The Issue is Fellowship!
Glenn B. Ramsey

It has been my good fortune to have received and read volumes of the Spiritual Sword since the first issue dated October, 1969. I have considered this publication to be of great value over the years. In my library a section is reserved for bound volumes of this publication.

It was through the pages of the Spiritual Sword that I first learned the name of brother Alan Highers. I have appreciated his writings through the years. It was several years after I had learned of him through the pages of the paper that I actually became acquainted with him. During those years I met brother Malcolm L. Hill. Brother Hill invited me to work at Tennessee Bible College and I accepted this work in 1985. I learned that brother Hill and brother Highers had been members of the same college class and the brother Hill held brother Highers in very high esteem. As far as I know this was a mutual sentiment and, as far as I know, it still exists today.

This information will help you understand the following lines from me, and will help you understand the writings by brother Hill in this issue of Living Oracles.

Because the serious issue of "fellowship" has been the most important (in my estimate) of the "issues" before brethren for the past many years, I read with concern a statement by brother Cecil May, Jr., in the October 1996 issue of the Spiritual Sword. On pages 45-46 of that edition brother May said:

The person who commends advocates of serious error in their falsehood is properly blamed, but his guilt is determined by more than association. One who participates on a program with denominational preachers, or with brethren known to teach falsely, but who consistently demonstrates that his interest is in converting those in error, not in approving them as they are, should not be condemned.

I wrote a letter to brother Jim Laws concerning this article. Brother Laws did not respond but turned the letter over to brother Highers.

Brother Highers said that he understood brother May to say, "One is not to be condemned for speaking on a program with false teachers provided he teaches the truth himself and does not manifest approval of their false teaching." In my response to this statement I asked brother Highers where the last part of Ephesians 5:11 fits in here. I also asked him how he would apply II John 9-11 in this matter. His response was that he did not feel that he was bidding Godspeed, or having fellowship with such individuals (false teachers) if he wrote for the same journal or appeared on the same program. He did not explain then (nor has he yet, so far as I know) how he would be following the last part of Ephesians 5:11 unless he actually did what Ephesians 5:11 says! Can one follow a clear command to "rather reprove them" and not reprove them?

I realize that politicians (in and out of the church) use different "levels" of word meanings, but I do not believe such is honest for Christians! It seems to be to be the best policy to "speak the same thing" using the same word meanings. Then all can know what is being said and all can say, "Amen."

Brother Malcolm Hill and I were amazed at the venomous words brother Highers used in later issues of his publication to castigate brother Holger Neubauer because brother Neubauer had written brother Highers concerning the very writing of brother May and the use of certain others whose articles appeared in the Spiritual Sword. In effect, brother Highers called all of us at Tennessee Bible College "radical extremists." This charge we deny. Any one of us would like to know wherein we are extremists. I believe any one of us would gladly meet brother Highers in open debate to argue this case (I know that I would!).

Never in my life have I known a man who has more love and loyalty to the truth than brother Malcolm Hill. This is one reason the liberal elements in the church of Christ are against him. Most of these liberals are so cowardly that they will not say anything openly. They know an open accusation would not stand in a just confrontation. They work in esoteric circles to backbite and try to damage this great brother.

Brother Malcolm Hill is also one of the most honest and humble at heart men that I have ever known. He is always a gentleman. But he is a man! I suppose that scares some. He is loyal to his friends and righteous toward his enemies. I am thankful to count him as my best friend. Aside from my wife and children and their families, he is my closest friend and companion.

I commend brother Hill's writing in this issue for your consideration. Brother Hill or I will be most happy to communicate with you as is necessary concerning this issue of Living Oracles.

Editorial
Malcolm L. Hill

I have always tried to be slow and longsuffering in the work of the Lord. Truth is the most important commodity on the market and should be bought at whatever price and sold not (Prov. 23:23). The church of Christ is the most important institution on the face of God's earth and should be treated with all care and concern. We should never be guilty of experimenting with the church for it is too precious for such. We may experiment with a car, a watch, a building, a piece of cloth and a number of other things, but never should we experiment with the church of the Bible.

For several months I have prayerfully observed brother Alan Highers and brother Holger Neubauer and a difference they have on Bible teaching. I have intentionally and willfully kept myself out of this dispute, thinking perhaps it would eventually take care of itself. But it seems that it is not going to do so. I taught Holger Neubauer in several classes at Tennessee Bible College and went to school with Alan Highers both at Freed-Hardeman and David Lipscomb.

I have always thought of Alan, not as just a friend, but more than this; I have thought of him as a very good friend. To my knowledge I have never had a serious run-in with brother Highers. I was so very happy when he took the open forum at Freed-Hardeman when brother Woods gave it up. Alan has been a very fine debater for the Truth through the years and for this I thank God. So far as I know we have always agreed on important doctrinal issues—issues that have to do with one's eternal destiny. So what I shall say in this material is not based on some personality problem, some type of hatred or ill will I have toward him. If I know my heart, I have never written an article or taken a stand for what I believed to be the truth with ill in my heart for anyone at any time and especially is this true when I deal with material written by brother Alan Highers.

On the other hand, no one could know Holger Neubauer much better than I know him. About three years ago I asked him to come and work with us at Tennessee Bible College as the Assistant to the President. I have never regretted this. I am very appreciative of Holger even though brother Highers seems to think it is Christian and proper to allude to him as "The Assistant to the President" in a condescending context. Brother Alan may not appreciate Holger but I do. In fact, he reminds me in some ways of brother Highers in younger years.

Brother Neubauer has one of the most tender hearts I have ever known. He has a genuine love for the Truth. He has the courage of ten thousand men. He has one of the keenest minds I have ever known. He is able to dissect material and reason logically. Holger is totally free from brotherhood politics. It makes little difference with him who you are and how great your name may be. He came out of the Jehovah's Witnesses church leaving all his relatives behind. I love Holger because one can differ with him and talk straight and plain to him and he holds no grudge or ill will. Will he change when proven wrong? Indeed he will. I have never known anyone that does this better than he. What Holger may do in the future God only knows. but he has been a good Christian man to this point.

This episode between brother Highers and brother Neubauer started from a private letter sent to brother Highers from brother Neubauer in which Neubauer disagreed with Highers. The letter was dated January 7, 1997. Brother Highers responded to brother Neubauer through the pages of the Spiritual Sword, April 1998 issue. Holger had no idea that Alan was going to respond through the pages of the Spiritual Sword to this letter. But Alan did respond in this fashion and I am not upset about this. We are just setting the situation before you.

Now why am I writing this material? I am writing because Alan brought the Living Oracles into the issue and it so happens that I am the editor for the Living Oracles. I accept completely the responsibility for what is published in Living Oracles. Brother Highers wrote about us in the October 1998 issue of the Spiritual Sword on pages 47 and 48. I want to review this article. Brother Highers says, "The Spiritual Sword regularly uses writers who are known for their scriptural knowledge: writers who have been proved over long years of service and whose reputation for the truth is well-known and well-established." I am ready to accept what he says for the greater part, but I must take issue with him with reference to some of the past writers. He has used Cecil May, Jr. as a writer and Cecil May has knowingly fellowshipped some of the most liberal brethren in the church today. He has used Jack P. Lewis as a writer and brother Lewis teaches that elders do not have any authority except by example. This false doctrine has serious consequences and is a salvation doctrine. Brother Lewis also upholds and promotes the New International Version—one of the most liberal renditions of the Bible to be found. It has deleted a number of passages and also teaches original sin. Lewis also teaches error on marriage, divorce and remarriage and was a participant on the 1995 Pepperdine lectureship. Other things could be cited. He has used Bert Thompson who has knowingly fellowshipped some rank liberals. He has used Basil Overton and Overton is in fellowship with the liberals. I will have more to say about Overton in this article. He has used David Lipe and Lipe has invited liberals to be on the Freed-Hardeman lectures. Brother Highers has used brother T. Pierce Brown to write for the Spiritual Sword and brother Brown upheld President Steve Flatt of David Lipscomb University in a meeting at the Sycamore congregation in Cookeville, Tennessee as recently as 1996. Brother Highers needs to be more vigilant than he is. Brother Alan has used Bill Flatt to write for the Spiritual Sword and brother Flatt was a Jubilee speaker in 1992. Flatt tolerates just about anything at Harding Graduate School. Brother Highers has used Ralph Gilmore to write for the Spiritual Sword and brother Gilmore has invited liberals to appear on the Freed-Hardman lectures. Paul Rogers has written for the Spiritual Sword and Rogers is on the board of David Lipscomb University and fellowships that crowd. Also, he was a 1990 Jubilee speaker. Jule Miller was used as a writer in the October 1995 Spiritual Sword and he appeared on the liberal Tulsa Workshop in 1992, 1994, and 1995.

There are others that could be mentioned that have been used to write for the Spiritual Sword that have fellowshipped liberals but those I have mentioned are enough. How many does one have to mention before brother Highers will listen? Does brother Highers know the men who have written for the Spiritual Sword? Does he know the liberals they have intentionally fellowshipped at times? I know who writes for the Living Oracles and whom they have fellowshipped. I know who appears on the lectures at Tennessee Bible College and what they stand for, doctrinally speaking. I do not know all they teach, but I make it my business to know as much as I can of what they teach and stand for. This can be obtained without much trouble.

Alan says, "Most of the controversy we have addressed has been toward the left, i.e., those who are liberal or out in left field." We commend him for every ounce of Truth he has stood for in the Spiritual Sword. But what has been said in the Spiritual Sword with reference to those who want to compromise and straddle the fence; those who want to fellowship both sides? These are the people that are strangling the church of Christ to a sizable degree. There is a whole lot of politicking going on these days. Some seem to be more interested in pleasing frineds and brethren and with being popular and appearing on lectureships than they are in being just, fair, and right.

Alan mentions extremism throughout his article. I have been preaching for 45 years and to my knowledge I have never been accused of being an extremist by faithful brethren and those who know the Bible. Basically, I believe and and preach what I have always believed and preached. I believe just exactly what I believed while in school with Alan at Freed-Hardeman and David Lipscomb. Brother H. A. Dixon, president of Freed-Hardeman when Alan and I were students therre, would not have thought of having liberals and false teachers on the lectureship. Can anyone who knew H. A. Dixon believe for one minute that he would have used LeRoy Garrett or Carl Ketcherside on the lectures (not to mention F. LaGard Smith, Don McLaughlin, Randy Becton and other rank liberals of our day)? Even the thought of such is foreign to brother Dixon's loyalty to Christ. Brother Highers will agree to this I know.

But brother Alan says in his article:

In recent months we have had occasion to mention very briefly some examples of right wing extremism among brethren. Basically, the fundamental error is this: If a sound preacher appears on a lectureship or other programs wich another preacher who takes some erroneous views, then the sound preacher becomes unsound because he was on the same program.

Would brother Highers speak for a Baptist church and not rebuke them for their religious error? I know he would not for I know Alan Highers. Would brother Alan speak on a denominational program and not condemn their error? Again, I know him well enough to know he would not. Would Alan appear on a lectureship with Rubel Shelly, Joe Beam, LeRoy Garrett, Lynn Anderson, Rick Atchley, Mike Cope, Edward Fudge, and others like them without exposing them or their doctrine? I know he would not do such. It is not extreme right wing-ism to refuse to fellowship these kinds of men. Do not II John 9-11, Romans 16:17-18, I John 1:6-7 and Ephesians 5:11 deal with the above? If not, then pray tell me what they do deal with. Twenty-five years ago we had no problem dealing with this issue.

Have we forgotten the meaning of fellowship? Fellowship means joint participation. It means to be a part of an activity. It means to acquiesce in a given thing. It means to be a partner in something. When one participates knowlingly and intentionally on a religious program or lectureship with false teachers and says nothing to correct these false teachers and their false doctrines, I say he sins. This is not right wing-ism and extremism, it is following Bible teaching (Gal. 2:11-15; I Tim. 5:20; II Tim. 4:1-3).

Brother Highers goes on to say in this article:

Furthermore, in order to be consistent this view holds that almost any disagreement with another brother is sufficient to ostracize that brother and to deny him any place as a writer or speaker. He is anathema!

Some may hold this view, but not a single person at Tennessee Bible College does. In matters of opinion there is liberty but in matters that are bound there must be unity (Matt. 16:19). Brother Neubauer's letter to brother Highers dealt with matters of significance and not with incidentals and matters of opinion. Frankly, I do not understand why brother Alan got so upset with Holger's letter. Those of us who are older should not feel intimidated when younger men question us. Furthermore, we must understand that we are going to decrease but the younger men are going to increase. We should all be ready for this time when it comes and act as Christian gentlemen. May God help us older preachers to so act!

Brother Highers expresses his confidence in Basil Overton. Let us let the facts speak for themselves with reference to brother Basil. He joined the work at International Bible College in 1970. He has served from that time until now as vice-president of that institution. Just look at those whom Vice-President Overton has fellowshipped. Jimmy Sites was a 1998 Jubilee speaker. F. LaGard Smith does not believe in eternal hell and believes that peole may be saved without water baptism. He is on as many liberal lectureships as he can get on and fellowships them going and coming. He also has been a Jubilee speaker. Charles Hodge has no trouble fellowshipping liberal preachers and Overton fellowships Hodge! Just last year Basil appeared on the David Lipscomb lectures with rank liberals and fellowshipped them. Wayne Kilpatrick of Birmingham, Alabama has been used from time to time on the International Bible College lectures and Kilpatrick is a leading change agent in the church. On and on the list goes. But brother Highers has no trouble with brother Overton. Brother Alan, brother Basil has not fellowshipped just one liberal but many, many liberals. Would brother Highers fellowship those whom Basil Overton has fellowshipped? I would like for Alan to answer this openly. Let the whole brotherhood know about this. My criticism of brother Overton, brother Highers, is not in the realm of judgment but in the realm of faith and that which God has bound.

Brother Highers says that brother Neubauer is an "unknown, untested, untried 'Assistant to the President.'" Well, I would like to recommend that Alan test and try Holger out in a public discussion on the theme of fellowship. Holger is ready when Alan is and Alan knows this. Alan might find that he would have his hands full were such to take place. However, we must remember that Brother Highers said that brother A. C. Grider said that he (Alan) was the best debater he (Grider) had ever met. Brother Highers told us this in the October 1997 issue of the Spiritual Sword (p. 48). Maybe brother Highers is the best debater. Who knows? I like brother Higher's quote from Shakespeare. However, I do not believe it applies to brother Holger Neubauer.

Brother Highers says in the Spiritual Sword that brother Neubauer's article does not "touch edge, side, nor bottom of the real point at issue." This may be Alan's assessment, but it is not the general consensus. Many think that Alan dodged Holger's response. I ask the readers to get the April 1997 issue of the Spiritual Sword (p. 47) and the May-June 1997 and April-May 1998 issues of the Living Oracles and see if what Holger said deals with the issue. I am willing to let the reader be the judge.

In his article Highers says, "The question is not whether we agree with him on the eldership, marriage and divorce and other subjects, but whether it is a sin to appear on a program with someone who disagrees and whether all such brethren henceforth must be consigned to the scrap heap of disuse and disassociation." The question is: Should we fellowship those who would destroy the God-given work of the eldership and those who do teach that people may live in adultery and be saved as well as other salvation issues? The question is: Should we fellowship Rubel Shelly's kind and those who willfully, intentionally and knowingly fellowship those who fellowship Shelly's kind? Yes, this is the issue. We have some in our brotherhood who are well known who want to fellowship whomever they please and they do not want anyone to say anything about it. This is what stirs the dandruff. But all brethren, no matter who they are or what position they hold, must understand that faithful brethren do not intend to roll over and play dead relative to this kind of activity. Wrong is wrong and right is right and there is no respect of persons with God and His faithful people (Acts 10:34-35; James 2:1-12).

I want to deal more with being on programs with and fellowshipping false teachers knowingly and intentionally. Brother Alan said in his article,

In recent months we have had occasion to mention very briefly some examples of right wing extremism among brethren. Basically, the fundamental error is this: if a sound preacher appears on a lectureship or other programs with another preacher who takes some erroneous views, then the sound preacher becomes unsound because he was on the same program.

Keep in mind dear reader that those of us at Tennessee Bible College and many other faithful gospel preachers and members of the church do not teach that it is a sin to appear on programs or lectureships with those who differ with us on matters of opinion. I am convinced it is a sin for a preacher or a teacher to appear on a program and fellowship false teachers and false doctrine when one knows about these false teachers and their false doctrine beforehand and yet refuses to rebuke the false doctrine and sometimes rebuke the false teachers.

When we talk about false doctrine we are talking about those who teach one may live in adultery and still be saved eternally. We are talking about those who teach that one can go to heaven without water baptism. We are talking about those who teach that one can be saved without being a member of the Bible church. We are talking about those who teach that we can have fellowship with the denominations. We are talking about those who believe that instrumental music in worship to God is a matter of opinion. These and other things like them are what we have reference to. We contend it is a sin for the Lord's people to fellowship such people and that it is a sin for God's faithful people to fellowship those who fellowship such people. We contend that those who fellowship Rubel Shelly and his kind are guilty of sin and those who fellowship Shelly's kind are sinning and must not be fellowshipped. Yes, my friend, this is the issue we have been speaking and writing about for years. From brother Alan Highers' article in the Spiritual Sword of October 1998 (pp. 47-48) one would conclude and many hold that it is not a sin to acquiesce in and have fellowship with false teachers and false doctrine on lectureship programs.

But at this point I want to turn to what has been said about fellowshipping false teachers and false doctrine. I want us to see what has been said about compromising the Truth and taking part in worship with false teachers and their false doctrines. I believe this will prove quite revealing to many. Bert Thompson said in his book Theistic Evolution: Jesse P. Sewell was a young coming preacher in brother McGarvey's latter days. On one of brother McGarvey's last trips to the West he was to speak where brother Sewell preached. The sage McGarvey advised the young Sewell of the danger of compromise. Brother Sewell relates the incident, and we reproduce it here, for it is in its very essence the theme, the crux of what we wish to make abundantly clear:

In January 1902 or 1903, I was preaching for the Pearl and Bryan Streets church in Dallas. Brother McGarvey, an old man at the time, was invited to speak at the Central Christian Church in Dallas. We had three men in the Pearl and Bryan Streets church who had graduated from the College of the Bible in Lexington, under Brother McGarvey, and they were great admirers of him. They suggested that we invite brother McGarvey to preach at Pearl and Bryan that night. We did so. I was just a boy of twenty-four or twenty-five then. I was sitting by the side of this great old man on the front seat, waiting for the service to begin. As we sat there talking, brother McGarvey said to me: "Brother Sewell, I want to say something to you, if you'll accept it in the spirit in which I mean it." I told him I'd appreciate anything he had to say to me. He said about these words, "You are on the right road and whatever you do, don't let anybody persuade you that you can successfully combat error by fellowshipping it and going along with it. I've never held membership in a congregation that uses instrumental music. I have, however, accepted invitations to preach without distinction between churches that use it and churches that don't. I've gone along with their papers and magazines and things of that sort. During all these years I have taught the truth as the New Testament teaches it to every young preacher who has passed through the College of the Bible. Yet, I do not know of more than six of those men who are preaching the truth today." He said, "It won't work."

Brother Thompson voices his agreement saying:

Brother McGarvey was right, "It won't work." Compromise has no place where God's word is concerned. the fruits of compromise are just too bitter—the end results too horrible! (pp. 12-13).

Thompson said that McGarvey was right and that compromise won't work. Then what was Bert Thompson doing at the very liberal Mayfair church of Christ in Huntsville, Alabama in 1997 if compromise won't work? Was he trying to say that he could make it work? But it is rather interesting to me that Bert Thompson is a very good friend of Alan Highers and yet his quotation from brother McGarvey with which Thompson wholeheartedly agrees, disagrees with brother Alan Higher's statements in the October 1998 issue of the Spiritual Sword. Brother Thompson do you still agree with brother McGarvey or have you switched and agree with brother Highers?

But I have found something in the Gospel Advocate of May 2, 1968 that claims my attention and that I find very interesting. Brother Alan Highers quotes the same thing that Thompson quotes from J. W. McGarvey in that issue of the Advocate. Alan says:

The following incident in the life of brother J. W. McGarvey was told by brother Jesse P. Sewell. Althought it happened more than sixty years ago, these words of warning from that grand old man are still very timely.

Brother Highers adds the following to the end of that article:

That experience has been an inspiration to me all the days of my life since. It has helped me, when I was ever tempted to turn aside and go along with error, to remember the warning of this great old man.

Brother McGarvey said fellowshipping those in error will not work but brother Highers said in his article that one may appear on a program with liberals and fellowship with them and that it will work. Has brother Highers changed his view about what McGarvey said? Brother McGarvey talked about going along with the digressives in their writings and journals and he said this would not work. I believe that some editors of journals need to take heed to this.

I have a tape by Sid Fulford, minister of the Sherrod Avenue church of Christ in Florence, Alabama, where brother Sid went to a denominational body and preached on prayer. I have listened to that tape more than once in places. It is a good sermon on prayer but it was delivered in a denominational worship service in which brother Fulford participated. Sid fellowshipped them in this service and he did not say one thing to them about their false religion. His sermon was true but his fellowship with this group was unscriptural (II John 9-11; Eph. 5:11; I John 1:7; Rom. 16:17-18). Would brother Highers uphold brother Fulford in this matter? Remember Sid was only speaking and lecturing in this denominational church. Alan says one may appear on a program with a false teacher and still be sound. Brother Sid appeared on the program with this denominational group and preached the Truth on prayer. Let Alan tell us if Sid sinned. If he did, then how can I or brother Highers, or brother Tom Holland, or brother Bert Thompson or brother Wayne Jackson, or brother Whomever appear on a program with known false teachers in or out of the church of Christ and not be sinning? Tell us brother Alan, did Sid sin?

In the Firm Foundation of October 1998 (p. 21) a statement is made about brother John Allen Chalk preaching and fellowshipping the Chanal Valley Church, a denominational group in Little Rock, Arkansas. This event took place May 16-17, 1998. They had a Roman Catholic on the program and a Benedictine Monk. Was brother Chalk in the wrong by appearing on this religious seminar and fellowshipping with these false teachers? But brother Highers said in the Spiritual Sword of October 1998:

In recent months we have had occasion to mention very briefly some examples of right wing extremism among brethren. Basically, the fundamental error is this: If a sound preacher appears on a lectureship or other program with another preacher who takes some erroneous views, then the sound preacher becomes unsound because he was on the same program!

It is quite clear that brother Highers believes one may appear on a program with those in error, knowingly and intentionally, and fellowship them without sin. Brother Highers needs to tell us if John Allen Chalk sinned in this event. If he did, then down goes the argument that we may appear on programs with false teachers knowingly and intentionally without dealing with them and their false doctrine and still be faithful to God and His Word. Surely Alan Highers does not believe this. If he does, then this does not harmonize with all the debates he has had with the forces of error and evil.

On March 10, 1995 brother Highers was in Livingston, Tennessee dealing with liberalism in the church and it was my good pleasure to hear him. I must say that his material was excellent. But his lectures at Livingston do not coincide with what he wrote in the October 1998 issue of the Spiritual Sword indicating that one may appear on programs with liberals, knowingly and intentionally, and be without blame. Let me give some of what Alan said at Livingston:

And yet recently in Nashville one congregation had a joint unified meeting with numerous denominational bodies and used instrumental music in their service and the preacher from a church of Christ joined with four or five denominational groups and he was the speaker on that occasion. And I was in Nashville last week I believe and picked up a copy of the Nashville Banner and saw his name in the paper that he is also going to speak at a denominational church there for their Easter service. Now here is what I am trying to show: if I were giving a title to my sermon tonight I suppose it would be "It Can Happen To Us."

I suppose Alan has reference to Rubel Shelly since I know that Shelly did this very thing. I want to ask Alan this question: Did Shelly sin by speaking to four or five denominational groups? Alan indicated in the October 1998 issue of the Spiritual Sword (pp. 47-48) that one may appear on a program with false teachers and still not be in fellowship with them. Did Shelly sin in this Alan? If brother Highers and others like him can appear on programs with those in the church who are as bad or worse than denominational people without sinning, then why would he condemn brother Shelly for appearing on a denominational program? Brother Highers then condemns this Nashville preacher for being the speaker at a denominational church for their Easter service. But if one may appear on a program with false teachers and still be a faithful preacher as Brother Highers suggests, then why would he condemn Shelly for what he did? To my way of thinking this is a bit inconsistent! I say it is a sin for any gospel preacher to appear on any religious program, knowingly and intentionally, with false teachers—unless the gospel preacher corrects those in the wrong or indicates in one way or another that he is not in fellowship with those false teachers. If this is right wing extremism, then I am guilty of such and Alan has been guilty of such in days gone by.

Just here I want to use a letter sent to me from brother Hugo McCord dated January 11, 1997. My request to him was to deal with the verses mentioned in the letter. Here it is:

Dear Brother Malcolm:

Thanks for your good letter. I rejoice that you take every verse of the Bible seriously.

If Paul were here, I believe he would say that his explanation of Ephesians 5:11 and Romans 16:17-18 was given in I Timothy1:19-20; II Timothy 2:16-17, 4:14.

If John were here, I believe he would say that his explanation of II John 9-11 was given in III John 9-10.

If one holds that "the doctrine of Christ" (II John 9) is an objective genitive, "the doctrine about Christ," misusing v. 7, he nullifies Matthew 7:21; Mark 8:38; Luke 6:46; and John 12:48. If one holds that "the doctrine of Christ" (II John 9) is a subjective genitive, "the doctrine that Christ taught," he makes all Bible verses harmonize.

I do not comprehend how faithful preachers would appear on lectureships with liberal preachers without sounding a protest both to the lectureship director and to the liberal preachers.

I believe brother McCord is right on the money when it comes to these verses and fellowship. I want to join brother McCord and say I cannot comprehend how faithful preachers would appear on lectureships without dealing with those known false teachers and false doctrines. But brother Alan Highers says one may appear with false teachers without any form of rebuke of the false teacher or his false doctrine and still be pleasing to God. See the Spiritual Sword, October 1998 issue (pp. 47-48).

William Woodson does not think that one may fellowship false teachers and false doctrine. His entire book on Change Agents and Churches of Christ declares this. He condemns Rubel Shelly on page 21 for worshipping with denominational groups. What is the difference in Shelly fellowshipping the denominations and many of the brethren appearing on programs with known false teachers and fellowshipping with them? Let Brother Highers tell us the difference. On page 28 of brother Woodson's book he states:

The worship and service of God's people must be guided by the authority of Scripture and this authority will not be compromised or sacrificed for relationships with friends or religious neighbors.

All I can say is "amen" to this! If you want to see how strongly William Woodsom has been against fellowshipping false teachers read the 1974 Freed-Hardeman lectureship book (pp. 43-57). Of late I have had some brethren to say that Brother Woodson does not practice now what he taught then. I will let brother Woodson take care of that situation and answer for himself.

Brother Tom Holland addressed the issue of fellowship and being asociated with false brethren on programs in his 1987 lecture at Tennessee Bible College. This tape is on instrumental music in worship. Here is what he had to say:

I was invited to come to this fifth so-called unity forum and be one of the speakers. And I wrote that I was not coming and I said there are two reasons I am not. Number one, I cannot find in my New Testament any kind of an arrangement for a type of super-church it seems to me that you fellows are trying to create. And in the second place, I am not coming because this whole movement is built on a compromise and it can potentially destroy the church I love. I will not be there.

Notice that brother Holland refused to be on this program because he was opposed to those false brethren. But some have said to me of late that brother Holland will and has been on programs with false brethren who are just as bad as those he refused to appear with on the unity program. They have called my attention to his appearing with Jimmy Jividen, Dennis Jones, David Lane, Charles Hodge, Paul Faulkner, Cecil May and others at the International Bible College lectures. Well, I will let brother Holland take care of this matter and others like it. But I know what he taught at Tennessee Bible College in 1987.

Let us not forget what this material is about. We are dealing with some things brother Alan Highers said in the Spiritual Sword of October 1998 (pp. 47-48). Brother Highers suggests that we can knowingly and intentionally be on programs with false teachers without dealing with them or their doctrines and still be faithful to God. This we deny with all of our being because II John 9-11, Ephesians 5:11, Romans 16:17-18, Galatians 2:11-14 and 2:4-5 and I Timothy 5:20 teach to the contrary. Brother Gobel Music's book on fellowship is very good and he does not believe that one may knowingly and intentionally fellowship false teachers at any time or any place. The book Christian Fellowship edited by brother Michael Hatcher has some very excellent material in it. The best book on Christian fellowship is the Bible and its teaching is very clear on who should and should not be fellowshipped. I recommend it first of all to everyone.

I find a very interesting thing in the Spiritual Sword, April 1997 issue. Brother Highers gets after the Gospel Advocate and the Christian Chronicle for advertising very liberal programs and men without uttering one word of warning concerning these. When I read this material for the first time I said, "Amen, brother Highers, and Amen!!" But why would Alan get upset with these journals for not sounding a word of warning when he suggests that we may appear on programs with liberals and not sound a word of warning? Again, in the January 1993 issue of the Spiritual Sword on page 41 brother Highers is opposed to purchasing song books from Howard Publications because of their connections with liberalism and liberal people, but he believes you may appear on a lecture program with them and not say one word of warning about them. In other words, do not buy their song books because of their liberal connections but go right ahead and fellowship them on various religious programs. Do you believe this makes for good reasoning? And he calls us extremists!

Brother Highers noticed that we ran some material by brother Gus Nichols and said that brother Nichols believed that the guilty party could remarry. Brother Nichols may have believed this false doctrine. He was still studying the issue along with many others. Had brother Nichols lived longer and had he taught it as James D. Bales did we would have stood against him as we did against brother Bales. Brother Bales was a very close friend of mine but after he had sufficient time to learn the Truth on the guilty party issue we refused to extend to him the right hand of fellowship. I would have done the same with brother Gus Nichols had he lived longer and had he refused to give up that false teaching. There has never been a better man than J. D. Bales in my way of thinking but he was wrong abou the guilty party issue. Truth is truth and is not to be laid aside and paid no attention because some good men refuse to see it. This includes all good men who have gone before. We have used men in days gone by that we would not use now because it has become crystal clear that they are going with the flow. How sad!

Let us all love the Lord supremely (Matt. 22:37-39). Let us get rid of the politics in the church. Let us forget about appearing on programs for the sake of a name and exaltation. Let all of us let Jesus be our all in all.
—Malcolm L. Hill