Most people do not enjoy hearing about problems in the church—after all, do we not all have enough troubles to keep us busy elsewhere? We hear of national and international problems on the news, and we must often face personal and family difficulties as well. The one place we would like to be free from strife is in the church. The devil, however, has other ideas. Our brethren in the first century were plagued with the Judaizing teachers; Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews were written to combat these assaults upon the gospel.
Since it is the truth that saves people and sets them free from sin, Satan constantly mounts attacks against the Word and those who propagate it—the church. Some of these may be from without—in the form of persecution. The darkness always hates the light because the light exposes evil (John 3:19-21). Also, the world does not care what anyone believes, no matter how bizarre, so long as he does not insist that what he believes is the truth.
Concerning the Bible, the battles waged against it have been numerous—not all of these have come from unbelievers. Many in religious denominations and some in the church have lent credence to the theories of Modernism and Postmodernism, although these assaults cannot stand. The fact is, however, that every major Bible teaching has been challenged by someone—usually by those professing to be believers.
In light of this destructive attitude of the devil, it was necessary for Paul to warn the elders of Ephesus day and night with tears for three years against the wolves that would come in to savage the flock. Even from among themselves would arise some with the desire to draw away disciples to have a following of their own (Acts 20:29-31). Paul also charged brethren to mark or note those who “cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine” they had been taught and avoid them (Rom 16:17-18).
If all these things (and more) happened within the first 30 years of the church’s existence, what chance exists for tranquility among brethren today? How often have many preachers felt like Jude, the Lord’s brother? He had intended to write to them about their common faith—perhaps an encouraging tract on what it means to be saved, with exhortations to be faithful to God or practical advice on how to overcome sin. Whatever he might have been thinking about teaching, however, suddenly was superseded by a pressing concern:
…I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to earnestly contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ (3-4).
Brethren ought to give the wolves some credit (but no cash). They do not stand up and say, “We came to teach you the ways of lasciviousness.” That would be too obvious. Instead, the wolves dress like sheep, showing that they can be as subtle as their father, the devil (Matt. 7:15). Their teachings, if followed, will allow for or encourage immorality. Some allow for unlawful divorce and remarriage, immodest dress, fornication, drunkenness, etc. None of these things square with: “…let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” (2 Cor. 7:1).
Christians cannot get away from the influence of false teachers nor the myriad false doctrines they have introduced into the church. Satan has a great deal of experience and is successful at what he does; therefore, preachers and elders must be careful regarding what they themselves teach (1 Peter 4:11), and all brethren must evaluate what they hear (Acts 17:11).
Communication
Satan is unquestionably the source of problems in the church, but what are the mechanics of his success? He mixes in several ingredients, such as: 1) covetousness (the desire to have one’s own following, as already noted), 2) pride, 3) miscommunication, and 4) even the refusal to communicate. The Lord provided solutions for all of these possible problems.
First, it is wrong for anyone to desire his own following. While it is always pleasing to receive compliments from brethren for one’s preaching, writing, teaching, or administrative skills, a man can never allow such praise to go to his head, thinking, “Hey! I really am that good!” Even in secular areas, we can see the destructiveness of such thinking. An athlete or an actor suddenly makes millions of dollars and can only credit himself for his success. So he (or she) thinks the normal rules and conventions of society do not apply and begin to engage in unacceptable behavior.
The antidote for this attitude in the church is found in 1 Corinthians 4:7, where Paul asked: “For who makes you differ from another? And what do you have that you did not receive? Now if you did indeed receive it, why do you glory as if you had not received it?” It is tempting for some to use the prominence they have achieved by virtue of their skills to influence other brethren. One can hear comments such as, “Brother X thinks this way,” as if that settles the issue. The question is not, “What does brother X think?” but “What is the basis for his thinking?” What evidence does he have for his conclusion? Brother X is subject to being influenced by friends and insufficient information—like the rest of us. For that reason positions need to be well reasoned and thought through.
The second temptation, pride, will often not allow someone to back down or admit even a small error. Certain public figures have made statements they should have apologized for but never have (Al Sharpton, for example). Others were quick to condemn the Duke Lacrosse players prematurely and never apologized for their kneejerk condemnations. Pride is operative in such situations. “Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up” (James 4:10).
Miscommunication is one of the easiest things to do. How often has someone misunderstood what another has said and taken offense to it. For that reason our Lord provided solutions. If anyone thinks he has been offended, he is to go to that brother (Matt. 18:15-17). If a person finds out that a brother has something against him, he is to go to that brother (Matt. 5:23-24). In this way conflicts can be resolved. But some refuse to communicate. Like Marian Guinn in Collinsville, Oklahoma, some refuse to talk with the elders. They reject answering questions that are not at all complicated? “Did you perform a certain action? Yes or no.” Refusal to communicate with a brother is a sin. More than once, all parties in a dispute have agreed to tape a conversation, then refused to release the tapes!
Attitude
Sometimes brethren charge other brethren with acting in an uncivil way. As human beings fighting against error that is harming the body of Christ, it is indeed possible for one’s emotions to cloud one’s judgment—to say things harshly rather than kindly or, at least, impassively. The motivation for defending the faith is right, of course, but it is also important to establish one’s case in an appropriate manner. However, some seem to be quick to accuse others of incivility. Pressing one’s point to show error has always been acceptable. Some just do not want any conflict, and for them any challenge may be designated as unloving.
Below is an example of rage against an opponent; no defender of the faith against error’s advancement upon the truth has ever been so forceful as this instance. Any harshness of one brother against another has probably never reached this intensity. What is quoted below was published in Philip Schaff’s History of the Christian Church; it is a summary of a papal bull spoken by the lips of Clement VI (the pope) on April 13, 1346, against Lewis the Bavarian:
It called for God to strike Lewis with insanity, blindness, and madness. It invoked thunderbolts of heaven and the flaming wrath of God and the Apostles Peter and Paul both in this world and the next. It called for all the elements to rise in hostility against him; upon the universe to fight against him, and the earth to open and swallow him up alive. It blasphemously damned his house to desolation and his children to exclusion from their abode. It invoked upon him the curse of beholding with his own eyes the destruction of his children by their enemies (6:99).
By contrast, brethren never wish such calamities upon the false teachers whose doctrines we bring to light and analyze. We know that God can bring judgment upon His opponents (Balaam, Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, for example), but our fervent prayer is that they might repent and try to undo the damage they have done before God brings punishment upon them (although some false teachers are never judged in this life).
The use of sarcasm some find objectionable, but the purpose of using it is not just to ridicule an opponent but to show the absurdity of his position. The reader can judge for himself which of these (or possibly both) Elijah was doing when, in 1 Kings 18:27, he mocked the false prophets of Baal.
What follows is the analysis of certain men who have been asked to speak on a program in Orlando that routinely invites wolves to come and speak (every two years). This year is no exception. Many times the speakers brought in have been objected to, and occasionally a few have been changed, but they were only replaced by men of the same stripe. Churches must be warned against events such as these.
Meet the Wolves
All of the speakers have not yet been listed on the Spiritual Growth Workshop Website, but the keynote speakers have been, and a look at two of them is sufficient for brethren to see that they should not in any way support this event. One of those is Harold Shank, who is a professor at OCU and reviews books for The Christian Chronicle. Providing documentation for either one of these liberal entities would require chapters of material. We will pass over OCU and just pull some information from an article written by this same author on July 1, 2001 in Spiritual Perspectives:
In the May issue of The Christian Chronicle is an introduction to a two-part series which begins by stating that “our fellowship is experiencing tremendous pressure on many fronts from a society in the midst of cataclysmic change…” (17).
How the churches of Christ will survive such pressure in order to endure and prevail is dependent on leaders within our congregations who are seeking God’s will and are bringing their wisdom to these challenges of the future (17).
.
So what “leaders” does The Christian Chronicle interview for a sampling of their “wisdom”? Below are some of the names of those who were consulted:
1. Lynn Anderson announced nearly thirty years ago that the church of Christ is a BIG, SICK, DENOMINATION. He has since written Navigating the Winds of Change and is regarded by all faithful brethren as a “change” agent. Dave Miller reviewed his book in the 1995 Spiritual Sword lectureship book, God’s Amazing Grace (507-38). Yet Anderson was the man chosen to discuss “Leadership Renewal” (May) and “Empowering Leaders” (June).
2. Gregory Sterling is a Notre Dame professor and preaches for a congregation in Warsaw, Indiana, which other churches in that area do not fellowship–one that has appointed deaconesses. His topic is “Leadership in Churches of Christ” (May).
3. Don Browning…can fellowship Leroy Garrett (who has been on the cutting edge of apostasy for more than four decades) and at least some religious denominations (June).
Some of the other “leaders” are associated with Abilene Christian University…. Is it the flair for defying the Word of God that made these interviewees desirable to The Christian Chronicle?
Now how does a man who is “sound” in the faith work with a liberal university and a liberal paper. For 21 years, the Pearl Street congregation in Denton, Texas, hosted an annual lectureship on one or more books of the Bible, producing several thousand pages of in-depth studies of the Scriptures over the years, including controversial topics, but The Christian Chronicle never once saw fit to interview the director.
Another speaker is Randy Harris, who teaches at ACU, which is, technically, all that needs to be said. He co-wrote The Second Incarnation with Rubel Shelly, which further identifies him as a liberal, since Shelly has been at the forefront of apostasy for almost thirty years. Below is an excerpt of this book from this writer’s review of that book from June 19 and 26, 2005.
One of the most ridiculous arguments ever made is aimed at those of us trying to restore New Testament Christianity. The authors chide us for wanting to re-create the Jerusalem church, asking if we want to imitate Ananias and Sapphira or neglect widows (6). A more ineffective and irrelevant argument would be difficult to make. Obviously, when brethren advocate following any church in the New Testament, we recognize imperfections; we praise, however, the strengths and are inspired by the ideal. Brethren in Corinth were plagued with numerous problems, but they listened to the apostle Paul, something that today‘s liberals refuse to do.
Shelly and Harris refer to baptism as “the rite of initiation into Christ’s spiritual body.” What Scripture teaches that concept? They never mention the blood of Christ in connection with baptism. They also affirm: “There is neither a set of doctrines nor a series of activities that can guarantee the existence of the church” (62). Really, one wonders if those who continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine in the first century would agree.
They also declare: “Our assemblies need not be dull exercises in boring ritual. They can be creative, alive, and refreshing to the spirit” (105). Did they just make a blanket condemnation of all of the assemblies of the churches of Christ? Is not worshiping in spirit and in truth refreshing? Much more could be cited, but these show the position of the authors.
Now, presumably, the other speakers know a little something about these men—unless they have been living in a vacuum. So why would they want to be on such a program with them? If they do not share the same beliefs as these wolves, why are they going to hang out in the same pasture together?
More to the point, however, is: Why do the sheep want to endanger themselves by getting as close to the wolves as they can? And why would shepherds not warn them against doing so? Would it not be about the same as a child telling his father, “I’m going out to play in traffic now”? What loving parent would allow it? Inviting speakers such as these is not a fluke; these are the type of men that always appear on the Spiritual Growth Workshop! These individuals should not be fellowshipped but marked, as Paul commanded.