The Bellview Church of Christ in Pensacola, Florida published an article by Johnny Oxendine (8-24-09) that raises again some important points concerning fellowship. The intriguing title is:” The Hybrid Church And Why It Has a Real Chance to Succeed With Some.” He leads off with the following two paragraphs:
The title has probably caused some of you to have a puzzled look or a frown on the brow. What could possibly be meant by this phrase, the hybrid church? Today, we want to introduce you to this phenomenon with the understanding that this is a real amalgamation in the church. The hybrid church is a newcomer in the brotherhood. It is composed of brethren of all stripes who share a common denominator to not pass judgment on the activities, errors, false teaching, or associations (fellowship) of others.
Hybrid means “a thing made by combining two different elements, a mixture”; these newly-combined elements are quickly transforming into a sector that will shortly (if they continue on this path) not resemble the Lord’s church at all. There will probably be some identifiable remnants remaining, but what we see in the New Testament will be radically changed as a result of this new hybrid (or Greek mythology Hydra) church.
He then brings into view “the most recent flyer advertising the Tahoe Family Encampment” (July 2009), and he comments on the names that are listed on it, wondering how it could be that, if they are on the same program, they are not in fellowship with each other. This is a good question, which some Scriptures later in this article touch upon. Are brethren giving thought concerning whom they fellowship? How far does fellowship extend? If one fellowships a man affiliated with a certain work, is he not also fellowshipping it?
The issue of fellowship ought to be of concern to all of us, since it is a Biblical topic. It has not been all that long since both preachers and churches agreed concerning what the Bible taught. Now someone looking at us would probably wonder, “What do these people believe?” To demonstrate how things have changed, when I attended the Joplin Unity Summit 25 years ago, someone asked me (before I had figured out what the true purpose for the occasion was) if I thought that Carl Ketcherside would be there. My immediate response was, “Not if they want anyone to take this unity effort seriously.” Ketcherside, like Leroy Garrett, had a name associated with compromise. Both men emphasized unity at the expense of truth; one wonders if the same thing is not now recurring.
Rubel Shelly decided in the early 80s that there were Big F and little f forms of fellowship, which basically resulted in fellowshipping false teachers. Even though Alan Highers wrote a book specifically against that concept and William Woodson wrote against “change agents” in the church, it seems that the idea of a broader fellowship has currently gained ground—even among those who once opposed it. So here is a crucial question:
At what point does association with false teachers and false doctrine constitute sin in the sight of the Lord?
Brethren in most areas of the country need answers to that question. In Orlando, for example, every two years there is a Spiritual Growth Workshop. Are all the speakers’ flat-out liberals? No, but many are. For each event they invite men like Randall Harris and John Clayton—both of whom have been well-documented to be unsound with respect to many of their doctrines. Liberals attend this gathering of wolves, but brethren from non-liberal congregations also go! Why is this not fellowship on their part with error and false teaching?
The Jerusalem Spiritual Growth Workshop
Had there been a “workshop” in Jerusalem and a famous Sadducean orator was teaching that there were no angels and no resurrection; would Jesus have attended to “learn” from such a person? No. Had He been there at all, it would have been to oppose the doctrine. However, Jesus did not go to their conferences; they came to Him (Matt. 22:23-33).
But consider this foolishness a bit further. Suppose all the groups in Jerusalem “agreed to disagree” and have an ecumenical forum. A prominent Pharisee could speak on topics such as “The Value of Manmade Traditions,” “How to Make Long Prayers and Subtly Disfigure Your Face While Fasting,” and “Keeping Oneself Outwardly Pure.” The Sadducees could have someone speak on “Is the Rich Man in Torment?” The zealots could have classes on “Organizing Your Own Private Militia,” and the Herodians could do “Accepting Without Question Every Government Program.”
The Galilee Family Encampment
If such an absurd event ever occurred, would Jesus or His apostles have advised anyone to attend? If not, why not?Perhaps after the destruction of Jerusalem, some brethren hosted a Galilee Family Encampment. Of course, Paul, Peter, and most of the other apostles were already martyred, but what would Paul have thought if he had seen the apostle John on a program with Hymenaeus and Alexander, who had made shipwreck of the faith and had been withdrawn from (1 Tim. 1:18-20), lecturing on the grace of God? Paul would be no more kindly disposed toward Hymenaeus and Philetus attempting to prove that the resurection was already past (2 Tim. 2:16-18).
While scheduling this great annual event, no one would want to omit those two-legged dogs of the mutilation (Phil. 3:1-2, 18-19). And wouldn’t Peter be surprised to see certain liberty promisers on the program, if he were alive (2 Peter 2:17-22)? No encampment would be complete without scoffers who insisted that all things had continued the same since the fathers fell asleep (2 Peter 3:1-9). Suggested topics for the Galilee Family Encampment are: “The Pleasures of Carnal Living,” “The Earth is Eternal,” and “Did You Miss the Resurrection?” What a great time everyone would have! To make it complete, we just need to add: “What Did Paul Really Mean When He Said to Mark False Teachers?” Perhaps one of these illustrious figures could write a book: Big F and Little f F(f)alse Teachers.
Of course, if such an event had actually been scheduled in the first century, everyone would want to know, “Why is the apostle John associated with this endeavor?” Obviously, he would not, since he wrote: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). Concerning this same group of men, the disciple whom Jesus loved wrote:
Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house, nor greet him, for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds (2 John 9-11).
Defenders of such encampments and workshops often say, “They will not be allowed to teach error here.” Oh! Apparently many of us have not seen that exceptive clause in 2 John 9-11. Which part of the passage is it that warns against encouraging or using false teachers but then supplies the caveat: “But you can greet them and let them speak if they don’t present any error”? Under this logic Hymenaeus and Philetus could be asked to speak on the virgin birth, the Deity of Christ, a few dozen other topics. Of course, if they were used, faithful brethren would assume (erroneous-ly) they were sound men in fellowship with the church.
What Makes Someone a False Teacher?
At this point it might be helpful for several brethren to offer a definition—if it is different from the one following. My philosophy is that a false teacher is one who teaches any specific doctrine that—if believed and followed—would cause someone to lose his salvation.
Teaching that the resurrection was already past was overthrowing the faith of some; therefore, Paul considered it harmful to the well-being of the church. Peter showed the dangers of any doctrine that leads brethren into being carnal rather than spiritual. He also said that convincing brethren that the Lord would not be returning was deadly. For one thing, it would make everyone relax their moral guidelines rather than watch and pray (Matt. 24:42-51). Paul adamantly opposed those who tried to bind circumcision and other parts of the Law of Moses upon Christians. He said those who believed such a thing had fallen from grace (Gal. 5:4)! Jesus taught that religion that focused on externals was useless—that faith must be genuine. Any efforts to set aside God’s holy Word He condemned.
In light of these Scriptures, what was brother Oxendine’s complaint? He, like many of us, marveled at the conglomeration of teachings held by those who spoke and fellowshipped at that event. He mentioned BradHarrub of Focus Press. To my knowledge, no one has ever ascribed a teaching error to this brother. No false doctrine has ever been promulgated in the magazine he edits, Think. But he has been associating himself with the other speakers on that program who do.
One of the men who speaks annually is Truitt Adair of the Sunset Bible Institute. Some of Sunset’s instructors have taught error on divorce and remarriage for decades. Is that something over which a person could lose his soul? Yes! If two people are committing adultery, having been unscripturally divorced and married again (as with Herod and Herodias), then they are in an unlawful situation that will cause them to be lost—unless they repent of it by leaving the situation. What Adair himself believes may be the truth, but the institution he heads has had false teachers in it who have never repented. Would Paul fellowship such a one?
Besides, Adair will not condemn error. The following information may be verified by doing an Internet search of Sunset International Bible Studies. Select the “External Studies Overview” from the list of options. It will be first or near the top. In the bar across the top, select “Resources” and under it “Christian Chronicle Interview.” One year Sunset did not participate in the Tulsa Soul-Winning Workshop (a promoter of just about everything liberal), and the Christian Chronicle interviewed Truitt Adair. That year they had scheduled to speak on Friday evening Max Lucado and Bob Russell of the Christian Church. Adair commented thus:
We were told by workshop planners that each evening there would be a speaker to represent the “Church of Christ” and one to represent the “Independent Christian Church.” As with any program of this kind, planners endeavor to select speakers and topics that advance the message they are trying to communicate. Though we would have chosen differently, the program and speakers selected by workshop planners seem to be consistent with the purpose and agenda of this year’s workshop as we have understood them in our conversations.
First, one wonders which of these men was supposed to represent the Lord’s church. If the answer is Max Lucado, such is preposterous! Second, Adair could find no fault with the program (which is bizarre in itself)—except he would have chosen different speakers. Third, he says the speakers were consistent with their agenda. In this he is correct; Tulsa’s “agenda” for years has been compromise. Why is Adair not troubled by that? Can sound brethren fellowship him?
The Sharrod Avenue Church of Christ in Florence, Alabama, which Kerry Williams is part of, lists on their Website links to all “Christian” colleges associated (no matter how loosely) with churches of Christ. Why? Most of us would not recommend Abilene, Pepperdine, or Rochester under any circumstances. Perhaps they could explain why they have links to those institutions who have been leaders of apostasy.
Then there is the Edmond Church in Oklahoma. This congregation is associated with Oklahoma Christian University, the Christian Chronicle, and the television program, In Search of the Lord’s Way. Information regarding the university has been plentiful, and all anyone needs to do is to read the newspaper to know that it should be called the Liberal Christian Chronicle. Phil Sanders has written for conservative publications, such as Think and Spiritual Sword, but now that he is working with In Search of the Lord’s Way, how is his name not to be associated with the liberal Edmond Church and the Christian Chronicle? If someone is not a false teacher, can he fellowship those who are?
World Bible School
Glenn Colley was another speaker at Tahoe. If one goes to the website of the West Huntington (Alabama) Church, they have an entire page that spotlights World Bible School as one of their works. If one then goes to worldbibleschool.net, one finds across the top of the page the fifth heading, “church enrichment.” On the left-hand side, there are three menus: the second heading is “Info Menu.” Click on “Who Are we?” and be prepared to be amazed. The answer is “the Center for Church Resources,” which “operates in association with Abilene Christian University” and is directed by Dr. Ian Fair. Under Web Links are ACU, Christian Chronicle, andHeartlight. Does anybody think Glenn Colley is supportive of ACU? No, but why have fellowship with World Bible School, who thinks they are great?
Apologetics Press
Glenn Colley, Memphis School of Preaching, and many other brethren endorse Apologetics Press. No one has ever expressed any complaints against the work that Apologetics Press does. They have some talented people who work for them, and the materials they produce are of good quality. But the current head of AP is Dave Miller, whose name has become synonymous with two false doctrines—the re-evaluation and reaffirmation of elders, which he defended and never has admitted to be false, and the “marital intent” doctrine that he used to defend a colleague who ”married” a cousin to get into the United States, after which they separated. Many brethren protested Bert Thompson’s hiring of brother Miller, but the protests were waved off.
It is true that he issued a “statement” concerning these things in 2005, but the statement does not include any admission of wrongdoing. One of the elders who oversees Gospel Broadcasting Network asked me: “Even if it were true that Dave taught these doctrines, would it be worth splitting the church over?” Of course, I was shocked by such a question. One of the first departures from God’s Word in the second century involved false teaching regarding the eldership. How can one fellowship a brother who teaches that elders can remain or retire according to the results of an approval rating by the congregation? (Another GBN worker wondered in their last bulletin why they don’t have their 7,000 monthly contributors yet.)
So now we return to the original question, written in bold on page one. It’s a serious question. If anyone holds a different position regarding fellowship than what has been set forth here or can explain the liberal connections that some have, it would be wonderful to hear it. If ours is wrong, then it needs to be corrected. Anyone who wants to write anonymously is free to do so. Many of us would like to concentrate more on love and unity, but we did not originate these false doctrines—and we are not going to fellowship them. Any legitimate rationale would be helpful. Until something changes, we will maintain our current position, marking (rather than fellowshipping) false teachers (Rom. 16:17-18).