The Denominational Church of Christ
Malcolm L. Hill

The church of God denomination has a Bible name (I Cor. 1:2), but it is a full-fledged sectarian body. They teach so many things that are far out and which are preposterous. The church of Christ has been sliding into a state of apostasy for the past 25-30 years throughout the land, and the world, more or less. This apostasy is full grown in many of the larger churches of Christ and some of the smaller ones. Those taking a lead in this apostasy are the "Christian Universities" and "Christian Schools." Many of the religious journals started by faithful Christians have given support and have become a part of this backsliding movement. Many of those editors have lockjaw and will not speak out against those things that are wrecking the church of Christ or they have had a religious stroke and do not write on controversial issues.

I have heard about the "Traditional Church of Christ" and the "Non-traditional Church of Christ." I have heard about the "liberals" and the "conservatives." These things never have suited my taste exactly. They have not properly represented backsliding spiritual Israel. Recently, while thinking on this matter, I came up with "The Denominational Church of Christ." This name does fit those churches and people who have turned their back on New Testament teaching and Bible doctrine. To call these people "non-traditional" or "progressive" is far too dignified for these church-wreckers and faith-destroyers. Indeed, they are the Denominational Church of Christ! I pray they will put this over their door to let people know who they are and what they are.

The Denominational Church of Christ has no set plan of salvation. While most of them teach faith, repentance, and water baptism, they do not have any problem in uniting with those who reject water baptism for the remission of sins. Evidently, they do not believe that water baptism is necessary to make others brothers and sisters in any faith or religion. The sectarians have believed this for years and now the sectarian church of Christ believes it.

The Denominational Church of Christ has no problem with instrumental music in the worship of God. Some of them will tell you they do not prefer the instrument in worship, but they are also quick to tell you that they do not have a problem with those who do use mechanical instruments in worship to God. This writer believes the only reason some prefer not to use instrumental music in worship to God is because they are afraid to move the instrument in for fear they would lose church members. For the present they are willing to leave it off, but the time will come when some will move the instrument into the worship service.

The Denominational Church of Christ says down with the walls of denominational barriers and let us have fellowship. Many members of the Denominational Church of Christ are a part of Promise Keepers and are in full fellowship with this denominational movement. The Denominational Church of Christ is ready to fellowship Baptists, Methodists, the Presbyterians, the Holiness groups and most of, if not all, the denominational bodies.

The Denominational Church of Christ will have fellowship with those who believe in faith only, grace only, miracles, direct operation of the Holy Spirit, tongue speaking and holy-rollerism. In fact, you name it and these Denominational Churches of Christ will fellowship it.

The Denominational Church of Christ tells us that their origin came from men like Thomas Campbell, Alexander Campbell, Barton W. Stone, Walter Scott and other men of the Restoration Movement in America. They are always talking about their heritage, their traditions and their fellowship. The true church of Christ is not a product of these men. I deny that these men started the church I am a member of, along with thousands of other faithful Christians. I challenge any Denominational Church of Christ preacher to meet me in a public discussion on this issue. Using the words of Jude with reference to these preachers, "Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgement upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him" (Jude 14-15).

Yes, we have the name that fits these false brethren. Let us call them what they are. They are denominational in sentiment and practice. They love and fellowship those in religious error. They are a part of the denominational world. So let us call them what they are: the Denominational Church of Christ.

Editorial
Malcolm L. Hill

The Church of Christ is going through a very trying time at the present. Change is the cry of the day. We have the baby boomers and the elite to satisfy. People no longer live in the backwoods in crude huts but in fine houses with all the extras. We are living in the jet age when men can go around the world in a very short while. Never have automobiles been more plush and fine. They run by computers. The age in which we live dare not say which way is right and which way is wrong. The idea is let each decide for himself. With many there is no exact white and no definite black but most all is gray.

For the church to be the church of the New Testament is out of date. Some say it is foolish to think that we can restore New Testament Christianity. We must have gymnasiums, special music, entertainment, eating, and the like to attract people to come and be with us. The denominational people are having drama, so why should we not have it? The denominational people are having hand clapping, so why not us? The denominational people are having instrumental music and people like it, so why not us? The denominational people are swinging and swaying, so why not us? The denominational people want to have unity based on human wisdom, so why should we not join them?

Some are saying the Church of Christ has followed human traditions too long and it is time we are giving them up. So some observe the resurrection of Christ at Easter time in a special service so why should we not join them? Others march for Jesus, so why should we not join them? Most churches observe Christmas and December 25 as the birthday of Jesus, so why should we not do so? Some dedicate their babies, so why should we not do so? The reason is simple: we do not have Bible authority for doing these and other such things in religion. It is as simple as this. The reason these above things are done is because most men do not respect the Bible anymore as they should. Preachers and people who stand in the way of things like these are considered rocks around the neck of the modern-day church. But this is not new.

Let me give a quote from 1871 and 1872 or near that time. The quote is about Ben Franklin.

Franklin stated that for years he had tried to be kind, ignore the bad feeling against him, but now it could no longer be done.

"Who are they that are against us? They are the men who think that much of the work by A. Campbell will have to be undone: the friends of the organ in worship; of extravagant, fine houses of worship, festivals, fairs, organ concerts in churches, etc."

Because Franklin refused to go along with the popular trend of progress, he was spoken of as being a "millstone around the neck of the reformation." It is interesting to ask the reason for this.

"Wherein are we a 'millstone around the neck of the reformation?' In our decided and determined opposition to the departures being made from the primitive gospel. In our opposition to church fairs, festivals, church concerts, organ concerts, useless outlay in gorgeous and fashionable temples of folly and pride called 'churches,' instruments of music in worship, etc. We have sinned against Dr. Progress, Mrs. Fashion, Sirs Custom, and offended the taste of their friends and the spirit of the world in general, and have thus become a millstone around the neck of pride, folly, arrogance and self-importance in general, the lusts of the flesh, the lusts of the eye, and the pride of life in general...We have failed to appreciate church fairs, festivals and entertainments, as a means of raising money for the Lord...

"We have no scheme to defend, no hobbies to ride, nor enemies to pursue. We have our Lord and His cause squarely before us. To please Him and maintain his cause is all we have to do... We are opposed to no man, but opposed to all departures from the faith. We stand not in opposition to men but error..." (Earl I. West, Search for the Ancient Order, Vol. 2, p. 134).

I can appreciate Ben Franklin's statement along with others of our day. Some have said it will take years to tear down what we have stood for. Well, I hope it is never torn down for we have stood for the truth and only the truth. There is not a soul living that can say and prove that we have taught false doctrine. If so, then let them step forth and state their cause. We will not nor shall we quit!

Luther Would Roll Over
Kerry Duke

The loudest cry in present religion is for unity. The ecumenical movement has made massive strides, bringing with it appeals for peace and tolerance. The walls of doctrinal exclusivity, its promoters argue, must come down. One of the targeted walls is the barrier between Protestants and Catholics erected over four centuries ago by Reformation leaders Martin Luther and John Calvin. Now representatives from both groups are calling for a truce. They are urging Protestants and Catholics to lay aside their differences and unite as brothers and sisters. The usual avenues are being used (articles, books, forums, seminaries), and the campaign is growing in size and intensity.

A recent document written and signed by prominent Protestant and Catholic leaders reveals the level of toleration encouraged by this movement. "The Gift of Salvation" is a result of a meeting of these leaders in New York City October 7, 1997. It was printed in the December 7, 1997 issue of Christianity Today along with the names of those who signed it. As to the obvious and serious differences between Protestants and Catholics, the document states:

We must not allow our witness as Christians to be compromised by half-hearted discipleship or needlessly divisive disputes. While we rejoice in the unity we have discovered and are confident of the fundamental truths about the gift of salvation we have affirmed, we recognize that there are necessarily interrelated questions that require further and urgent exploration. Among such questions are these: the meaning of baptismal regeneration, the Eucharist, and sacramental grace; the historic uses of the language of justification as it relates to imputed and transformative righteousness; the normative status of justification is by faith alone, the faith that receives salvation is never alone; diverse understandings of merit, reward, purgatory, and indulgences; Marian devotion and the assistance of the saints in the life of salvation; and the possibility of salvation for those who have not been evangelized.

The incredible hypocrisy of this document is revealed in what follows this list of "needlessly divisive disputes". The writers cite I Corinthians 1:10 and then claim to "seek no unity other than unity in the truth" because "only unity in the truth can be pleasing to the Lord"! The names of these princes of "peace" are listed at the end of the document. Eighteen are listed as Protestant; fifteen are listed as Catholic. Some members of the church would recognize a few names; most members of the church would recognize one in particular. He is listed as "The Rev. Max Lucado" (Oak Hills Church of Christ, San Antonio, Texas)!

Is there any question now about Lucado? There never should have been. Once one starts down the ecumenical path, he is bound to end up where Lucado is. Eventually, if he is consistent with the spirit of compromise inherent in this movement, he will draft similar documents with Jews, Muslims, and Hindus. And what about brethren who fellowship Lucado, recommending and defending him before the brotherhood? They need to repent the same as he. These brethren, just like those who signed this unity document, refuse to listen to Romans 16:17, II John 9-11, and Jude 3.

Martin Luther would "roll over in his grave" if he saw this feigned attempt at unity, and Calvin and Wesley would follow. If Campbell, Stone, Goodpasture, and Woods saw a gospel preacher's name attached to such a document, they would be similarly astonished. But more important is how God views this fiasco. Two passages in particular are appropriate.

"They have seduced my people, saying, Peace; and there was no peace" (Eze. 13:10).

"And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46).

The NIV?
Malcolm L. Hill

The New International Version (NIV) of the Bible leaves out several verses that are found in the King James Version. Let me give you some of them. Matthew 17:21; Matthew 18:11; Matthew 23:14; Mark 7:16; Mark 9:44; Mark 9:46; Mark 11:26; Mark 15:28; Luke 17:36; Luke 23:17; John 5:3-4; Acts 8:37; Acts 15:34; Acts 24:7; Acts 28:29; Romans 16:24. There is a good reason why the King James translators have these verses in the King James translation but I do not have space to discuss them here. What do you think about those modern liberals that gave us the NIV leaving these verses out? What do you think about preachers that argue for the use of the NIV? The New International Version is not a translation but a mutilation of the Bible.

Let us notice some twisted and distorted passages found in the NIV.

1. "Surely I have been a sinner from birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me" (Ps. 51:5). This teaches the false view of original sin. It is Calvinistic to the core!
2. The New International Version places Mark 16:9-20 in the text but in parentheses says: "The two most reliable manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20 in them." The implication they strongly leave is that Mark 16:9-20 does not belong in the Bible. But we have some so-called gospel preachers that stand up and argue for the use of the NIV. I use the NIV as I do a commentary written by denominational preachers. I by no means would recommend its use in the assembly of the saints any more than I would the use of Bible study materials which are false.
3. "You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God" (Ex. 20:7). Is misuse the same as taking the name of the Lord in vain? What would warrant such structure of this statement in Exodus 20:7? Many could read this obscure statement and never understand that cussing must be avoided at all times. Especially would this be true of young people and children. Most people know what it means because they have read it from the King James Version.
4. In Matthew 18:22 the NIV translators put "seventy-seven times" for "seventy times seven." Someone says: What is the difference? The difference is 413 times. The NIV translators take liberty where they wish to do so, thus corrupting the text. Any man that would uphold such activity is either ignorant or does not care about the purity of the text of the Bible.

There are many, many changes in the text of the NIV. These changes have come about because those who translated the NIV had no respect for the Bible as the Word of God. They have taken liberty to do as they please and wish with many passages in the Bible.

Johnny Fox gave editorial endorsement to an article written by Gordon Smith upholding the use of the New International Version. This material came out in the Sycamore Servant, November 26, 1997. Do brethren Smith and Fox believe that little babies are born in sin? The New International Version says so in Psalm 51:5. Do brother Fox and brother Smith believe that Mark 16:9-20 should be taken out of the Bible? The New International Version implies Mark 16:9-20 should be left out. Do brother Johnny Fox and brother Gordon Smith believe that those who translated the New International Version of the Bible had the liberty to leave out entire verses and to change the statement of verses they wished to change? If not, then why do they try to uphold this contaminated translation? Many of us would like an explanation for what they have done. We would like an explanation from the Sycamore elders as to why they would put up with this kind of thing. Are they elders or are they not? Do they oversee the church there? Do they oversee brother Fox or does he oversee them?

The contamination of the text of the Bible is a most serious thing. The devil wants this. There are so many so-called translations of the Bible today that one can find a "translation" that will uphold just about any major error there is in religion. You cannot beat the old King James translation of the Bible. If it teaches doctrinal error, then were is it?

Assembly Sickness
Malcolm L. Hill

Assembly sickness is a very strange disease and it does not work the same way on all people. Sometimes it will hit some people more often than others and when it hits it can cause the entire family to miss worship or Bible study.

And what are the symptoms of assembly sickness? Who can tell? There is not a doctor in the country that can specify with exactness as to how assembly sickness will attack the human body. It normally starts on Saturday night and Wednesday afternoon. When it starts on Saturday night, it can be as late as the late late show. If assembly sickness strikes on Wednesday, it is always near the close of the work day or in the late afternoon. Even though this strange disease attacks religious people there is a bright side to it. It normally only lasts for two or three hours on Sunday and recovery on this day is right after the evening service. It hardly ever knocks the individual out of work on Monday. Those who have this recurring and chronic trouble often have a light hangover but it only lasts for an hour or so early on Monday and Thursday mornings.

When those who are stung with the devil's bug which causes assembly sickness have this trouble on Wednesday, it normally hits after work. If this disease hits children as it often does, they get sick on the same days as adults, in most cases about the same time. Children often catch this disease from mom or dad or both. Children afflicted with this disease most of time make it through school hours but there are times when they have to be picked up during classes. If it gives trouble to children, it normally hits just after sundown on Saturday. However, the children will never get too sick to watch TV along with adults who have the same disease. In fact, we are told that TV is a great help to the recovery of this chronic problem. The reason this is so is due to the fact that those who have assembly sickness can get so involved in TV programs that they forget that they are sick.

What are the symptoms of assembly sickness? As we have stated before it does not attack people in the same way. Some who have it say they feel like they are worn out and tired. Others say they have a mild headache and the bones seem to ache a little. Some have an uneasy feeling in their stomach and some seem to chill. They will not guarantee that they chill but they seem to. When the husband and/or wife have to stay at home with the patient you can rest assured the entire family has assembly sickness to a measure. You may know for sure they have this disease if they have the problem on Sundays and Wednesdays but they are never too sick to go to work or school the next day! Rain and snow days seem to emphasize this disease and extremely bad weather brings this disease on.

What recommendations are given to those who have assembly sickness? Doctor Devil is known universally for his knowledge of this disease. He says the patient should not get out during church assembly hours and if he must, let it be to go to any place except the church worship and Bible study. He suggests that popcorn and soft drinks are good for the disease as well as watching TV. He says to eat your normal diet except if your conscience hurts you and if your conscience hurts you leave off a little food. He further states if your conscience hurts you greatly, then leave off all the food during the time the saints are meeting and the time you should be with them. Coffee, hot tea, cold tea, or even a cold glass of water as needed can be helpful to those with assembly sickness.

Dr. Devil says a little snort of whiskey or beer is sometimes helpful for those afflicted with this problem. However, he says do not drink whiskey or beer if this causes inward guilt and conflict. He says if you go against your conscience it could cause your heart to harden and this could cause you to be allergic to all worship and Bible study assemblies. Dr. Devil says not to fret about this for it is good for all if they never attended worship and Bible study. He says it is a waste of time and money.

This disease hits saints and sinners alike. It can hit preachers' families, elders' families, deacons' families, Bible teachers' families. In fact, all families are targets for it. Do you know of anyone with this disease? It can be cured by repentance and being honest with one's self.

Lifted Above Sects and Parties
Benjamin Franklin

The men who are meditating on union are now on trial, being put to the test, and will be compelled to show where they stand. Those who love union among Christians more than denominationalism will sacrifice the denominations for union, but those who love denominationalism more than union will sacrifice union for the denomination. The union of the people of God is from heaven; the denomination is from man. The denomination is the party, sect, faction. The body of Christ, or kingdom of God, is no sect, party, or denomination. It is as broad as the dominion of King Jesus. It is above all sects, parties and denominations. The man that rises so as to grasp the kingdom of God in his mind, ascends far above all sects, parties, and denominations; up to the throne and Him who sits on the throne; to the Supreme Majesty of heaven and earth. He loves the King above all kings and potentates, and loves the kingdom of God above all kingdoms and empires of the world, and supremely above all the parties, sects, and denominations. We love no denomination, nor denominationalism, but love the people involved in the denomination; and while we desire to see the denomination literally abolished, wiped out, we desire to save the kingdom of God, the union of the people of God, and the people themselves. This can be done if the people will have it so. But if they love the sect, party, or denomination more than the Church of God, or the body of Christ, they will keep an eye on the sect, party, or denomination; to their little side institutions of human device; every one of which originated with men, and without one scrap of divine authority; instead of rising to the grand and glorious institution ordained of God, with the Lord for its head, and the law of God for the rule of its faith and practice.

There is No Middle Ground
S. C. Boyce

Jesus classifies all into two classes—those that scatter and those that gather, those that are for him and those that are against him. He thus rules out any third category of neutrality which men often foolishly assume that they occupy. There is no middle ground. Either we are actively gathering or negatively scattering. "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth" (Luke 11:23). The dilemma is sharp and pointed, and from it no man can escape.

If a modernist succeeds in convincing a group of students that the Bible is no more inspired, no more binding, and of no more value than the works of Shakespeare, Shelley, or Milton, he has done a good job scattering. Without the convincing authority of the inspired Scriptures to motivate and to refashion their lives, men will not greatly alter their conduct for the better. Either modernism makes a man better or worse, and we have only to look about to observe its baneful influence on the faith and morals of the race.

The professed Christian whose mode of life is unworthy of his high calling scatters even better than those who sell their lives to do evil: for a man of the world does not carry the influence of the Christian. If he drinks, "cusses," and gambles, his actions are hardly noticed. But the church member who does such things becomes an effective scatterer. No man can walk with one foot in the church and one in the world. He is simply lending his influence for evil. Why? It is expected that a Christian be a Christian.

"To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin," James wrote. True it is the sin of omission, but it is well to note that in the parable of the judgment those who were turned away to the left were condemned not for committed sins, but for neglected duties. Certainly one can lose his soul for outright sinning; he can also lose it out of a failure to do that which he knows to be right. When we neglect to visit the sick (not so much our friends, but those in hospitals and elsewhere who never have callers to cheer them), or to feed the hungry, we become scatterers, not of good will, but of gloom that grows out of chilly neglect. People expect those who are followers of the Lord to walk in his footsteps. He visited the sick and distressed.

When we sit comfortably at home while the faithful are assembled to carry on the work of the Lord, we become scatterers. No one is likely to be influenced from meeting with his fellow Christians by a drunk or a moral pervert. But let respectable men or women fold their arms and recline in an easy chair when they should be at the church service, and their example immediately becomes a powerful deterrent to the weak, the doubtful, and to those who are "babes in Christ." It does not take many like these to scatter a congregation out of existence.

On matters of "isms" and errors, a neutral position is highly destructive. If a man says, "I'm neither for not against 'isms' dividing the church," it can be seen that such a course is impossible. The very fact that a man will not stand squarely against error inevitably throws his influence on the side of those who would divide the church.

Nor can a man sin against one and not injure others. When one is spiritually hurt by a negative or positive influence, the injury is passed on to others. The principle may be illustrated by the story of the young boy who killed a mother bird that had built her nest near his home. Conscience-stricken, he diligently fed the three motherless youngsters, but one by one they drooped and died after a few days.

If we need further proof of this challenging declaration of Jesus, examples in the natural world are numerous. Ground upon which are sown seeds of obnoxious weeds will bring forth abundantly. But a farmer can get weeds, thistles, and briers by simply letting the soil lie idle. Or cut a boat loose upon a river, and it will float downstream of its own self. Only persistent toil, however, will set the boat in motion against the current.

Powerful forces—such as good and evil, right and wrong, truth and error—are antagonistic, irreconcilable, and in continual conflict. Like fire and water, they can never be resolved into a homogeneous whole. One will vanquish the other. Now, it is obvious that any person who sits idly by while these forces are struggling for their very existence is negatively lending support to evil. He is a scatterer.

Furthermore, since Jesus is the truth, then any failure upon our part to assume responsibilities of defending truth would also put in the antagonistic attitude of being against Christ. If a man says, "I'm not for truth and I'm not against truth," you would immediately perceive that such is impossible: for there is just one zone outside of truth—namely, that of error. Moreover, Jesus is more than one who merely stands for the truth. He is the truth.

Jesus by his very nature is righteousness. He loves righteousness. It is a part of his divine nature. That man who sows iniquity, whose life is given to diabolic and fiendish sinning, is trampling upon and scattering every precept and principle held dear by the Lord. When a man tramples upon righteousness, he tramples upon Jesus himself.

Jesus is the head of the church. Now, if a man evilly derides the institution that Jesus bought with his blood, if he neglects it, is he not sinning against the Lord himself, and, therefore, he is scattering all that the Lord holds dear? Paul, no doubt, was surprised to learn that he was persecuting Jesus when he was working havoc with the church. Yet that was exactly what the Lord said to him when he was struck down by the heavenly light on his way to Damascus. He could not possibly waste the church of Christ without being against Jesus. When a man says that he loves Christ, the head, but cares nothing for his church, his body, he is attempting to maintain an impossible relationship.

To remain inactive when there is a pressing work for the church to carry the gospel into all the world sets a most depressing example. If professed Christians are idle or inactive, others, seeing our examples, will be prone to regulate their life after them. Therefore, their influence is not natural, but highly destructive.

Again, if a man says he neither loves nor hates, we know that his claim is without base or fact. According to the great principle proclaimed by the Lord, he either hates or loves. There is no middle ground. And if he hates, is he not trampling upon Christ himself, for he is the very embodiment of love; and if he hates all that Jesus stands for, if he has no love in his heart how can he be other than a scatterer? How can he be other than against him?

Where is Freed-Hardeman Heading?
Holger Neubauer

The Freed-Hardeman Lectureship schedule for 1998 is now complete. Perusing the program and the list of speakers, one cannot but yearn for the days of old at Freed-Hardeman when N. B. Hardeman, A. G. Freed, B. C. Goodpasture, and H. A. Dixon would be listed as some of the speakers on the lectureship. Those were the days when the clarion call of truth was not diminished with uncertain sounds and compromising brethren. Those were the days when loving, balanced brethren did battle with every opponent of truth and regularly named the sources of the false doctrine that were ready to devour the people of God. Some believe that Freed-Hardeman's path is still true and straight but upon closer investigation the sad but striking truth is that Freed-Hardeman is now embracing compromisers and bidding God speed to those who have promulgated false doctrine. Though this practice began gradually and slowly, this year's lectureship is evidence that the leaven of false doctrine is spreading rapidly.

This year's program includes:

1. Jay Lockhart of Tyler, Texas who believes that "God nowhere required an individual to live a celibate life" and that "God never required anyone to break up a marriage."¹ Brother Lockhart needs to study again Mark 6:18 where John boldly told Herod "it is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife." Brother Lockhart appeared with Joe Beam in the Red River encampment in New Mexico.
2. Jack Lewis, retired professor of Harding Graduate School, believes elders have no authority in optional matters. He made his beliefs known in his infamous "Wolf, Wolf" article which appeared in Harding Graduate School's bulletin in November of 1988. In a 1992 article in the Gospel Advocate Lewis taught that couples living in adultery might do evil by breaking up their marriages where children are a part of them.
3. Dan Jenkins who lives in West Palm Beach, Florida, believes the guilty party of Matthew 19:9 can remarry with God's approval and has married couples in that very situation.²
4. James Maxwell of Southwestern Christian College believes that non-Christians are not amenable to God's marriage laws. He made his position clear in a debate with the now-deceased Bill Jackson.³
5. David Lane who preaches for the Berkley Heights Church of Christ in St. Louis, Missouri is advertised as "Pastor" outside the church building though he is not an elder. Brother Lane also advocates the doctrine that those outside Christ are not amenable to God's marriage law.⁴
6. Cecil May, Jr., former president of Magnolia Bible College, believes couples living in adultery should be baptized as long as the couples are confused about the issue.⁵
7. Gordon Smith of Cookeville, Tennessee, attends the Sycamore Church of Christ where Steve Flatt and G. P. Holt have recently held meetings. The young people there have been entertained by Full Access, a group that uses instruments to sing praises to God. Brother Smith has publicly debated that Matthew 18:15-18 covers public false teaching as well as private matters. He recently wrote promoting the New International Version, suggesting no one ought to object to unsound Bibles. Brother Smith is also on record for baptizing couples living in adultery.
8. Paul Rogers of Centerville, Tennessee, has spoken on the 1993 Jubilee and also is a board member of David Lipscomb University. Brother Rogers commended the liberal Jubilee for years and now we need not guess what he is doing for the false doctrine which has engulfed David Lipscomb University.
9. Bruce White of Decatur, Alabama, has recently spoken at the 1997 David Lipscomb Summer Lectures with the likes of Steve Flatt, Randy Becton, Basil Overton, Gary Bradley, Walt Leaver, and Mark McInteer and was on the 1993 Jubilee program.
10. Harold Taylor of Texas has appeared with Charles Hodge, Willie Franklin, G. P. Holt, Jay Lockhart, Paul Faulkner and Jim Bill McInteer. Brother Taylor, regardless of his own teaching, is ignoring Ephesians 5:11, II John 9-11, and Romans 16:17-18.⁶

Can the Freed-Hardeman Lectureship Committee defend these speakers? Can faithful brethren support this lectureship? The faithful of God ought to be speaking out clearly lest what happened at Abilene, Harding, and Lipscomb also happen at Freed-Hardeman, if it hasn't already happened.

Endnotes
¹These quotations were taken from a tape of a sermon delivered at the West Erwin church of Christ in Tyler, Texas.
²Dan Jenkins affirmed his position on a telephone conversation with him while I lived in Atlanta. Brother Ben Vick of Indianapolis, Indiana also spoke to Dan Jenkins and can verify this position.
³James Maxwell, Vice President, Southwestern Christian College, in 1986 had a written debate with Bill Jackson on the following proposition:
The Holy Scriptures teach that the repentance required for baptism for the remission of sins, on the part of the alien sinner (outside the church) who is divorced and remarried for reasons other than fornication, demands that he cease his present marital relationship.
Affirm: Bill Jackson
Deny: James Maxwell
Southwestern Church of Christ, November 1, 1986.
⁴This information was confirmed by telephone call to the Berkley Heights church where David Lane preaches.
⁵Cecil May presented his understanding of baptizing individuals living in adultery in the Magnolia Messengerin 1988. This is the quote:
"Those who understand that Scripture condemns their relationship as adultery, but rebelliously refuse to submit to what they know God wants them to do, cannot really be baptized. Whether we proceed to dip them in water or not, they are not really baptized. But if, instead, we are dealing with people who earnestly want to obey God but are confused about their situation and about what the Bible requires them to do, it may be appropriate to baptize them, feed them with milk, nurture them to grow in faith and knowledge to the point where they are able to better make difficult decisions."
⁶Harold Taylor is a member of the West Erwin Church of Christ where Jay Lockhart preaches. He appeared with known false teachers giving no rebuke at the 1996 IBC Lectureship.

A Shame to Interrupt?
Kerry Duke

Error cannot be harmonized with truth, but some try to unite the two anyway. The demand for broader participation of women in worship is a good example. For those in this movement who wish to portray a semblance of respect for the Scriptures, there is a need to harmonize this agenda with verses that conflict with it. Paul's prohibition to the Corinthians is one such barrier to this movement. "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak..." (I Cor. 14:34). Now those who insist on leadership roles for women in the church must deal with this passage. How do they do so?

One common approach holds that the speaking Paul forbids women is disruptive speech. In other words, this view says that women are told not to interrupt the preaching of the Word. The tongue speakers, interpreters, and prophets are delivering the Word in the assembly (vv. 27-33), and the women are allegedly told not to interrupt the men. The only thing Paul forbids in verse 34, this view argues, is interrupting these men. The implication is that these women could have spoken in the assembly as long as they did not interrupt, and the application is that women can speak in the assemblies of worship today as long as they do so "decently and in order."

This view is right on three points but terribly wrong in its primary contention. It is right in saying that this passage speaks of the worship assembly. It is also right in asserting that the passage applies to today. Furthermore, it correctly grasps the nature of the speaking Paul forbids. That speaking is not congregational singing or confessing Christ but the proclamation of the Word in the worship assembly. This is what Paul addressed in verses 27-33, and he instructs tongue speakers, interpreters, and prophets as to how this should be done.

The fallacy of this view is easily seen when one compares Paul's instructions in verses 27-33 to those in verses 34-35. Tongue speakers are to speak "by course" (v. 27). One is to interpret (v. 27). Prophets are to speak "one by one" (v. 31). The women, however, are not to speak at all (vv. 34-35)! If Paul was simply telling these these women not to interrupt, he would have told them to wait their turn! If women had the same right as men to speak in the assembly, Paul would have told them to do so "by course." Instead, he told them not to participate in this activity at all, even by asking questions. This means that Paul authorized men only to teach the Word of God in the worship assembly. Notice Paul's instructions: Let the tongue speakers speak the Word (v. 27), let the interpreter speak the Word (v. 27), and let the prophets speak the Word (vv. 29-33), but let the women keep silence (vv. 34-35)!

One preacher said that Paul forbids women to "pipe up" in the assembly by asking "question after question."¹ He tried to prove that their speaking is ongoing on the basis that the present infinitive "to speak" in verses 34-35 stresses continuous speaking (continuous interrupting, according to him). This feeble and obviously strained exegesis implies that women could disrupt the proclamation of the Word in the assembly as long as they did not do so continually!

The command to do all things "decently and in order" (v. 40) applies to men as well as women. Neither men nor women should cause confusion in the worship assembly by speaking out of turn. But the prohibition of I Corinthians 14:34-35 is unique to women and is not limited to disruptive speech. The idea of mere disruptive speech is injected into the text by those who evidently feel the force of the prohibition but refuse to accept it.

Endnote
¹Carroll D. Osburn, "The interpretation of I Corinthians 14:34-35," Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity, Carroll D. Osburn, ed. (Joplin, Missouri: College Press Publishing Company, 1993), p. 234.