Please Read This First!
Malcolm L. Hill

Everywhere we look there is change. The old roads I used to travel in the forties and fifties are still there for the greater part, but in most cases there is a beautiful four lane nearby. We had a radio in our home in the forties and fifties but no TV. Now just about every home in America has a television and many of them have two or three. The kitchen has changed considerably in several ways. Many of us did not have electricity to start with, thus no electric stove, refrigerator, toaster, microwave, etc. Think of the changes in communication and travel (even into space). We have air conditioning both in summer and winter in almost every place and everything. Yes, things have changed and will continue to do so.

Religion in general has changed very much. The Pentecostals do not roll in the sawdust like they used to. They no longer worship in little small inexpensive buildings. They are uptown on Main Street and growing. Sometimes they are among the largest groups in the city or community. They are pulling people from the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, and, in many cases, churches of Christ. The charismatic movement is in denominationalism and in many of the churches of Christ. Entertainment has taken over in religion. Singing groups, solos, big bands, drama, and the like have become the name of the game. The denominational spirit and attitude has saturated the church of the Lord. Many of the brethren have given over or given in to false doctrine and false practices. And what are the run of the mill big churches of Christ doing? Going along with the crowd. What about their preachers? Well, this is where most of this silly stuff is coming from. Where are the elders? You tell me! Many of the elderships do not know what is going on in the church and they are led by the Pastor system. The Pastor calls the shots through the so-called elders. What are most deacons doing? Nothing! They are as blind as bats when it comes to the false doctrine in the church and are at ease in Zion. Are all elderships like this? No. Are all deacons like this? No. But in our day it seems that most of them are.

The church of Christ is split up into a number of small segments anymore and this has been brought about by church politics when it comes to those who are near doctrinal truth. Let me address the total church of Christ at the present. First, many, many have taken their stand with the liberals and digressives. Second, there are very few antis left. Third, there are a sizable number who want to appear sound in the faith but they are not willing to totally break loose from a more element. I realize this does not make good sense but neither do those I am trying to describe. Fourth, there is still an element in the church who want to follow the truth regardless of the cost.

All of the brethren know about Rubel Shelly and a few others like him. Some act as though Brother Shelly is the one and only one to be concerned about. There are hundreds of preachers in our brotherhood like Brother Rubel. We have several preachers that will go after Shelly without hesitation, and perhaps ten or fifteen others like him, but they do not go after them like they do Rubel Shelly. Why is this so? It is so because it is the most popular thing to do if one is going to talk about liberalism and digression from the Word of God. Everyone knows about Brother Shelly and anyone who loves half of Bible truth is against him and refuses to fellowship him. But it is a different story when the total present day apostasy is looked at as a whole and the many preachers and congregations involved in it. Many of the so-called faithful preachers back up, stand off, and play "shut mouth" when the total brotherhood is considered.

This issue of the Living Oracles deals with some of the brethren who should be doing much more than what they are to head off this present day apostasy. To straddle the fence is but to help the liberal element in the church. J. W. McGarvey's refusal to stand against instrumental music in worship to God as he should tells us this. Some brethren go over the country lecturing about the liberalism among the churches of Christ. They say they are against it and proceed to speak about it. But these same brethren will knowingly and intentionally appear on religious programs with liberals and those who knowingly and/plain intentionally fellowship the liberals without rebuking those who should be rebuked (Gal. 2:11-15; I Tim. 5:20; Eph. 5:11). To fail to rebuke presumptuous false teachers when we know they are such and when we are on a program with them is a sin (Eph. 5:11; Rom. 16:17-18).

It is out of genuine love of the truth that this issue of Living Oracles is presented for your reading. We have no personal grudge toward those mentioned in this issue of the Oracles. We stand ready to debate the issue of knowingly and intentionally fellowshipping false brethren without rebuking them in doctrine and/or by name. This invitation is humbly extended to any brother in our brotherhood.

EDITORIAL
Malcolm L. Hill

I have known Marlin Connelly for many years. He is a very capable man. I have counted him as a personal friend and still do. He presently teaches at David Lipscomb University and preaches for the Hillsboro church of Christ in Nashville, Tennessee. What I am going to say about Brother Connelly is said in love and I must add that my heart is deeply touched as I write this material. Jesus teaches us to love Him supremely (Matt. 10:34-38). With the Christian, God always comes first (Matt. 22:37-39). The Bible teaches us to reprove, rebuke, and exhort (II Tim. 4:1-3). Those who sin are to be exposed if they continue in sin and refuse to repent (I Tim. 5:20).

I am convinced that Brother Marlin Connelly knows better than what he has done and continues to do. If he does not know it is a sin to practice open fellowship, then I am ready to apologize to him. The Bible teaches the Christian to have no fellowship with false teachers but rather to rebuke them (Eph. 5:11). Brother Connelly has not done this. The Bible teaches that when a preacher is on a program with false teachers knowingly and intentionally and refuses to rebuke them he becomes a partaker of their evil deeds (II John 9-11). Brothel Marlin Connelly has not followed the teaching of John but rather has been a partaker of the evil deeds of men like Rubel Shelly, Lynn Anderson, Steve Flatt, Prentice Meador, Joe Beam, Doug Parsons, Gayle Napier, Willard Tate, Larry West, Tex Williams and a host of others like them.

Brother Marlin Connelly has been on the famous (yet infamous with the faithful people of God) Nashville Jubilee three times. And what years were these? They were 1990, 1992, and 1993. Some are quick to say that he was on the Nashville Jubilee several years ago. Yes, I must say it has been a while. Another says that the men on the Nashville Jubilee were not liberal in those days. Anyone who says this does not know what he is talking about. The only difference then and now is that the liberals are more open now than they were then with their false doctrine. The ones mentioned in this article were just as liberal then as they are today and yet Brother Connelly fellowshipped them knowingly and intentionally. He knew that Rubel Shelly was liberal in 1990. He knew Lynn Anderson was liberal in 1990. He knew Joe Beam was liberal in 1990. He knew that Steve Flatt was liberal in 1990. I knew it and our brotherhood knew it to a sizeable degree. Who is ready to say that Brother Marlin Connelly, living in Nashville, Tennessee and teaching at David Lipscomb University, knew nothing about our brotherhood? Rubel Shelly lived in Nashville and still does--but Brother Marlin Connelly did not know about Brother Shelly? Steve Flatt lived in Nashville, Tennessee in 1990 and still does. He was liberal then and he is liberal today! Yes, Brother Marlin did know about Brother Steve Flatt then and he knows about him today. Tennessee Bible College is out in a cornfield--or so some of the brethren say--but we know about the liberals. But Brother Connelly lives in the big metropolis of Nashville, Tennessee and teaches at David Lipscomb University but Lipscomb and Marlin Connelly are out of it when it comes to what is going on in our brotherhood. Who could believe this? I have some ocean-side property at the foothills of the Smokies to sell to those who can believe this.

Brother Connelly has been on one program with more than fifty liberal and digressive brethren at the Nashville Jubilee in 1992. He was with about the same number in 1993 at the Nashville Jubilee. Did he speak out against the digression and those leading in it at either of these Jubilees? If so, we would like to see and hear it. He has taken part in leading God's people to sin by appearing on programs such as these and lending his support to church splitters and false teachers. By refusing to deal with these false teachers at the Jubilee he is, in actuality, commending them to the brotherhood. Yes, Brother Connelly is a professor at David Lipscomb University and he knows better. He is a scholar but sometimes scholars do not stand up and speak out as they should. Brother Marlin falls into this category when it comes to Bible fellowship.

Brother Connelly teaches at David Lipscomb University. We have been told by reliable sources that several on the faculty at David Lipscomb attend Rubel Shelly's Woodmont Hills church. I know for sure that John York, a Bible teacher at Lipscomb, is one of the preachers at Rubel Shelly's very liberal Woodmont Hills church. I know for sure that Robert Hooper is an elder at Woodmont Hills and that he was with Lipscomb University for many years as a teacher. How can Connelly be with these people day after day at Lipscomb without conflict? Yes, and great conflict! The Bible teaches that light and darkness do not mix. The Bible teaches that Christ has no fellowship with the devil. The Bible teaches that truth and error do not go together (II Cor. 6:14-18). These are simple principles but they are true principles, and in this type setting they do have something to say about the Christian and his associations.

The question arises, "Can a Christian teach at an apostate college?" My answer is, "Yes, he can." But a Christian can never compromise, give over and give in to false teachers and false doctrine. If I were to teach at an apostate college, I would teach the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I would stand up for the truth in every class and in every situation. Why would I do so? Because God demands such (Jude 3; Gal. 2:11-15; Phil. 1:17-18). Paul stood for God's truth regardless as to where he was. Wherever he went there was either a revolt or a revival. I have not heard of one revolt at David Lipscomb University in all their liberalism--and believe me it is full of it. The head at David Lipscomb is sick, and if Brother Marlin Connelly is what he should be in Christ, he would be having much conflict with President Steve Flatt. Jesus Christ stood for the truth on every occasion and in every place. He could no more stand in the presence of false doctrine and false practices without opposing them \plain than a hungry lion could on the prey. Has Brother Marlin Connelly stood up for the truth against those false teachers at Lipscomb? If so, let him tell us so and tell us about the occasion. Brother Connelly, would you stand up for all of the doctrinal practices at David Lipscomb University and for the beliefs and practices on doctrinal issues of men like F. LaGard Smith, Brandon Fredenburg, and President Steve Flatt? We challenge you to do so. Has Brother Marlin kept quiet at David Lipscomb? I will let the reader decide.

It is long past time for brethren to decide where they are going to stand. Using the words of Elijah, "How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him" (I Kings 18:21).

Speaking Out At Lectureships: Is Silence Golden?
Kerry Duke

The question of appearing on a lectureship with false teachers is a pressing issue. The issue is often wrongly labeled "guilt by association." Mere association with false teachers, in the sense of being in the same room with or talking to them, is not in itself sinful. The phrase "guilt by fellowship" or "guilt by participation" more clearly describes the situation. More specifically, however, the sin is jointly participating in a mutual effort of evangelism and edification such as a lectureship, the very nature of which is such joint activity, without declaring that one is not in agreement with the false teachers on that program. Why should this ever have been questioned? If a Methodist preacher was on a lectureship program, would it not be our duty to voice our disagreement? If we were invited to speak on the Nashville Jubilee, would it not be our obligation to speak against the error promoted there? Notice that this duty exists independently of whether or not false doctrine is actually taught at the lectureship. If Billy Graham was on such a program and taught nothing false in his part of the program, would it not still be our duty as fellow participants on the program to declare our disagreement with him?

Consider two preachers who preach at the same congregation. These two share the pulpit. Are they not joint participants in the same work? What if one was a false teacher? Could the other stay silent about this false brother and be right? Would not his silence be sinful? Is there not in this situation an implied assent, an implied endorsement of each other when the false brother is known and the other brother refuses to make his stand known?

A funeral is not parallel. Some say that speaking on a lectureship with a false teacher is the same as speaking at a funeral with a false teacher, which sometimes happens. But a funeral does not involve the same dynamic as a lectureship. For instance, suppose a Gospel preacher is at the bedside of a dying person, and visiting there are also a Baptist preacher, a Methodist preacher, and an Assembly of God preacher. The sick person passes away, and family members in the room are of course crushed. The Gospel preacher says a few words about the deceased and asks if he can lead a prayer. The Baptist preacher then says a few words, quotes some passages on death, and has a prayer. The Methodist and Assembly of God preachers do likewise. How is this situation different from a formal funeral? But who would say that a Gospel preacher could appear on a lectureship with that same group of denominational preachers without speaking out against their false doctrine?

A lectureship involves mutual approval and implied, if not explicit, endorsement. It is a public event. It is an effort made up of the combined work of those involved. These men are working together toward the common end. Those in charge of the lectureship certainly endorse a speaker by asking him to participate. The speaker likewise endorses the program by agreeing to speak and then by actually participating. Though he certainly does not agree with every speaker on every point, he would confine those disagreements to non-fellowship issues. Thus, he implicitly endorses the lectureship as a whole by his participation. Now if he learns that one or more of the speakers are involved in compromising the gospel, what is his duty? The event is public, his participation is public, so his disclaimer of endorsement should be public!

Most brethren are quick to agree with this principle in the case of appearing on a lectureship which has a Methodist preacher on it. But when men within the church of Christ who compromise the gospel appear on a lectureship, many of these same brethren will say it is extreme to insist that we must distance ourselves from such brethren by means of such a disclaimer. Consider these questions:

T or F: One can participate on a lectureship with a Baptist preacher (who preaches the truth on his assigned topic: child-rearing) without speaking out in opposition to that preacher.

T or F: One can speak on the Nashville Jubilee without speaking out against its liberalism.

T or F: One can participate in other lectureships with Jubilee speakers (false teachers and compromisers) without speaking out against their sin.

T or F: Schools and churches that have as speakers false teachers are guilty of sin.

T or F: Those in these schools and churches that knowingly invite false teachers ought to be opposed by those who appear on lectureships with them.

Can a Gospel preacher scripturally preach at a Methodist church? Yes, provided that he preaches needed truth, not just any truth, but the truth about their error and the truth that he is not in fellowship and agreement with their false doctrine. Could a man rightly appear on the Nashville Jubilee or the Pepperdine lectures? One might question the judgment of his being advertised with false teachers, but if he goes and reproves the sin and error of these, his appearance is not sinful. Can a Gospel preacher rightly appear on other programs with false teachers on, for instance, divorce and remarriage, like Jack Evans? Yes, but only if he makes clear in his lesson that he is opposed to such false teaching. Can a Gospel preacher rightly appear on a program with Steve Flatt, who flagrantly compromises truth at David Lipscomb, the Jubilee, the Pepperdine lectures and other situations? Yes, if one declares that he in no way condones Flatt's behavior and teaching. If we see the obligation to speak out at the Methodist church, then we should be able to see the same obligation in a lectureship with false brethren. If silence is a sin in the one, it is a sin in the other.

Some might object that a denominational lectureship and a brotherhood lectureship are not parallel since we are not in fellowship with the denomination. However, the specific question, again, is not merely fellowship, but the duty to reprove and correct. That duty, though it is a part of the responsibility we have toward those with whom we are in fellowship, is not limited to them. If that duty exists toward false teachers outside the church on a lectureship program, then it exists toward false teachers inside the church on a lecture program.

The extent to which some preachers will go to avoid facing this obligation borders on the ludicrous. They respond by saying that they can preach anywhere because Paul preached in synagogues of unbelieving Jews or because Elijah "appeared on a program with the false teachers of Baal" at Mount Carmel. But there is an obvious difference: Paul reproved the Jews and Elijah rebuked the prophets of Baal, but these preachers say nothing against the false brethren they work with on lectureships. Their silence is often designed to preserve the political favor of esteemed brethren.

A debate by its very nature indicates disagreement between the participants on matters they deem vital. But in a lectureship, there is an inherently professed harmony among speakers on vital matters. Otherwise, the speakers would not work together in harmony, and they would not accept such a confusing arrangement. But how easy it is for many preachers to overlook compromising speakers on a program they are invited to participate in when those issuing the invitation are esteemed friends. If they object before the event to the organizers, they risk losing their own invitation. If they object during the lectureship in their lesson, they risk being labeled extremists and they will most likely be shut off from future invitations. So silence becomes the norm, and those who sweep the matter under the rug influence others to do the same. As a result, the affected brethren grow weaker and weaker, and the lectureships become less and less distinctive.

Paul said, "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them" (Eph. 5:11). The following verse does indicate that Paul specifically had in mind secret deeds so evil that it was shameful to speak of them. But the dichotomy of verse eleven still stands, and the contrast of the two actions provides clear direction for dealing in principle with evil in general: do not fellowship, but do reprove. No neutral ground is found here. Yet some brethren act as if they can be piously neutral or wisely silent in regard to compromisers of the truth, even when they are mutual laborers together with them on the same program!

The matter of convictions is central to this whole discussion. When Peter and John were commanded not to teach the Gospel, they responded, "We cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard" (Acts 4:20). When Paul saw Peter play the hypocrite in Antioch, he confronted him before all (Gal. 2:11-14). Was he a radical for doing so? Was he an extremist? God give us men with enough fire in their bones to denounce compromise. God give us men with pure hearts free of glory-seeking and politics. God give us men who are not afraid to be cancelled from lectureships because they say what needs to be said.

This whole matter of appearing on lectureships, not merely with questionable brethren, but with clearly false brethren, has become with some a matter of saying and not doing. While they preach and insist that we must contend for the faith, their actions do not always follow. They place the obligation to do so on others, but in regard to certain lectureships, they themselves will not touch it with one of their fingers.

James Meadows
Holger Neubauer

Though Jehoshaphat, son of Asa and king of Judah, is described as a man who did that which was "right in the eyes of the Lord" (II Chron. 20:32), he still received censure and rebuke from God for not taking away the high places and for making peace with wicked Ahab (I Kings 22:44) and Ahaziah, Ahab's son (II Chron. 20:35). The prophet rebuked Jehoshaphat for what he had done with these stinging words: "Because thou has joined thyself with Ahaziah, the Lord hath broken thy works" (II Chron. 20:37). Joint participation with evil works was wrong then and it is wrong now. This is the problem about which so many "sound" men need instruction and rebuke.

Brother James Meadows, director of East Tennessee School of Preaching and Missions in Karns, Tennessee, has done as Jehoshaphat. Though Brother Meadows claims to hold to the truth, his fellowship denies his stance for the truth. In the March 2000 ETSOP Newsletter on page three, Brother Meadows thanks the West End church in Knoxville for helping with their meals and the "fellowship enjoyed". Earlier, on March 27, 1999, the West End church hosted a Regional Singles Seminar which was sponsored by the Karns church. Brother Meadows spoke at the West End services on January 2, 2000, according to his schedule posted in their newsletter. How can this be? The West End church is a leading voice for liberalism. The West End church has been a regular supporter of the liberal Winterfest program in Gatlinburg for years. As a matter of fact, Mike Lewis, Youth Minister at West End, started the Winterfest program with a brother from Cookeville named Dudney Chancey.

Brother Meadows has used the Jubilee participant Marlin Connelly on the 2000 lectureship. Readers need to check Brother Malcolm Hill's article on Brother Connelly in this issue of Living Oracles. Can Brother Meadows justify this? We have written letters, but no response has come from Brother Meadows. In 1997, Furman Kearley, editor of The Gospel Advocate, was given an invitation to speak on their lectureship. Will Brother Meadows agree with the editor of The Advocate? When Brother Meadows spoke on the Freed-Hardeman lectures in 2000, did he rebuke John Dale for his fellowship with denominations, Jack Lewis for his false doctrine that allows adulterous marriages to remain intact, and Lewis' doctrine that denies the authority of the elders? Did Brother Meadows confront Ralph Gilmore for his stand that hand clapping is a matter of culture, or Dan Winkler for his statement that names should be called in private but not in public? Did he rebuke Basil Overton for his fellowship with Steve Flatt? This list could go on and on. When Paul rebuked Peter he did so publicly because Peter's sin was public (Gal. 2:11-14). Has Brother Meadows done the same? Obviously not.

Brother Meadows selected Jerrie Barber for the 2001 lectureship at ETSOP. Brother Barber has been likewise a Jubilee participant. As the prophet said, "Is it nothing to you, all ye that pass by?" (Lam. 1:12). Brother Earl Edwards is scheduled to speak at the ESTOP 2001 lectureship. Our readers need to carefully review Brother Glenn B. Ramsey's exposure of Brother Edwards' work in this same issue.

Brother Meadows preached for a marked and withdrawn from church in Livngston, Tennessee. After faithful brethren and three godly elders were driven out of the old Main Street church, letters were written to Brother Meadows to explain the situation. The elders at the newly formed West End church of Christ in Livingston, Tennessee are ready to answer any question that anyone may have. The old Main Street church is guilty of promoting a congregation that used a Presbyterian minister. This would have been discovered if Brother Meadows bothered to find the truth. We certainly do have responsibility to find out the truth and then to neither condemn the righteous nor justify the wicked (I Thess. 5:21; Prov. 17:15).

Brother Meadows has also placed Billy Smith of Freed-Hardeman University on this year's lectureship at ESTOP.. Brethren need to get the tape of Ben Vick's courageous exposure of Smith at the 2000 lectureship of the Memphis School of Preaching. Brother Smith is on the lectureship committee at Freed-Hardeman and claims the committee is "extremely thorough in its deliberations" and that "doctrinal positions are of utmost importance" in its selection of speakers. This is not true. I pointed out ten false teachers at their 1997 lectureship. Many more can be documented.

I also noticed that ETSOP honored Clayton Winters and Brother Meadows called Brother Winters a "great scholar" in the brotherhood. Brother Clayton worships in a church where a separate assembly for children takes place during the worship hour. The same congregation at Erwin uses the NIV. Is this evidence of Brother Winters' great scholarship?

There is simply too much evidence that points out the weakness at ETSOP. Brother Meadows is at the helm of that school. Until Brother Meadows straightens out these practices he ought not be used by faithful brethren.

Schools need money to operate. I am well aware of the pressing need to fund schools because of my work at Tennessee Bible College. There is a great temptation for men in charge of raising funds to close their eyes to certain congregations and individuals in order to keep their support. But the Bible teaches that when funds are solicited and then received that "fellowship" is the result (Phil. 1:5; 4:15).

J. C. Choate and World Evangelism
Ronald D. Gilbert

There are those in the church today who seem to think they can set aside what the Bible says on the topic of fellowship. Many see the obvious wrongs in Gospel preachers swapping pulpits with denominational preachers and things such as those so-called "Gospel preachers" working with the Billy Graham Crusade in Nashville, Tennessee, recently. However, for many that is about as far as they can see when it comes to the topic of fellowship. Do congregations and individual Christians have any obligations to the following passages: Romans 16:17-18; Galatians 2:11-14; Ephesians 5:11; II Timothy 2:15-18; Titus 3:10; II John 9-11?

It seems lately as mail comes across my desk advertising lectureships, seminars, and meetings that more and more congregations, schools, and what were believed to have been in the past faithful folks, have no problem being on programs with Jubilee speakers and all sorts of unfaithful brethren. When one appears on such programs with false brethren without rebuking them or when one invites them in, he is giving endorsement, promotion, and encouragement to false brethren; or as II John 9-11 says "bidding them God speed." When many in our brotherhood see the names of these false brethren appearing on lectureships that have the name of soundness or see their articles in so-called faithful brotherhood papers this gives endorsement to these false brethren.

One of my areas of work here at TBC is missions. I try to keep up with as much as I can concerning mission work. There are many brethren and journals that are also involved in mission work. Some of these do good works; others contribute to the problem and encouragement of liberalism. I have selected one paper to illustrate this point. My fervent prayer is that those involved with this work will read this material and "mend their ways." World Evangelism is published in Winona, Mississippi and edited by J. C. Choate.

In World Evangelism (Volume 19, September/October 1998, Number 3) on page five under the heading "We don't want to become the voice of any segment of the church", Byron Nichols, managing editor of The Voice of Truth International stated,

. . .The Voice of Truth International is filling a great need in our brotherhood and the world. This publication is one that is avoiding going to any extreme as it attempts to declare the will of God to people who have a desire to know and serve Him. We strive diligently to make known God's Word without compromising it in favor of gaining the popularity of those who would prefer that the church stand for hardly anything of substance. At the same time, we strive just as diligently to be free from being guilty of making laws that God has not made, and of becoming so critical that we would exclude nearly all in the church from being acceptable in God's eyes. We don't want to become the voice of any segment of the church. We sincerely want to be the voice of God's truth. . .(Emphasis mine RDG).

Brother Choate is also the editor-in-chief of The Voice of Truth International. It appears from reading World Evangelism that the idea of not wanting to be the voice of any segment of the church has led to encouraging, endorsing, and working with faithful brethren as well as liberals. In this same issue of World Evangelism on page seven there is an article by Al Henderson from Sunset who writes an article entitled "International Student Evangelism." He discusses his opportunity to speak on the Red River Encampment and his having encouraging correspondence form Doug Smith of the Otter Creek congregation in Nashville, Tennessee. This article came out in September/October 1998. Perhaps Al Henderson and J. C. Choate were unaware that on June 4, 1997, Otter Creek had the band Full Access perform there that Wednesday night. From Full Access web site the following was printed:

The creek was overflowing with praise Wednesday night, June 4, 1997. This was an evening of firsts for Full Access as they performed King in its entirety with a full band for a packed house at the Otter Creek Church of Christ in Nashville, Tennessee.

In the November/December 1998 issue of World Evangelism on page six under the heading "Reports From the Field" is a report by Joseph Albert, who works with World Radio and Crossview ministry in West Monroe, Louisiana (West Monroe also sponsors "Son Words" with Jeff Walling). Crossview Prayer Retreat May 31-June 3, 1999 featured Randy Harris (teacher at Lipscomb University, frequent writer for Wineskins, and in close fellowship with Rubel Shelly), Jeff Walling (Jubilee speaker who also recently appeared on PTL on the Trinity Network embracing denominationalism), Joe Beam (believes the Holy Spirit speaks to him directly), Terry Rush (also claims he is able to feel the Holy Spirit lead him), John Mark Hicks (teacher at Harding Graduate School of Religion in Memphis and frequently appears on programs with Rubel Shelly), and others in the liberal camp.

In the January-April 1997 issue of World Evangelism, Roger Mills has an article "Summer Visits to Churches." Roger has a display at the Orlando Spiritual Growth Workshop in Orlando, Florida. He reports about his being there with their display and handing out materials. Some of the speakers appearing that year on the Spiritual Growth Workshop included: F. LaGard Smith (denies the eternal nature of hell and teaches false doctrine on baptism), Charles Hodge (denies the authority of elders and participated on a lectureship where the Lord's Supper was taken on a Saturday), Bob Brown from North Atlanta (a congregation which is as liberal as Woodmont Hills in Nashville), Harold Hazelip (has worked closely with many false teachers and liberals for years), and Willard Tate (has spoken on Pepperdine's lectureship and fellowships false teachers).

Those mentioned and promoted in the World Evangelism on a regular basis include Dave Hogan, preacher for the Moulmein Road church in Singapore, which is widely known for its liberalism. Men such as Jeff Walling have been invited there during the past few years. However, a split recently occurred at Moulmein Road with several brethren pulling away from the existing liberalism.

Roger Dickson frequently writes for Brother Choate's paper. In the International New Testament Study Commentary (pp. 441-442), Dickson says in commenting on I Corinthians 7:

The Corinthians, therefore, are asking Paul what to do in such a situation if the unbeliever decides to desert the believer for any reason. Paul instructs, therefore, that should the unbeliever depart, the believer is no longer obligated to be a marriage partner to the departed and is not under bondage to him or her in any manner concerning a marriage relationship. The believer is free to remarry and should not suffer the suppression of sexual drives, loneliness and economic poverty in the case of deserted mothers with children by remaining unmarried because of the unbeliever's desertion.

From this quote we see that Dickson contradicts what Jesus taught in Matthew 19:9.

In the January-April 1992 issue of World Evangelism, brother Choate tells about a brother from Indonesia who called him, not sure where he wanted to attend school in the USA. "He is thinking about Harding University, and I encouraged him in that choice." Is he not aware of the liberalism at that university?

Much more could be said and cited. It is time, brethren, for those claiming to be faithful to the Lord to stop fellowshipping, supporting, promoting, commending, and encouraging false brethren.

Earl Edwards
Glenn B. Ramsey

In the "Great Apostasy" that now holds sway among the people of God, the issue of first importance is FELLOWSHIP! There are those who think that the work of the Holy Spirit among men today is the main issue. They seem to think that this is the place where all men should gather to fight the battle. This writer knows that false teachings about this issue exist. However, it is evident that faithful men are standing fast for the truth about how the Holy Spirit does His work today--as in days past in the kingdom of God. Yet, on the issue of FELLOWSHIP\'97few are speaking. Indeed most seem to disregard the teachings of the New Testament on this subject. Most (preachers) seem to be willing to go anywhere they are invited with no thought as to the ones they will fellowship on such lectures or in such meetings. While it is recognized that no one man may be expected to know everything about everybody, it is yet true that faithful men must know something about those who hold and teach false positions--either in word or in deed!

It seems that there are those who think that the more ignorant one is of modern issues the less he has to account for. These "intentionally ignorant on modern issues" brethren use their "lack of knowledge"--ignorance on certain issues--to excuse themselves when they are questioned.¹ This follows the same liberal philosophy that exists on the scene of national politics. Indeed, it seems that some have imbibed the "political" spirit of the world and incorporated it into the relationships that they practice within the body of Christ.

Consider Brother Earl Edwards along this line. Brother Edwards is a respected preacher of the Gospel and serves as the Director of Graduate Studies in Bible at Freed-Hardeman University. He thus assumes the greater judgment for his life and work as a preacher of the Gospel. Those who teach others must themselves follow God's law in all things.

It is a matter of record that in the published book of the 1997 Freed-Hardeman Lectures (p. 130), that Brother Edwards discusses two mistakes that F. LaGard Smith makes in his book Baptism: The Believer's Wedding Ceremony. Brother Smith had spoken at the Freed-Hardeman Lectures the previous year. It was a well known fact to many BEFORE Freed-Hardeman invited Brother Smith to speak that he held unscriptural views about eternal punishment and the necessity of baptism. Why didn't Brother Edwards object to Smith's coming BEFORE he came? If he did object to Smith's coming, but could not keep it from happening, why didn't he confront Smith when he was at Freed-Hardeman for that lectureship? Are Brother Smith's remarks in his book, criticized by Brother Edwards as being mistakes, mere mistakes, or do these "mistakes" also constitute false doctrine and unscriptural teachings? This writer considers the latter to be true.

Some have criticized Brother Edwards for his remarks concerning "hand-clapping" in worship. A review of the tape of the "Open Forum" at FHU (1996, Monday) shows that Brother Ralph Gilmore said, ". . .If one has given a great patriotic speech or if one has given a great substantive speech that is more secular in nature, it is O.K. to applaud. If one has given a spiritual lesson or sermon then one should not applaud." Brother David Lipe then said that he thought the matter was in the realm of judgment and that to him applause (clapping) was like saying, "Amen." He further said that he thought it was a cultural matter and in the area of judgment. He suggested that congregations will have to make that decision. When these two had made their remarks Brother Edwards said, "I agree with what's been said." He then said that a distinction about clapping has to be made. He said, "There is also clapping that goes along with singing and sometimes even obliterates and drowns out the words of a song. I think that's a totally different thing and I personally am opposed to it." Is Brother Edwards saying, as Brother Lipe implied, that clapping after a sermon is a "cultural thing" and that it means the same as saying, "Amen?" I do not believe he meant that. But it wouldn't hurt to clarify this matter. Again, since Brother Edwards is in the position he occupies he must accept the responsibility that comes with the position.

Now, back to an even more important discussion: FELLOWSHIP. Today it is the expected thing, in most cases, that a preacher will go just about anywhere and preach in any company, yet will deny that he was in fellowship with false teachers who were also on such programs. Some feel that so long as they teach the truth in their required speech that nothing else is important.

In 1999, three or four years after the above events (those at Freed-Hardeman) took place, Brother Earl Edwards was a featured speaker on a seminar that purported to discuss basic issues currently facing the church. (It should be noted that FELLOWSHIP was the very issue that Brother Edwards discussed at that seminar!) This was with the Lehman Avenue church of Christ, Bowling Green, Kentucky. He appeared alongside Brother Steve Flatt, President of David Lipscomb University. Brother Flatt was most instrumental in beginning the infamous and liberal "Nashville Jubilee" and also had announced that F. LaGard Smith was coming to the faculty at Lipscomb. This announcement had been made in the January, 1999 issue of the Lipscomb News.

Did Brother Edwards publicly rebuke Brother Flatt for positions he held and holds that are liberal and false? Or does Brother Edwards plead that "he didn't know such"? Brother Edwards did know about Flatt's work with the "Jubilee" and he did know of the close relations Flatt had with Rubel Shelly and others who have been "change agents" in the church. He did know about Flatt's close relationship with Brother F. LaGard Smith! Didn't he? But there is no record of there being a confrontation of this false position. This causes us to conclude that Brother Edwards violated God's law of fellowship by participating with Brother Flatt in this event. It should be noted that such guilt also attaches itself to the others on that program. These others were Phil Sanders and Mack Lyon.

Dear brethren we are in the midst of a battle for the very life of the Lord's church. It behooves men who are in positions of leadership to accept the responsibility that goes with it. Indeed, all of us are responsible to follow God's will in all matters--even as regards those whom we fellowship in our work of preaching and teaching God\'92s Word. We all make mistakes in these matters. We need men who will acknowledge these mistakes and then "go and sin no more." May God bless us all to be of this disposition.

ENDNOTES

¹The reader would do well to read Brother Dub McClish's excellent editorial "Intentional Ignorance" in the October 2000 issue of The Gospel Journal.

"A Little Left of Center"?—A Review of Tom Holland's Speech on Extremists
Kerry Duke

The place was Florence, Alabama. The event was the International Bible College Lectureship of 1996. The school had already established itself as sympathetic to a number of liberal thinkers in the brotherhood. The previous year's lectureship included Paul Faulkner (Abilene Christian University professor emeritus, 1990 Jubilee speaker, 1994 Pepperdine University lectureship speaker, etc.), Charles Hodge (speaker, Abilene Christian University 1993, writer for the ultra-liberal and now defunct IMAGE magazine from 1985-1993, speaker at Pepperdine Lectures 1991, etc.), and Willie Franklin (Jubilee speaker, 1995). The 1996 IBC lectures included Charles Hodge and Willie Franklin as well.

These brief examples are ample evidence of the stance of the school in 1996, though examples from both previous and subsequent years could be given to show that this pattern has continued for years. Now suppose a brother regarded by some to be strong in the faith is invited to this lectureship. In the midst of such liberal thinking, he would have the duty to speak out against such unbiblical thinking. And aside from duty's sake, think of the opportunity: the chance to oppose liberalism in the very midst of it!

Such was the opportunity given to Tom Holland in 1996 at the IBC lectures. His keynote address on Thursday night was "Out of Bounds?: The Church's Response to Extremists." The theme of the lectureship was "Striking the Balance." Brother Holland defined extremism generally by citing Joshua 1:7, applying the language to those who loose God's laws (the left) and to those who bind laws God did not (the right). It soon became obvious, however, that brother Holland had far more artillery to fire at those he considered to be on the right than those he considered to be on the left. He spent much more time and was more intense in his denunciation of the right than he was in his reproof of the left. His rebuke of the right was met with noticeable "Amen's" from the audience, which was relatively quiet during his exposure of the left. The tone of his voice was far more vigorous when he addressed those on the right. But remember, he was at a place that had shown itself in sympathy with the left!

Brother Holland used a large segment of his speech opposing the "reactionary right." Quoting Wayne Jackson in the 1991 Freed-Hardeman Lectureship book Advancing Christianity (p. 182), he complained that

. . .the radical right frequently resorts to "guilt by association." If one appears on a lectureship program with some brother who is a little "left of center," he is seen as possibly getting "soft," or becoming more liberal in his thinking. If one writes an article for a journal that may occasionally carry material that is a bit less than conservative, he may be targeted for intimidation by those lacking spiritually seasoned common sense. . .It is this type of shoot-first and ask-questions-later mentality, though, that is sapping the strength of the Lord's church.

Notice how carefully worded this quotation is. He speaks of appearing on a program with a brother who is a "little left of center." He mentions a paper that "may occasionally carry material that is a bit less than conservative." Are programs like Abilene, Pepperdine and Jubilee a "little left of center"? Was IMAGE a magazine that occationally carried "a bit less than conservative" material? What is Brother Holland's understanding of these phrases? Does he consider Hodge, Franklin, and Faulkner and others a "little left of center" when they frequently work with marked liberals? Does he consider IBC "a bit less than conservative" for having such men? This ambiguous language allows for plenty of wiggle room. The real question Brother Holland left untouched is: Can a brother appear on a lectureship with false teachers without speaking out against them and do so without sin?

But though brother Holland did not verbally address this question, he did so in practice. Like a growing number of preachers, he did not lend support to false teachers in word, but he did so in action. He went to a place given to liberalism, and instead of reproving them for their activities, he attacked the radical and divisive "right." Now preaching against the sin of making laws where God did not is good. So is preaching against the Catholic church, but if a preacher is asked to preach to a Baptist church and spends his time and energy lambasting the Catholics while not addressing the error of the Baptists in his midst, he is guilty of failing to reprove those in error. Brother Holland spoke in such a way as to maintain the approval of a group of compromisers. He worked as a fellow participant with known liberals and he did not speak out against them. What he did was wrong and only helped to encourage a liberal, compromising attitude. He could have made a big difference by speaking out, but instead the most that anyone might conclude merely by listening to his speech is that the liberal mind set is "a little left of center."

Ralph Gilmore
David Hill

In II Kings 3:11 the question "Is there not here a prophet of the Lord?" was asked by Jehoshaphat the king of Judah. At that time in Israel it was a chore to find a true prophet of God and it seems to be the case in spiritual Israel today. In Christian colleges today this seems to be a reasonable question to ask: Is there a prophet of God here? Is there a Gospel preacher here?

In 1996 at the Freed-Hardeman University Lectureship the question, "Is there a Gospel preacher in the house?", would have been a good question. The lectureship committee headed by David Lipe along with Ralph Gilmore and others invited F. LaGard Smith to speak each morning and on Thursday night on the subject of "Settled in Heaven." This was questioned by several brethren as noted in a previous Living Oracles issue on Christian Colleges (Vol.9, Number 10, p.7), but no response was given. At the center of the attention and concern by many at that time was Smith's book Baptism: The Believer's Wedding Ceremony. Specifically, some of the observations made on pages 200, 201 and 206 (see Living Oracles Vol.6, No.2, April 1996) have to do with the possibility of God making an exception for the unbaptized believer. Ralph Gilmore spoke in Smith's defense during Open Forum of that year, explaining that the references in question had to do with unaccountable, unbaptized people. Is that what Smith said and meant? Has this been and is this a serious issue facing the church? Brother Gilmore must not have talked with brother Smith. I had opportunity to be with a couple of other Gospel preachers who asked brother Smith about his statements on God changing His mind and His commandments, and he informed us in no uncertain terms that he wrote exactly what he intended to write on that subject: not one word. . .nothing. . . about the unaccountable. Brother Gilmore defended brother Smith's false views while Brother Earl Edwards the very next year (Freed-Hardeman Lectureship Book 1997, p. 130, Endnote) felt the need to identify "two mistakes" of F.LaGard Smith, saying in essence that Smith does not understand "anthropomorphism" (the Bible giving human like qualities to God for the sake of man's understanding) and secondly, that Smith forgets that God "keeps all of His promises. . ." Why didn't someone listen and read from brother Smith prior to the two invitations to speak on the lectureship? Did they not know his positions? Really? Or is there more to the story? This question relating to brother Smith's teaching was only the latest at that time.

In 1988 at the Pepperdine University Lectureship, Brother Smith questioned the Bible teaching of the eternality of hell, teaching which came straight from the lips of Jesus Christ (Matt.25:46; Mark 9:43-48). Smith's work was questioned and exposed by brother Gary Workman in the 1993 Freed-Hardeman Lectureship Book on pages 361 and 362 with Smith's direct quote given. What did brother Gilmore and the Lectureship committee do about it? Well, of course, they invited him to speak on the FHU Lectureship the very next year, 1994, and offered no defense! Then again in 1996, FHU invited brother Smith with only brother Gilmore offering a lame and irrelevant defense. Is one an extremist who questions a university's lectureship committee that exposes the false teaching of a brother and then invites him to speak on their lectureship the very next year? Is it radical to ask how a lectureship committee and a Bible department of a Christian university can expose a false teacher whom they invite to the lectureship the very\plain next year and defend him, then a year later point out "mistakes"? Has Brother Smith repented of these positions? No! He said at FHU in the presence of several witnesses that he had not, and that if he did we would know about it because he said, "I will write it for all to read." Some at FHU will say "we won't have him back." You ask and see, has he been back to campus for other programs? Chapel? And further, does "we won't have him back" mean "we will try anything once and maybe even twice"?

On Monday afternoon, February 5, 1996, in the FHU Open Forum, the question of hand clapping in connection with worship was raised and Ralph Gilmore along with David Lipe said it was and is a "cultural matter" and in the realm of judgement. Brother Gilmore offered two scriptural references (Ps. 47:1-2, and II Kings 10:11) as proof of God's approval of such activity. Psalm 47 is a victory celebration and II Kings 10:11 doesn't even apply. Does Brother Gilmore not know the difference in a victory celebration and a worship service of the Lord's church? This is the same type response that denominationalists have given for years as authority for the use of the instrument in worship. What is Brother Gilmore's position on instrumental music in worship? The same passage he cites mentions instrumental music (Ps. 47:5). What about the use of incense in worship?

It is no wonder LaGard Smith was welcomed at FHU. Brother Smith had been at the time worshiping with the Malibu congregation in Malibu, California which claps for everything even in the song service and they have sent missionaries around the world to teach the world to do the same! Brethren Lipe and Gilmore said hand clapping is the same as the saying of "amen." There is a New Testament example for saying "amen" (I Cor. 14:16). Where is the New Testament authority for hand clapping? Brother Gilmore suggested that some hand clapping is appropriate while other hand clapping would be inappropriate. Where in the Bible would one find such instruction? If this were not so serious it would be laughable. Remember that this is a man training our children for Christian service. I wonder if applause would be appropriate should a Gospel preacher point out the error at FHU? Or would a new practice of "booing the speaker" then be authorized? Perhaps this explains why in recent years FHU students moving to Cookeville, Tennessee have no problems with the denominational practices of congregations like the Collegeside Church of Christ.

In 1994 Ray Hawk, associate of Gilmore at Campbell Street Church of Christ in Jackson, Tennessee, wrote in the FHU Lectureship book advocating "Children's Church" and on page 141 said they were practicing such at Campbell Street. In 1997 FHU invited Don McLaughlin of the North Atlanta congregation (exactly the same as Rubel Shelly's Woodmont Hills) to be the featured speaker for RUSH. McLaughlin has appeared for years on many programs with Shelly, Walling, etc. In October 1998 Freed-Hardeman's Ambassadors appeared with Steve Flatt and the instrumental group Full Access at the Walnut Street congregation in Dickson, Tennessee. For RUSH 2000 Matt Atnip of Southside Church of Christ in Hopkinsville, Kentucky was invited to lead Encounter Classes. The Southside congregation has an annual Youth Rally that has for years featured false teachers like Jeff Walling and even denominational entertainment groups. Also, helping lead an encounter group for young ladies was Vanessa Heady of the Collegeside congregation in Cookeville, Tennessee which has already been referenced in this article. Where was Ralph Gilmore with reference to the above? The answer is all too obvious.

Will it be a surprise to you when your son or daughter comes home from sitting at the feet of men like Ralph Gilmore at FHU and is utterly confused about the Lord's church and the worship you've spent years teaching them to appreciate? Or, should one be surprised to find FHU students completely uninformed about what is happening in the church today? Surely it must cross someone's mind to ask the question, "What would men like N.B. Hardeman, H.A. Dixon and many other great past FHU leaders say about clapping in worship, the fellowship issue and the inviting of false teachers to campus?

There are many other references to be cited relative to the confusion being caused by brother Gilmore, but these will suffice to the truth seeker. May God help us to see the source of the trouble in the church today and be wise enough and strong enough to deal with the issue.