What Is Extremism
Glenn B. Ramsey

The word “extremism” is not found in the English Bible. However, there were extremists in Bible times. Not surprisingly the extremists in Bible times failed to recognize themselves as being of this nature. The word “extremism” has as a synonym “radicalism.” To be extreme means “to a very pronounced or excessive degree” (Webster). Thus a radical (or extremist) is one who proceeds in a matter to a pronounced or excessive degree. This would be a degree beyond the norm that is established by some law. In the spiritual realm (about which this article is concerned) that norm is the Bible!

We would ask, “Who determines when an action is taken to an excessive degree?” If this question is answered by men, it will be subjectively answered. Just as everyone has a nose, everyone has an opinion as to what constitutes extremism or radicalism. How can we solve this problem? As always, “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isa. 8:20). Does the Word of God deal with this subject? If it does, then we can profit by the teaching. If it does NOT, then we would do well to spend our time on something that is profitable.

The words of Jesus in Matthew 23 should be considered if we would know what extremism or radicalism actually is. Jesus discussed the MOTIVES of the scribes and Pharisees in this chapter. He says they do all their works “for to be seen of men” (v.5). They love the choicest seats at public events and loved to be elevated above other men by titles like “Rabbi” (vv. 6-9).

The true nature of these extremists is one of SELFISHNESS. They would prevent others from entering the Kingdom and yet made great efforts to bring proselytes to themselves (vv. 13-15).

These radicals or extremists in Jesus’ day were without proper balance in their perspectives of spiritual living. Indeed they did pay their tithes, but they omitted the “weightier” matters of the law – judgment, mercy and faith (v. 23). They were blind to the real picture of their lives and their responsibilities. They would “strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel” (v. 24).

They labored hard to keep the “outside” of their lives clean! They wanted very much to appear to men to be proper in the service to God. Yet, as our Lord looked on their insides, He saw hypocrisy, iniquity, and all other kinds of uncleanness (vv. 25-28).

These radical extremists would talk long about what they WOULD have done, had they lived in times past. They claimed that they would NOT have killed the prophets as did their fathers, yet they were, even then, making plans to kill the Son of God, even as the prophets had predicted! Jesus concludes with this question, “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” (v. 33).

But just who is an extremist today? Have you ever seen one? Consider these questions and the obvious answers.

1. Is one an extremist who insists that there is “one church” that is acceptable to God and that all who would be saved must be members of that church?
2. Is one an extremist who insists that it is God who sets the boundaries of fellowship (I John 1:7-9 and II John 9-11) and that all who violate these boundaries sin?
3. Is one an extremist who insists that God’s law on divorce and remarriage must be taught and kept by all who would go to heaven?
4. Is one an extremist who insists that preachers should not only “preach the Word” but also should “practice” it in a manner consistent with their preaching?
5. Is one an extremist who insists that churches must follow the “pattern” of the last Will and Testament of Jesus Christ in matters of worship?
6. Is one an extremist who insists that God’s law of discipline must be administered without partiality in all congregations of the Lord’s church?
7. Is one an extremist if he insists that the moral laws of God as related to “social” drinking, gambling, dancing, immodest clothing (for both men and women) be followed by saints today?
8. Is one an extremist if he insists that all churches that please God must agree in matters of faith and doctrine (I Cor. 1:10)?
9. Is one an extremist if he teaches that there is a literal heaven to be gained and a literal hell to be avoided?
10. Is one an extremist if he calls attention to the hypocritical conditions in the lives of those around him today (just as Jesus did in Matthew 23)?
    

There has always been the tendency of those who do not like what they see in themselves, or who don’t want people to see what they really are, to try to “change the subject” or throw up the “smokescreen” to get the heat off themselves and someone else.
Just calling a person radical or extremist does not make him such. A person is a radical or an extremist if he does not follow the guide – the Book of God – the Bible, in both his teaching and in his practice.

Editorial
Malcolm L. Hill

I am reading much these days about balance as a preacher. There can be no doubt that we need proper balance as we work in the vineyard of the Lord. But as I read about balance, I must say what is said carries weight more or less depending on the one who says it. I am not shocked in the least by what a weak preacher might say about balance. Most material I have read on balance has been written by church of Christ “Pastors” who care not for the sheep. These weaklings flee when they see the wolf coming because they are nothing more than hirelings (John 10:12). They become very upset when what they are is about to be revealed. Why would anyone think it strange that they would talk about balance? Balance to them is to leave them alone.

When a good, strong preacher writes on balance, then I am ready to sit up and take note. What he has to say means much to me. You see, he has been on the firing line, and he knows what battling for the Lord is all about. His view of balance has been tried and tested and he cares not for the praise and glory of men.

Much of the writing on balance has been written by unbalanced preachers. Some of them have been out in left field so long they would not know a balanced preacher if they met one. Some of these preachers are so unbalanced on balance that they have become hobbyists on balance. Their view of balance is be positive in preaching. One never preaches on specifics but in generalities. One must be soft spoken with a smile on his face, and he has all of his gestures memorized. These hypocritical preachers use balance as a shield behind which they hide.

John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea about repentance and telling the people that the kingdom of heaven was at hand (Matt. 3:1-2). It seems that much of his preaching centered on repentance and the kingdom. John the Baptist peeled the hide at times. Was he a balanced preacher? Jesus preached much about the kingdom and repentance (Matt. 4:17). He preached so much about the kingdom of God that His gospel was called the gospel of the kingdom (Matt. 4:23). Jesus gave the Pharisees what they needed in Matthew 23. He warned people about hell and eternal destruction (Matt. 25:30-46). Was He balanced in His preaching? The great prophets of old and the New Testament preachers do not fit into the definition of most writings I have read on balance today.

Balanced preaching is Bible preaching. Balanced preaching has lightning, thunder, rain, sunshine, and a gentle breeze in it. Balanced preaching has reproving, rebuking, and exhorting in it. Balanced preaching sometimes calls names, and sometimes it does not. It all depends on what the situation is and what is going on at the time. Balanced preaching never goes after personalities but after doctrine. Balanced preaching is staying always with the truth and always rejecting error. Balanced preaching is always just and fair preaching. Balanced preaching tells it like it is and not like people want it to be. Balanced preaching is based on the needs of the people in the congregation.

Jeremiah was a balanced preacher, but his message was repent, Judah, or you are going into captivity. The people got tired of listening to Jeremiah, but he preached the Word of God to them anyway. Elijah preached against the idolatry of his day and especially the idolatry of King Ahab and Queen Jezebel. He was a balanced preacher and many did not like his message, but he preached anyway. He was called the troubler of Israel by the wicked king and queen (I Kings 18:17). Wicked people along with dastardly preachers do not know what balanced preaching really is. What does the man of God do? He preaches the Word (II Tim. 4:1-3).

What We Have Learned From the Present Apostasy
Ronald D. Gilbert

First, I do not want to leave the impression that all churches and preachers have left the truth. I think there are two current extremes in the brotherhood today. One is to say there is no hope, the church is gone into apostasy, and there are no faithful who remain. The other is to deny that there is an apostasy and contend that most if not all are still faithful. Many have left the truth and no longer hold to the “old paths” but there are brethren who remain faithful to the Lord.

At the heart of apostasy is a lack of respect for Bible authority. Denominationalism has no respect for Bible authority; they set it aside for their creeds and man-made doctrines. Those leading in the present apostasy do not have respect for the authority of God’s Word. If they did, they would not be trying to change the Lord’s church into a denomination.

It also seems to me that most problems can be traced to a failure on our part to put into practice some part of God’s Word. For some years now many congregations of the Lord’s church have totally disregarded what the Bible teaches concerning church discipline. Brethren, is II Thessalonians 3:6 that hard to understand? “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.” What about these and other passages? “Them that sin rebuke before all, that others may also fear” (I Tim. 5:20). “As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine” (I Tim. 1:3). “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them” (Rom. 16:17). “Whoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds” (II John 9-11).

Brethren, honestly, are these passages hard to understand or hard to practice? I have talked with several brethren on the biblical doctrine of fellowship reading the above passages to them only to have more than one say, “Well, if we follow that where will it end?” In all honesty, if we follow the Bible it will end where it ends! This same mentality drives the liberal brethren who are trying to make a denomination out of the Lord’s church. They say if the church only fellowships other members of the church of Christ, look how narrow our fellowship will be. Which bothers you most, the fact that there are some people you cannot fellowship or that you are not following the Bible if you fellowship some people? Since when are the people of God more concerned with where truth leads them than with truth itself? If following what the Bible teaches on fellowship reduces the number of people we can fellowship by half or even more, then so be it. We must follow God’s Word! A failure to practice discipline has brought on many of our present-day problems. Does the congregation you are a member of practice discipline? If not, why not?

Politics in the church is another issue that has contributed to the present apostasy. I remember when Bill Clinton was “up to his eyeballs” in scandals, lies, and immorality. Some members of the church who were loyal to “their party” defended him no matter what he said or did. Church politics are even more sickening than civil politics. Some graduates are loyal to their school no matter who is brought in to speak on their lectureships. Many of these brethren will write articles condemning false teachers and set forth the truth on fellowship but look the other way when their school violates the biblical doctrine of fellowship. This is what I mean when I talk about politics in the church. A few years ago it was my unpleasant task to rebuke a former teacher of mine whom I loved and respected very much. This brother had placed membership with a liberal congregation and was supporting and endorsing several unfaithful brethren as if they were faithful. On two different occasions I went to his home with a fellow gospel preacher to try and help him see the error of his ways. He was arrogant toward my rebuke. He started naming well-known gospel preachers of the past and present that he had worked with and known. All of this was fine and perhaps impressive to some, but it did not change the fact that he had placed membership and was working with a liberal church. I gave him several pages of documentation showing what I was saying was true, but he would not listen. I encouraged several other men I knew who had been students of this man to contact him and try to talk with him. One brother from Indiana did get in touch with him and tried talking to him, but finally was told to take this teacher’s name off the mailing list to receive his church bulletin. I got the feeling from some of my former classmates that because this brother was a former teacher of theirs and a good friend they would ignore what he did. When one reads Galatians 2:11-14 and finds a big-named preacher, Peter, doing wrong he sees that Paul rebuked him before them all. Paul was not caught up in church politics like many preachers of today. Paul’s goal in life was not to see how many lectureships he could speak on or how many brotherhood papers he could write for. Paul’s attitude was clearly seen in his words in Galatians: “For do I now persuade men or God? or do I seek to please men? For if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ” (Gal. 1:10).

It is time for many of our preachers and schools to stop playing church politics. If my good friends are fellowshipping false teachers it is time to speak out against such. If my alma mater is going to invite Jubilee, Tulsa, and other such liberal lectureship speakers in, I for one am not going to sit by and say nothing. Not only men who appear on such liberal programs are wrong but those who fellowship men who do appear on such programs are wrong.

I have also learned that some men will pick their issues. They will fight hard against evolution, abortion, denominationalism, antism and other such issues that they feel the majority of preachers are against. However, many of these well-known preachers are as silent as a tomb when it comes to the fellowship issue or false views on marriage, divorce, and remarriage. They are silent on those issues which if they spoke out on might keep them from being on certain lectureships! I have also noticed that some brethren are determined to get along with everyone. They will draw no lines and fellowship both sides of most issues.

The present apostasy could be turned around if gospel preachers would stand for the truth, if they would be more concerned with pleasing God than men. Preachers need to respect the authority of the Bible. They need to be willing to follow truth no matter where it leads. They need to stand even if they must stand alone. Preachers need to preach what God’s Word says on fellowship (Rom. 16:17; I Tim. 5:20; II John 9-11) even if some people don’t want to hear it! Churches must get back to the Bible and practice church discipline. How can we get after our denominational friends who do not believe and practice Mark 16:16 when many congregations of the church do not believe and practice II Thessalonians 3:6? There is no place for politics or favoritism in the church. Men who teach error and practice error either in morals or doctrine should be rebuked. If you really love your alma mater, when they start drifting away from the truth, call them back.

Men who teach error should be rebuked whether they are my friends or not. Failing to practice what the Bible teaches on fellowship is serious. Men will be lost for doing such and they will influence many others to error as well. No, the church is not completely gone into apostasy. However, if it continues the next twenty-five years at the rate of the past twenty-five years where will it be? It’s not too late, soldiers of Christ arise!

Who is a False Teacher?
Holger W. Neubauer

There is a rapidly emerging class of preachers among us that are being identified as neither sound or unsound, conservative or liberal, teachers of truth or false teachers. Let a brother who is thought of by many to be “sound” fellowship the rank liberals among us, and almost invariably the cry will be that the brother who fellowships the liberals is not a false teacher nor a liberal. Then just what would he be? If he can appear on a lectureship with a false teacher and not speak out, has he obeyed Ephesians 5:11? Does he teach the truth about II John 9-11? Is he carrying out Romans 16:17-18? By his actions he has betrayed the truth. If he defends himself, he has betrayed the truth. He must be a false teacher or a liberal, but he cannot be sound.

I fully realize that the consequences of a doctrine must be weighed before labeling any brother as being liberal or a false teacher. The authorship of the book of Hebrews is many times disagreed upon; however, this is hardly a doctrine of consequence. The mode of the indwelling of the Spirit is another inconsequential doctrine. However, those who deny the authority of the elders are false teachers (Jude 11). Those that change God’s law concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage are likewise false teachers (Matt. 19:9). Therefore, those brethren who will not make their stand against false teachers have aligned themselves with the wrong brethren. How can they be viewed by anyone as anything other than liberal and digressive? Suppose a man teaches against fornication but is a fornicator himself. Is the man faithful? Suppose a man teaches against stealing but steals himself. Is that man faithful? Suppose a man teaches against liberalism but fellowships liberals. Is that man faithful? No, brethren, he is not.

A man is known by the company he keeps. Solomon said, “Be not among winebibbers” (Prov. 23:20). Paul said, “Come out from among them and be ye separate” (II Cor. 6:17). The apostle John said, “If there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed, for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds” (II John 10-11). One is not given the liberty to fellowship false teachers. Every faithful teacher of truth will speak out against every man that teaches false doctrine if he participates with him in a spiritual activity. Those who participate with false brethren without speaking out have themselves become false brethren.

A false teacher teaches false and damnable doctrine. Fellowship is a biblical doctrine and men will either teach the truth about fellowship or they will not. If the truth is denied by their teaching or practice, they become worthy recipients of the admonition to be marked and avoided (Rom. 16:17-18). Recently some well-known brethren have decided to teach in a Nashville school that utilizes the services of men that teach against name calling, promote unsound versions including the NIV, regularly fellowship men like Steve Flatt and Mac Lyon, and yet are deemed as neither unsound nor liberal by the conservative men teaching in this school. This is spiritual myopia in its most abject form. The only way sound brethren can continue in such a school is to speak out against these doctrines and make it clear to all that they oppose these men and their doctrines. One of these brothers has publicly written against Mac Lyon for his fellowship with Steve Flatt; yet, there are men he works with in that school that have also fellowshipped Steve Flatt and Mac Lyon. This is a terrible inconsistency.

This same school in Nashville is presently using Phil Sanders who has been written up twice in Contending For The Faith, yet these same brethren also say that the written up brother is “neither liberal nor a false teacher.” Then just what would he be? If Sanders fellowships Lyon and Flatt, is he not a false teacher in fellowship? Is he not a liberal in his views? Yes brethren, Phil Sanders is a liberal and a false teacher. The two articles in Contending For The Faith give ample evidence for brethren to see this truth.

False teachers who teach fatal error do not have to be false teachers on hundreds of false doctrines to be false teachers. One fatal false doctrine is sufficient to mark a false teacher as such. False doctrine regarding fellowship is a fatal error. Therefore, Phil Sanders is a false teacher who needs to be marked and avoided and certainly not coddled and protected.

Who is a false teacher? Anyone who teaches false doctrine. Hence, brother Phil Sanders is certainly a false teacher.

Is the Fellowship Issue Hard to Understand?
Kerry Duke

Paul wrote, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us” (II Thess. 3:6). I have heard many say this passage is hard to practice, but I have never heard anyone say it is hard to understand.

Paul also wrote, “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them” (Rom. 16:17). Though the discipline of members of a local congregation commanded in II Thessalonians 3:6 differs in some aspects from our treatment of those outside the congregation, the basic thrust of Romans 16:17 is clear. If someone were reading this verse for the first time and took it seriously, what attitude would he have toward false teachers? Would he get as close to them as he could, or would he “avoid them” like Paul commanded? Would he team teach with them by appearing on lectureships with them, all the while closing his eyes and shutting his mouth to the false teachers he is working with? Would he announce and promote meetings conducted by false teachers? Would he invite them to hold meetings at his home congregation? If he took Paul’s words seriously, the answer to these questions is clear.

John said that one who bids God speed to a false teacher “is partaker of his evil deeds” (II John 11). Surely the idea of aiding and abetting a crime is not a complex matter. Osama bin Laden did not fly a single plane into the World Trade Center or the Pentagon, but who would deny that he is partaker of these evil deeds? And what about those who support him and other terrorists? President Bush said, “We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts of terrorism and those who harbor them.” God be thanked that our leaders understand the fellowship issue better than many of our brethren! If our leaders followed the reasoning of some brethren, there are no terrorists to capture, since those who actually committed terrorist acts against our country on September 11, 2001 are dead. Who does not understand similarly this principle in regard to stealing? What sane jury would argue that the driver of the getaway car was not participating in the crime? Thankfully, our citizens and our laws acknowledge this principle at least to an extent.

This principle is taught in the Old Testament as well. Psalm 50:18 says, “When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him, and hast been partaker with adulterers.” The guilt described in this verse is not from committing theft and adultery, but consenting and partaking with those who commit these sins. Solomon warns, “My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not. If they say, Come with us . . .Cast in thy lot among us. . . My son, walk not thou in the way with them” (Prov. 1:10-15). This sin of participating with the wrong people was the blemish on the record of the otherwise good king Jehoshaphat. Jehu rebuked the king, saying, “Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the Lord” (II Chron. 19:2). Jehosphaphat had “joined affinity with Ahab,” that is, he had allied himself with wicked Ahab (II Chron. 18:1). Even after this rebuke, Jehoshaphat joined himself to the wicked king Ahaziah to make ships to go to Tarshish. Then Eliezer rebuked him, saying, “Because thou hast joined thyself with Ahaziah, the Lord hath broken thy works” (II Chron. 20:37). Would anyone imagine that Jehoshaphat failed to understand these words? Who would think that he would have argued, “Yes, I was with king Ahaziah, and I know that he has done wrong, but I didn’t do any wrong myself”?

Those who are opposed to the truth understand the fellowship issue. Even the wicked Diotrephes did not “receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church” (III John 10). This evil tyrant disfellowshipped not only faithful preachers but also those who were “fellow helpers” (III John 8) of these preachers! I have seen this thinking at work among brethren; I have seen it carried to extremes that are hard to imagine. One church decided they could no longer endorse Tennessee Bible College because of its stand on fellowshipping liberals. But they didn’t stop there. They cut off the support of a man who graduated from TBC years earlier who was working in another state and was not a TBC employee!

I admit that the specific application of this principle is sometimes difficult. The same is true of many other basic Bible truths. Each situation is unique, and the totality of circumstances involved must be considered. But difficutly in determining what to do in some instances does not invalidate the basic point of the principle itself. It just means we have to study harder. Peter said Paul wrote some things hard to understand (II Pet. 3:16), but he did not mean that Paul’s teaching in general is hard to understand. The problem with otherwise faithful preachers fellowshipping false teachers is usually not a lack of understanding. It is a lack of conviction regarding the seriousness of following Bible truth and a shortage of courage in standing up for it.

How Important is Christian Fellowship?
David Hill

In the Old Testament book of Amos, the fiery prophet from Tekoa stirred up the children of Israel with the word of the Lord and used a rhetorical question to get the point of their condition across. He said: “Can two walk together except they be agreed?” (Amos 3:3). The obvious answer is “No!” And yet at this particular time in Judah and in Israel the people were doing just about whatever they wanted to do. They were given to idolatry and other wickedness but were like the Laodiceans who said they were “rich, and increased with goods” and “had need of nothing” (Rev. 3:17). The children of Israel would go along with just about anything and call themselves the children of God when it sounded good. The prophet’s question had to do with fellowship. If Israel was God’s chosen people how were they different than all other people? The answer was they had decided to be like the heathen (Ezek 20:32) and there was no difference. Apparently, no one was willing to make a stand with the exception of the prophet Amos. Fellowship is joint participation and is defined in several places in the New Testament.

Perhaps the best place for a thorough definition is found in Acts 2:42 beginning where we see the early Christians in fellowship with God and each other in worship. They had obeyed the gospel and were in fellowship with Christ and they continued therein with the right doctrine by observing the Lord’s Supper properly (Acts 20:7) and through prayer and fellowship (singing and giving of their means). First of all, they were in a right relationship with Christ (I John 1:7) and they could jointly participate and fellowship each other as those of like precious faith. Best of all God would hear and accept their worship. Jesus prayed that all would be one (John 17:20-21) and what a beautiful picture is the oneness of Acts 2. They had all things in common and enjoyed even common meals together. Paul begged the church at Corinth to speak the same things that there be no division. Why? Because it ultimately had to do with fellowship. The church at Corinth was letting personalities get in the way of their service to the Lord, among other things. How can two walk together except they be agreed? When sin enters the picture, division comes and can destroy fellowship completely. Again, the church at Corinth had this very thing happen with fornicators, covetous, idolaters, railers, drunkards, and extortioners and Paul told them “if any be called a brother. . .with such an one no not to eat” (I Cor. 5:11). Why? Because fellowship is so important that improper fellowship will spot even your love feast (Jude 12).

Paul asked the question, “what communion hath light with darkness?” (II Cor. 6:14). Darkness or the sinful world surely had no fellowship with our Lord (John 1:5), and as a result of the world’s misunderstanding Jesus was crucified. To understand the discussion one should consider how it would be possible for two completely opposing views to be the same. It is an impossibility. So how can two preachers be in fellowship with Christ and with one another and one teach things totally opposed to Bible teaching? It is an impossiblity. For instance, how can one fellowship a denominational group that teaches clearly against baptism for the remission of sins? They may fellowship each other but they will not be in fellowship with the Lord (Rev. 22:14), or one may be in fellowship with the Lord but not with the false teacher. Any other way is simply impossible. That’s how important fellowship is. It is important for the purity of the church as a whole and for the purity of each individual.

Some may protest and say that it is not theirs to judge, but did our Lord not charge us to judge righteous judgment (John 7:24)? And when one judges it wrong to judge or pass judgment, have they not just condemned themselves by passing judgment? It can get pretty facetious.

Joint participation in worship is designed to teach and build us up in faith (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16), and it is designed to provoke us to love and good works (Heb. 10:24-25). Even the act of eating a common meal together must do something, for Paul said concerning those who are withdrawn from “with such an one no not to eat.” And the receiving of a transgressor into your house or bidding him/her God speed is to be a partaker in his evil deed. Sounds serious, doesn’t it? Obviously, fellowship in Christ was to be such that the withdrawing of it would bring one to his/her senses and they could be restored (II Thess. 3:14-15). If the truth is precious (Prov. 23:23), then those who would pervert it are a danger and a serious threat to the faithful; that is no doubt why Paul warned of the dangers of false teachers and the need to mark them (Rom. 16:17-18). False teachers are a particular threat to the simple, and that is why all must be vigilant to keep the church pure.

If it is so serious, then why would elders, deacons, and preachers take such a casual view of fellowship as is seen so often today? Maybe because the bond of fellow Christians is at such a low that withdrawal of fellowship wouldn’t even be noticed by the offending brother. Perhaps the truth is just not as important as entertainment, good times and good community contacts to these casual brethren. Certainly, those who refuse to mark false teachers even when appearing on the same platform at the same time with them, whether it be a lectureship, gospel meeting, vacation Bible school, etc., ignore completely the clear teaching of the New Testament. True fellowship is found in unity and is good and pleasant as the Psalmist declares (Ps. 133). Unity and Christian fellowship are found only when God’s Word reigns supreme in the lives of individuals. How important is Christian fellowship? Our soul salvation depends upon it!