fellowship?” Or was Resner a qualified scholar? And what did he think of Abilene’s distinguished Carmichael Professor Carroll Osburn’s book, The Peaceable Kingdom? That was the occasion of Osburn’s saying that church organization, premillennialism, instrumental music, and baptism for or because of the remission of sins should not be matters of fellowship (in which case, what would be?). Does he agree with Osburn, is it a matter of fellowship, and is it wrong to “write him up”?
Another article in the same issue of the Gospel Advocate laments that a “congregation or university is called liberal because it has used speakers who have spoken where other speakers deemed to be liberal have spoken.” Wait a minute! Why dally in obscurities such as “deemed to be liberal”? Who are we talking about? If the men in question are Rubel Shelly, Jeff Walling, and others of their ilk, they ARE liberal–not just thought to be so.
Now granted that some, in their zeal for truth, may have gone too far and drawn lines of fellowship too quickly. We should avoid such hasty actions until enough time is given to talk calmly through the situation. Again, we live in perilous times, in which many congregations and colleges have invited someone because he was popular–never mind the fact that he has associated with those who have departed from the Word of God. If elders had been more observant regarding those whom some of these speakers fellowshipped, perhaps they could have avoided division. If anything, the brotherhood needs to scrutinize preachers more closely, not less.
The writer seeks to justify his thesis that “guilt by association” is wrong by appealing to the fact that Jesus was a friend to tax collectors and sinners. The two situations are not parallel; Jesus did not endorse their immorality and fellowship their sins. The speakers in question, however, do not disagree with the liberals on the programs in which they appear. They fellowship the other men and endorse one another’s teaching; otherwise, they would not be invited!
“Guilt by association” IS a Biblical principle. Jehu the prophet asked King Jehoshaphat: “Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord? Therefore, the wrath of the Lord is upon you” (2 Chron. 19:2). Although this occurred in the Old Testament, there is no reason that the same question should not be asked in this era.
A third article in July’s Gospel Advocate continues this theme. It is, perhaps, the most vicious of them all.
Our modern-day Pharisees are the same. All they want to know is where you go and who you know. If you do not associate with people they deem faithful, you must be unfaithful. They think that they can dictate with whom you should or should not fellowship. They have their lists and measure you by their lists instead of the Bible (15).
Really? Has the author seen these lists? Is it possible to get a copy? He sounds like an annual attendee of the Tulsa Soul-Winning Workshop or the Nashville Jubilee. The only criterion most of us use to determine fellowship is, “Does this person or group teach what the Bible teaches?” If not, we usually try to discern if the person is a babe in Christ and untaught–or if he knows what those men stand for and agrees with them. Toward the former we exercise patience and tolerance, but we must withhold fellowship from the latter. By the way, is it Pharisaical to point a finger at those who disagree with you and call them a Pharisee?
Just look at the modern Pharisees. Their empty church buildings, lack of action, and constant whining about how difficult life is are testimonies to their lack of love for the lost.
Oh! So, a facility empty of people is a mark of Phariseeism. Pity the poor animals on the ark and all the time they had to spend with Noah and his Pharisaical family! Most congregations still standing for the truth show signs of meaningful activity and are engaged in evangelistic activities. These generalizations are unwarranted and unprovable.
The motto of today’s Pharisee might be, “The sins in others I can see! But praise the Lord there is none in me!”
Whew! One wonders how the writer knows the Pharisees so well. If he is acting as a watchdog, where is the scholarship that qualifies him to make these charges (as the brother who wrote the “watchdog” article insisted was necessary)? Those of us who have not met these modern-day Pharisees should rejoice immediately.
Today’s Pharisees know what the Bible teaches about marriage and remarriage, baptism for the remission of sins, instrumental music in the church, fellowshipping the denominations, and paying tithes, but they do not know love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, and temperance (Galatians 5:22-23).
How, O how, does this man know these folks so well that he can even describe their personal, private walk with God? Although the phrase is overworked today, this accusation really does amount to judgmentalism.
It is sad to see articles of this stripe in a magazine once (but no longer) known as the “Old Reliable.” The Gospel Advocate still contains a number of articles by sound brethren; some of the information published is helpful, but it is not the same publication it once was.
This article was not intended to be an advertisement for the forthcoming Gospel Journal, but it certainly calls attention to the fact that the brotherhood needs a publication to take the place of some older papers that once were held in high esteem.
The purpose of this article was to protest and lament those who are calling for broader fellowship and more tolerance at the very time we need to be most alert. To complain about a few brethren who may have been overly vigilant when wolves are stealing sheep by the dozen makes as much sense as replacing light bulbs in the chandelier of the Titanic while it is sinking.