Liberalism
Glenn B. Ramsey

The discussion of any subject should begin with a proper definition of terms.  The subject of “liberalism” must be defined within its contextual use among religious people today.  This is not as easy as some think.  The term “liberalism” has been around a long time.  It has, however, added quite a lot of baggage to its meaning through the past several years.  Usually a “liberal” is one who refuses to be contained by a set standard or rule.  He is one who “goes onward” beyond the restrictions of a law or rule.  He is one who is “progressive” in his attitude.  He progresses beyond what is written in the law.  Since the “law” or “rule” of which we speak is the Word of God, a liberal is one who refuses to be directed by the Bible in certain matters.  Of course, the liberal will be directed by the Bible in matters wherein he agrees with the Bible, but will try to avoid the directives of the Scripture when he disagrees with them!

The Scriptures teach,

Whosoever 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 a partaker of his evil deeds (II John 9-11 ASV).

Chapter 5 of brother Frank Chesser’s book, The Spirit of Liberalism, is entitled “Liberalism and Grace.”  Following excerpts from this writing come from the Seek The Old Paths publication of April 2002.  He discusses the subject of “grace” from the liberal viewpoint.  He said,

Liberalism preaches a grace that it does not understand and to which it will not listen.  Grace furnishes a pattern for entrance into God’s presence, but liberalism denies even the concept of a pattern.  Grace teaches, but liberalism will not learn.  Grace tugs at man’s heart, imploring him to move in harmony with its melody, but liberalism is too busy marching to the beat of its own drum.  If liberalism were teachable it would cease to exist.

Such seems to be a very fair and accurate summary of the subject.

It is this writer’s conviction that a major failing—sin—of the liberals in the church today relates to their refusal to follow God’s directives in the area of fellowship.  It is not difficult to see that anyone who fellowships an individual who is not guided by the Word of God is himself guilty of the same evil as the latter one (II John 9-11).  The Scripture here says that he is “partaker of his evil deeds.”  If the evil deeds are the teaching of false doctrine on the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage, the necessity of baptism for remission of sins, when to eat the Lord’s Supper, etc., then the preacher who fellowships such a one by participating with him in a lectureship, gospel meeting, Bible class, etc., is guilty of the SAME EVIL DEEDS!  If not, then will someone please explain what II John 9-11 means!

Liberalism continues to have its effect in many different ways.  I hear of once faithful preachers who want desperately to please everyone, and therefore they label as extremists any of us who warn against having fellowship with false teachers!  These men are very careful to urge everyone not to be judgmental in matters—and then proceed to be most judgmental in regard to the hearts and intents of those who still will stand for the truth of the gospel.

Liberalism is not only manifest in the TEACHINGS of some people, it is obviously manifest in the LIVES and BEHAVIOR of many.  If a man teaches against liberalism but practices fellowship with liberals he is guilty!  Preachers should still be required to practice what they preach.  But, then, so should all Christians.

Editorial

Just about every brother is troubled these days over one thing or another that exists in the brotherhood of churches of Christ.  The liberals are concerned because they cannot get the brotherhood saturated with their liberalism.  The antis are troubled these days because their cause is for all practical purposes dead.  Any church that would teach that one cannot take a dime out of the church treasury to feed starving orphans and deserving widows should die and will die.  The fence-straddlers are troubled because the righteous people of God will not refrain from exposing them for their fence-straddling.  The politically-minded brethren are troubled because they cannot win the number to their way of seeing things that they would like.  The faithful Christians are troubled because of all the above, and those who still love and follow the truth are not making the progress that they should.  So we are living in a troubled brotherhood.

Those of us at Tennessee Bible College have no political moorings.  We are of Christ (I Cor. 1:12).  We teach the students at Tennessee Bible College to be of Christ and we shall continue to do so.  One of the most sickening things to a faithful Christian is politics and partiality that exist in the churches of Christ today.  The very spirit of partiality and politics is condemned in the Bible, much less its practice.  Paul condemned the Galatians for their party spirit (Gal. 6:12).  Jesus got after those hypocritical devils in Matthew 23 for party spirit (Matt. 23:15).  Paul called the attention of some of the politically-minded Romans to consider their ways (Rom. 2:21-24).  Putting this situation in the language of the Old Testament, “The legs of the lame are not equal” (Prov. 26:7).

It gives my heart no joy whatsoever to do what I am going to do in this article, but I feel that the time has come to let brethren know the whole story, without partiality, fear, favor, or politics.  Robert Taylor’s preaching is right but his fellowship is wrong.  He was on the East Tennessee School of Preaching lectures 1999 and 2000 with Marlin Connelly, a two or three year Nashville Jubilee speaker.  He was on the program at East Tennessee School of Preaching in 2001 with Jerrie Barber, a Nashville Jubilee speaker.  Brother Taylor has been on different programs with liberals without speaking out against their liberalism.  Does Brother Robert think he is a privileged character in the sight of God?  Does he think that II John 9-11, Ephesians 5:11, and Romans 16:17-18 do not apply to him?  He can appear on a program with Nashville Jubilee speakers, but he cannot appear on a program with brother Mac Deaver.  Why?  Brother Taylor, tell us why and tell us how you can appear on programs with known false teachers without rebuking them.  When brother Robert does this, then I will use his reasoning and justify being on a program with a Baptist preacher, Methodist preacher, Catholic priest, etc.

Brother Dub McClish is another brother that can appear on programs with false teachers and liberals, but he cannot run an advertisement for Tennessee Bible College.  He was on the East Tennessee School of Preaching lectures in 1999 with Marlin Connelly, a two- or three-time Nashville Jubilee speaker.  East Tennessee School of Preaching has had many false teachers and those who fellowship them on their program, and McClish has advertized their programs without hesitation.  Men like Jerrie Barber, David Pharr, Bill Flatt, James Meadows, David Lipe, Ben Flatt, Jerry Jenkins, and a host of brethren that believe in open fellowship.  If any of these deny this, then let them meet us in open discussion and we will prove our charge by many undeniable facts.  Let brother McClish tell us how he can do such using the Bible as his guide.  I ask him to let the brotherhood know what Tennessee Bible College has taught or practiced that is unbiblical.  Brother McClish, you have my approval to do so.  In fact, I request that you do so.  Dietlinde Spears has appeared on various liberal programs in our brotherhood.  Brother Dub McClish can run material where she and others like her have appeared on the program; however, he cannot run any material about Tennessee Bible College.  Brother Dub must think he is a privileged character in the sight of God.  God punished Nadab and Abihu for their wrong (Lev. 10:1-2), but brother McClish seems to think he is an exception.  He seems to think that God is going to let him by when he disobeys.  Does he think that because he is the editor of The Gospel Journal God is going to pass over him?  Does he think he is some kind of an exceptional man before his Maker?  Brother McClish, now is the time to show that you have some backbone by answering in your journal.  By the way, do not act like you are ahead of the Living Oracles.  We have 4,500 waiting to get on our mailing list.

Another thing that got my attention was written by brother McClish.  In the February 2002 issue of The Gospel Journal on page 31 he mentions brethren Max Lucado, Carroll Osburn, Rubel Shelly, Steve Flatt, and Lynn Anderson.  Notice what he says about these and other brethren:

I have arrived at a decision that has been urging itself upon me for quite some time now:  I will no longer refer to the folk (and many others they represent) named in the forgoing paragraph as “brethren”—not even as “apostate brethren” or like terms.

While these men are false teachers, however, it is the case that they were baptized into the church of Christ a number of years ago.  It seems rather “popeish” to me for anyone to decide when a brother becomes not a brother.  Paul said to admonish as a brother one who has been withdrawn from.  “Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother” (II Thess. 3:14-15).  But brother McClish says he has decided not to do this.  Is brother McClish telling us he decides who is a member of the church and who is not a member of the church and that the Bible has nothing to do with it?  I thought the Lord added people to the church (Acts 2:47) and not man.  But brother Dub cannot run any advertizing about Tennessee Bible College in The Gospel Journal.  Maybe this bit of material from his pen tells us why.  If he can decide to throw brethren entirely out of the church, then I suppose he can refuse to run advertizing for a faithful Christian College.

In the April 2002 issue of The Gospel Journal, brother McClish ran several men to be on lectures that have fellowshipped false teachers without any opposition.  One was Keith Parker of Hendersonville, Tennessee.  Brother Parker has been on different liberal lectureships.  Of late he was on the Harding Graduate School lectures with Anthony Woods who is with the denominational-type in Memphis, Tennessee.  He was with James Thompson of Abilene Christian University.  Thompson was on the 2002 lectures at Pepperdine.  On that same Harding Graduate School lectureship was Chris Altrock from Memphis, Tennessee who works with the liberal Highland Street congregation.  He was on the 2000 lectures at Pepperdine.  Don McLaughlin was on that program, and he is with the big denominational church of Christ of North Atlanta, Georgia which, is as bad as Woodmont Hills in Nashville, Tennessee.  Brother Dub McClish can run material about false teachers in The Gospel Journal but he cannot run material about Tennessee Bible College.  Maybe he is akin to Diotrephes (III John 9).  Men like brother McClish are a puzzle to me in some ways.  I wonder where brother Dub gets his way of reasoning or a failure to reason.

Garland Robinson ran one of the best articles I have read on religious politics in his Seeking The Old Paths jounal in April 2002 issue.  Brother Bob Spurlin wrote this excellent article.  But a number of months back I was talking to brother Garland about the trouble in our brotherhood while he was visiting Tennessee Bible College.  I asked him why he did not use any of the personnel from Tennessee Bible College on his STOP lectures.  Here is what he said almost verbatim:

Brother Malcolm, if I used you or others from the college on the lectureship I would get scalped by some brethren.  You do not know how some people hate you. . . .

Does this sound like brother Garland is a little politically oriented?  What about Jesus Christ being on his lectures?  And what about the teaching of Matthew 10:35-39?  I wish brother Robinson would straighten this out for us.  Maybe he has an answer.  If so, then let him tell us in his journal.  We will be waiting for your answer, brother Garland, in your paper.  Brother Garland also appeared on the Spiritual Sword lectures with those he had formerly opposed and written about even though they have made no statement of wrong.  I do commend brother Robinson for running Spurlin’s excellent article even though he has not practiced what he editorially endorsed.

Memphis School of Preaching refuses to have fellowship with brother Mac Deaver over his position on the Holy Spirit.  Brother Curtis Cates and brother Garland Elkins never had any trouble with brother Tom Warren and brother Gus Nichols on the Holy Spirit issue even though they believed the very thing brother Mac Deaver believes.  A couple of years before brother Tom Warren died, he told me that brother Mac Deaver’s position was right on the Holy Spirit and that the Memphis School of Preaching was wrong.  I am not citing brother Tom Warren and brother Gus Nichols as a final say with reference to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  The Bible has the final say in all things religious.  I am only citing them because no line of fellowship was drawn with brother Warren and brother Nichols over the way the Holy Spirit dwells in the Christian.  My question is, why all the trouble and discord now over the same issue with brother Mac Deaver?  It is my candid feeling that we have a far greater issue facing us today than the Holy Spirit issue and it is the Christian fellowship issue.

Memphis School of preaching had fellowship with Billy Smith of Freed Hardeman in their lectureship last year.  But brother Smith is on the lectureship committee at Freed-Hardeman University that has invited F. LaGard Smith, Cecil May, Jr., Bill Flatt, Jay Lockhart, Basil Overton, and a host of others like them to be on the lectures.  All of these brethren practice open fellowship, and some of them believe that one may live in adultery or go to heaven without receiving Scriptural baptism.  How can Memphis School of Preaching think they are anywhere near being consistent accepting brother Billy Smith and rejecting brother Mac Deaver?  Does Memphis School of Preaching think that God has a special leaning toward them even though they are wrong but a special leaning away from those who disagree with Memphis School of Preaching?  Volume after volume could be written about things like this taking place among churches, preachers, universities, elders, deacons, and members.

A month before Ron Gilbert came to teach at Tennessee Bible College, he told me about a conversation he had with brother Curtis Cates.  Brother Cates told brother Gilbert why he never used brother Malcolm Hill on his lectureship at Memphis School of Preaching.  Brother Cates told brother Gilbert that it was because brother Hill was too controversial in the brotherhood.  Is this a good answer?  Is this the right answer?  Is this a truthful answer? Brother Ira Rice, Jr. was next to brother Cates and brother Garland Elkins in the Memphis School of Preaching lineup.  Permit me to use a little humor just at this point. Brother Ira Rice, Jr. was never in controversy was he?  He was most loved among the liberals and the antis.  His three volumes of Ax On The Root needed to be more pointed, didn’t they?  Contending for the Faith needed to get into controversy, didn’t it?  (Please understand that I appreciated brother Rice’s stand for the truth throughout his life. MLH)  What I am doing is showing you the kind of answer given by brother Curtis Cates, and yet Ira Rice, Jr. is almost an icon to the Memphis School of Preaching faculty and staff.  There has never been a more outspoken defender and controversialist than Ira Rice, Jr. when it came to what he thought the Bible taught and transgressions in our brotherhood.  Brother Curtis, you are going to have to do better than this.

The churches of Christ are in one of the biggest messes they have been in since her establishment in A.D. 33.  They will stay in this kind of mess or worse until God’s people love Him supremely (Matt. 22:37-39) and until we walk by God’s Holy Word and not by brotherhood politics (Col. 3:17).  We can go to heaven without being on any lectureship but we cannot be saved refusing to follow God.
—Malcolm L. Hill, Editor

Elders Who Do Not Keep Up
Ronald D. Gilbert

The qualifications for elders are set forth in I Timothy 3:1-7 and in Titus 1:5-9.  These are not the only passages that give insight on the work of the elders.  It is God’s  will for every congregation to have elders.  Godly men should work hard to meet these qualifications and serve as elders.  The office of an elder is one of work, not just a title to wear.  “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in word and doctrine” (I Tim. 5:17).  Then in I Timothy 5:18 Paul quotes from Deuteronomy 25:4 and uses two figures of labor and reward: “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn.  And, the labourer is worthy of his reward.”  This passage and others show that the office of an elder is an office of work and service, not just a title of honor.

From I Timothy 3 we learn that elders are to be apt to teach or literally “skilled in teaching.”  Hebrew 5:13 is the opposite of this qualification:  “For every one that useth milk is unskillful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.”  I have talked with “elders” over the years who were still babes.  They did not understand simple truths such as how the Bible authorizes, that instrumental music in worship is sinful that fellowshipping denominations and false teachers is wrong, that accepting people into the Lord’s church on their denominational baptism is wrong, and a host of other such issues.

The work of an elder is a serious matter.  “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you” (Heb. 13:17).  Notice this passage says that they “watch for your souls” and that they must “give account.”  That sounds very serious!  These men are over the flock, and they are shepherds who are to oversee the flock.  Could there be a more serious task than the one elders are charged with?

Titus 1 shows that he must be able to “rightly divide the word of truth” (II Tim. 2:15).  An elder is charged to “be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers” (Titus 1:9).  The Greek word translated here “convince” is elencho.  Strong defines this word “to reprove, rebuke, convince, tell one’s fault, convict.”  This same Greek word is used in:

II Timothy 4:2 “Preach the word; be instant in season, our of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort . . .”

I Timothy 5:20 “Them that sin rebuke before all . . .”

Matthew 18:15 “If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault . . .”

Ephesians 5:11 “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.”

Titus 1:9 teaches that elders are to convince, reprove, rebuke, and refute the gainsayers.  How can an elder do this if he does not keep up with what is taking place in the brotherhood?  Is any one eldership over the entire brotherhood?  No.  However, any eldership is a part of the brotherhood and has a relationship with the brotherhood.

The Bible gives instructions on how to deal with false teachers: Romans 16:17; Ephesians 5:11; II John 9-11; Titus 3:10.  Do these passages apply to elders?  Yes, they do.

In view of the Bible teaching on elders and their work, we see it is important for them to know what is going on in the brotherhood.  They should be knowledgeable of the issues facing the church today.  In Matthew 7:15 Jesus warned of false prophets who would come in wearing sheep’s clothing.  Who has the watch and care for these sheep?  Their shepherds or the elders.  Why do some elders encourage and support their young people going to Winterfest and youth rallies where wolves will teach them false doctrine?  Why do we have so many elders who do not understand why children should not go to our liberal Christian colleges?  And why are some surprised when their children come home from four years of college believing and teaching false doctrine?  Why do so many elderships not keep up with who speaks on liberal lectureship programs such as Lipscomb, Tulsa, Pepperdine, Abilene, Hertland, and Winterfest?  Why are many of those same men who speak on these liberal programs and hold and teach false doctrine invited to come in to many local congregations to lead their members astray?  Why don’t more elderships demand that their speakers fill out detailed questionnaires to know what these men teach before turning the flock over to a wolf?

Preachers also need to keep up with what is going on in the brotherhood.  Preachers should help inform the congregation including the elders with what is taking place in the brotherhood.  I personally know of good elderships that do keep up.  However, there are, sadly, many that do not.  Elders, are you keeping up with what is going on in the brotherhood?  Are you a true shepherd who is on guard for wolves?  Remember, God says you will “give account.”  God help us to have more true elders who keep up and do the work God has given them.

The Holy Spirit Issue
Kerry Duke

What makes an issue an issue?  This is the mother question of all issues.  In this age of Bible ignorance, apostasy, and fragmentation in the church, members are being forced to re-examine this critical question.

Of particular concern is this question as it relates to issues regarding the Holy Spirit.  A substantial portion of churches of Christ still reject claims to miracles today such as speaking in tongues or raising the dead.  They would “make an issue” if these things were introduced in their congregations.  But why are these issues over which they would break fellowship? Sadly, many cannot give a Bible answer to this question, and some preachers are in this number.  They know these things have never been tolerated before, but they really don’t know why according to the Bible.

A facet of the work of the Holy Spirit has been revived in recent years and has been made a serious issue, even a fellowship issue, in the eyes of some.  It is the same basic position taken years ago by numerous brethren: that the Holy Spirit dwells “personally” in the child of God and strengthens the child of God in the inner man.  That position met stiff opposition then, but those who disagreed with it, regardless of how strongly they objected to it, did not consider it an issue of fellowship.  Were they right in not regarding it as a matter of fellowship?  Set aside for a moment the question of the Holy Spirit strengthening the Christian.  Why was the indwelling issue never made a test of fellowship?  Why don’t brethren regard it as such today?  A number of preachers have never really thought this question through, and this is why lines of fellowship are being drawn today that were not drawn in the past.

I disagree with the view that the Holy Spirit directly strengthens the Christian in the sense of an immediate, direct, Spirit-to-spirit “touch.”  I believe that God, in addition to strengthening us through His Word, does so through His providence.  This is God acting on our environment (the physical world) in an unseen way so as to influence our soul—our memory, feelings, etc.  How He does this we do not and cannot know.  When brethren who strenuously oppose the idea of a direct strengthening of the Spirit say that they believe God answers prayer but He does so “through nature” or “natural law,” it is obvious they often do not understand what they are saying.  For when they explain what they mean, they imply that the laws of nature actually run on their own and God actually does not answer prayer.  He only answers prayer representatively by creating the laws of nature which then “answer” our prayers to heal the sick or help the preacher remember what he has studied.  This is the “representative” view of God’s providence.  It is not deism, as has often been said.  Deism was a rejection of the miraculous; it was not always a rejection of the providential.  These brethren are mistaken in this view of providence.  Should their view be considered heretical?  Should they be considered false teachers?  I do not agree.  But why?  Why is this issue not made an issue?  Why should it be?  Unless brethren can honestly and consistently deal with this question, they should be cautious about drawing lines of fellowship.

As far as an issue being or not being a matter of fellowship is concerned, the key aspect about the Holy Spirit is revelation.  Miraculous acts were revelational; they made known a special, distinct act of God.  Providence, on the other hand, is the working of God, but it is not revelational.  It is not seen, but it is an act of God doing something (not just nature running on its own).  Miraculous messages were revelational—prophecies, dreams, speaking in tongues, and other such media.  The claim to special revelation today is a claim to power that God does not grant today (I Cor. 13:8-13).  To pretend to have divine power, whether in the form of a miraculous act or miraculous knowledge, is wrong.  This is why sorcerers and soothsayers are condemned throughout the Bible—they claim to do what only God can give the power to do.  Now the idea of the Spirit strengthening the inner man of the Christian is not a revelational claim.  It is not a claim of information, guidance, or miraculous activity of the Holy Spirit.  If the activity of the Spirit in this view is not and manifested (neither to others nor to the individual being strengthened), then why should positions on either side of the question be held as matters of fellowship any more than our feeble attempts to theorize about how providence works?  The end result—the strengthening—is non-miraculous in nature thus the means by which it is attained, whether it is God acting providentially in the world or the Holy Spirit acting immediately, is unseen and non-miraculous?

Youth Leaders and Youth Problems
David Hill

The Proverbs writer said: “Train up a child in the way he should go; and when he is old, he will not depart from it.”  (Prov. 22:6).  It has always been the responsibility of godly parents to rear their children in the way of the Lord (Deut. 5-6; Eph. 6:4).  The Christian home is the institution for the primary training of children in the word of the Lord.  So youth programs and youth leaders really work as an extension to the home or assist the home in the proper Bible instruction of children.  It should work that way, but in the past two decades or so in the United States, the “fast food” mentality has carried over to the serving of spiritual fast food.  That is to say, many parents have found biblical instruction time limited at home and too time intensive for what their schedules will allow.  Therefore, the children have been taken to the church building and handed to a youth director usually not much older than their child for spiritual instruction and development.

In the 1970s this leader most often was a volunteer and sometimes a parent or parents willing to give time after school for instruction and development of the children.  I happen to believe that this system worked best, though it was a very difficult one to facilitate.  It would encourage more discipline and less hanky-panky.  But as noted getting parents to work with the youth in a consistent manner is very difficult.  That is why full-time youth leaders began to be employed in the 1980’s with even mid-sized congregations hiring youth directors by the 1990’s.  While early on in the development of full-time youth ministers, young men trained to be gospel preachers were hired to fill the position, this would soon change.  Many congregations had the idea of moving the young man into the pulpit over a period of years in order to give stability to the congregation.  This plan worked some, but most in  places it sounded good yet never quite happened.  For one thing a young man trained to preach usually wants to preach as often as possible, much like a preacher I once heard of that was said to keep two sermons with him at all times, and would deliver them both at the drop of a hat.  That is the nature of preaching and preachers.  Then came the development of youth ministers who actually became a different breed.  They were not trained to preach necessarily, and they really had no desire to preach much.  These individuals studied new curriculums developed by Christian universities that fed them a diet of psychology, sociology, physical education and a general Bible curriculum.  When graduated they were hired by churches, given a clipboard and told to plan fun activities for young people—a cruise director if you please.  They were usually given a Bible class to teach, and they were instructed to get a commercial drivers license in order to operate the church bus.

In the meantime the denominational world was beginning to specialize the work of youth.  Circuit speakers were being promoted and used in huge youth gatherings around the country.  Special training programs were promoted around the country, sometimes called Youth Universities, where youth workers could attend conferences and get new ideas.  The major problem was that the ideas had little or nothing at all to do with the Bible or spiritual growth and development, but more to do with superficial matters, entertainment, games, drama, etc.   One would expect such from denominationalism, but members of the church of Christ began to want the same action.  In fact, it can be proven that several men and universities exactly copied the denominational youth workers’ workshops and youth mega-rallies with entertainment as the focal point.  Many such programs have been recorded in times past in this publication.  Space does not allow an exhaustive list here, but notable programs today are Winterfest, Uplift (Harding), Impact (Lipscomb), and Youth In Action (Birmingham).  Lipscomb University even hosted Youth Workers University with denominational speakers exactly like the programs of the denominational world.

The result was youth ministers trained as such by the colleges began to promote programs like the above and parents were only too happy to send their children by the busloads.  For the youth it was and is the “cool place” to be.  For the parents it is a weekend off, and further, what parent is willing to fight the system or threaten to move their child out of the “in crowd.”  Oh, there are some parents who will and have spoken out but very few.  Even fewer have been willing to actually do something about it.  Thus, the children, encouraged by their youth minister, go and sit at the feet of instructors that speak freely of worshiping with denominations and denominational people, funny comedian-type speakers that freely question Bible authority, rail at the rules placed on children by their parents, scoff at elders and laugh at “stiff worship.”  They practice things in these rallies that they say openly “bet, you can’t do this at your church” and the parents, grandparents, elders, deacons, preachers, youth leaders and children “love to have it so.”

Do the speakers on these programs invite youth to be baptized? Yes, but they will in the next breath talk about “a brother in Christ” who has never been baptized for the remission of sins.  Do these speakers say anything at all about leaving the church of Christ? No, but they will in the next breath encourage open mindedness and question whether one can really know for sure.  Will the speakers on the program tell the children to go home and encourage instrumental music in worship? No, but they will host denominational bands performing spiritual songs and like groups from within the church of Christ and compliment them to the high heavens.  Will the kids hear any instruction about marriage, divorce, and remarriage?  No.  Will they be encouraged with teaching on modesty and modest dress? No.  Will they hear a lot of Scripture in the sermon? No, very little if any . . .they don’t want to “pound the youth over the head with Scripture.”  As a result, the youth slowly become desensitized to pure religion, and when they become adults many are ready to enter the denominational world.  Why?  Because they are smart, much smarter than they are given credit for being, and they realize that if what they were told over the years in the youth program is true, then one church is just as good as another.  The parents and grandparents now are concerned and will even weep over the loss of their children, but it is too late!

The problem: unconcerned parents, poorly trained youth leaders, and the desire to “be like the nations” (churches) around us.  It is a numbers-driven game, and who is willing to stand up against the masses?  Consider the observation of the weeping prophet of old: “The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?” (Jer. 5:31).