A Revealing Letter
Malcolm L. Hill

(I did not know that brother Mac Deaver was writing brother Michael Hatcher until he had done so.  Brother Mac Deaver sent me a copy of his letter to brother Hatcher.  I believe that brother Mac Deaver’s letter has something to offer our brotherhood.  It shows that the political machine is running well in certain quarters.  We totally abominate church politics and political moves in the body of Christ.  Why cannot men have allegiance to Christ and Christ alone?  I had a letter not too far back asking me what brother so-and-so would think if I had a certain brother on the Tennessee Bible College lectureship.  I wrote the brother back and told him I could care less for what those brethren might think.  I am concerned with what God the Father and Christ the Son think.  This really does matter to me.  This brother’s statement to me is a form of bribery.  He was going to bribe me through a scare tactic from having a good brother on the lectures.  May God have mercy on my soul if I am ever moved by this kind of thing.  Please read brother Deaver’s letter carefully.  MLH)

January 30, 2002

Mr. Michael Hatcher
Bellview church of Christ
4850 Saufley Field Road
Pensacola, FL  32526

Dear Michael,

I see on page 3 in your “Important Update” (Defender, January 2002) that you accuse brother Malcolm L. Hill of being a coward.  Now really, Michael, what good does this do?  What kind of journalism is it that you now practice?  I do think that you and your extremist friends are on a road of self-destruction.  It is simply a matter of time.  I hope you wake up before it is too late.

I know brother Hill far, far better than do you, and I assure you, friend, that he is no coward.  I also know brother Wesley Simons and Kent Bailey to whom you refer.  Wesley is one of our former students and I think Kent is, too.  They are both friends of mine.  At any rate, brother Hill has told me that Wesley wants to debate him on his practice (so the discussion would be about whether or not Malcolm has been consistent in the application of Bible principles on fellowship).  Now, Michael, if you were going to debate, would you want to debate what the truth is or whether or not in all cases you have correctly applied the truth?  I think I know the answer.  A debate ought to center on what the truth actually is, and then all of us ought to line up our practice with it as best we can.

If you want to publicly chide someone in print, why don’t you turn the point of your pen toward some of your good friends at MSOP who have refused to debate me?  Why don’t you ask some of your Tennessee brethren like Robert Taylor or Garland Elkins if they have something to hide, and why not call them all cowards?  Michael, do you honestly think that you could humiliate any preaching brother friend of yours that I have challenged to step up and publicly debate me by calling him a coward?  I really doubt it.  But wouldn’t fair journalism require you to consider all parties the same (those parties who for some reason refuse to debate)?  I have detected prejudice in you before, and the latest Defender presents us with another good case.  Is the Defender to become the Defamer?  Please reflect calmly on what I am telling you.  You extremists are hurting the cause of Christ that you think you are protecting.  But the extremist house will collapse.

I have been disappointed in several preachers during the last several years, and you are certainly in that group.  You owe brother Hill an apology and your readers a retraction.  I do not think that you want to be treated as you have treated him (Matt. 7:12).

And let me say that brother Hill has likely been more consistent in application of II John 9-11 than most of us other preachers.  Some of us preachers choose to wink at known false teachers rather than oppose their error when with them on lectureships.  And by the way, Michael, it is just as sinful to extend the right hand of fellowship to radical right factionalists (over the Holy Spirit issue) as it is to extend the right hand of fellowship to known liberals.  A preacher friend wanted me to pull myself off of a lectureship because of “liberals” on it (according to him).  I did so.  Then he went ahead and had a lectureship whereon appeared at least one “anti” factionist.  Is it more wrong for me to fellowship a liberal than it would be for him or you to fellowship an anti who is a factious brother (Tit. 3:10)?  Please answer fairly.  You have some explaining to do yourself.

Seeking your good,
Mac Deaver

Editorial
Malcolm L. Hill

The Lord’s Supper was instituted by Christ (Matt. 26:26-30).  The early Christians observed the Supper on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7).  The unleavened bread represented the body of Christ, and the fruit of the vine represented the blood of Christ (Matt. 26:26-28).  The Lord’s Supper is a memorial observance of the death and suffering of Jesus Christ our Lord.

The Corinthians did not seem to understand the meaning of the Lord’s Supper.  Some of them thought it was an individual church feast.  Some brought plenty of food, and some did not have enough.  Some were eating, and some were not.  In the first place, some of the Corinthians did not understand that the Lord’s Supper was not a common meal.

The Corinthians had another problem in taking the Supper.  When they took the Lord’s Supper, they did not have their mind on what they were doing (I Cor. 11:27-29).  So they were eating and drinking damnation to their soul.  Paul tried to impress on the mind of the Corinthian church what the Lord’s Supper was all about.  He tried to tell them that the meaning of the Supper was to remember Christ and His suffering for their sins.  When the church at Corinth took the Lord’s Supper with the wrong mind set, they were eating and drinking damnation to themselves (I Cor. 11:29).  According to the Bible, the only reason for taking the Lord’s Supper is in remembrance of Christ.  Those who take the Supper for any other reason are eating and drinking damnation to themselves.

But in reading the lectureship book of Abilene Christian University for 2002, I find that they are going to take the Lord’s Supper on Sunday night at the University.  Notice what they are calling it:  “A Meal of Racial Reconciliation.”  Notice what they say about this meal.  “In keeping with that call, during the opening night of Lectureship we will share together the Lord’s Supper as a meal of reconciliation.  Ian Fair and Tom Foster (modern Nadab and Abihu, MLH) will lead us around the table and remind us of our unity in Christ.  It is our prayer that the sharing of the Lord’s Supper will bring God’s healing to the deep lines of racial separation that have kept us from being the body for which Christ died.  You will want to participate in this special night.”

Are the African-Americans equal to the Lord Jesus Christ?  Everyone is quick to say, “Most certainly not.”  Then why place them in the Lord’s Supper?  This act is one of the most reprobate things that I have ever seen done in the church of Christ.  It is a sacrilegious act.  It is worse than Belshazzar using the golden pots and cups in a sinful feast and drinking party; the pots and cups were taken from the temple of God in Jerusalem (Dan. 5).  It was at this ungodly activity that the hand of God wrote on the wall and said:  “Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting” (Dan. 5:27).  The brethren who participate in this will be weighed in the balances of God and found wanting.

Any African-American that involves himself in this is unworthy of any kind of recognition.  The very idea of letting anyone place us in the Lord’s Supper is the height of vanity!  Any white that participates in this activity is not worthy of the name Christian.  When Andre Resner wrote that Christmas article, which was a reproach to Mary the mother of Christ, I thought that was as sinful as one could get in mind set.  He left the impression that she might have been guilty of fornication.  But this event goes beyond that.  By the way, Resner was at Abilene Christian when he wrote that article.

Since these backsliders at Abilene Christian University have gone so far as to place fallible human beings in the Lord’s Supper, I wonder if they will pray in the name of Christ and Martin Luther King?  Will they have a baptismal service to show that they have put off the old man of racial prejudice?  Will they have a special song service using the song “Buried with Christ, my blessed Redeemer, Dead to the old life of folly and sin” and dedicate it to the African-Americans as a “Song of Racial Reconciliation?”

What disrespectful people will do to the Bible has not been thought of.  There is no way that any Christian would participate in the “Meal of Racial Reconciliation” at the Abilene Christian University lectures of 2002.  And by the way, there are 84 speakers on the 2002 lectureship at Abilene and only seven African-Americans are on this program and they want to have a meal of reconciliation.  Are they serious about this?  You be the judge.

Shall We Fellowship All Our Brethren?
Mac Deaver

According to the listing of passages in the Englishman’s Greek Concordance, the Greek word koinonia appears twenty times in the New Testament and is translated into English in the KJV by the words fellowship, contribution, communion, distribution, and to communicate.  The lexicograper, Thayer, informs us that the definition of the word koinonia is “fellowship, association, community, communion, joint participation, intercourse” (p. 352).

The practice of Christian or spiritual fellowship is necessary to the strength of the spiritual body, and the withholding of that fellowship from those to whom it is not to be extended is necessary to the purity and distinctiveness of that body as well.  Christians are to build themselves up in the most holy faith (Jude 20).  And as they do this, they recognize the difference between the church and the world (I John 4:4; 5:19).  I want to have spiritual fellowship with all whom God and Christ have fellowship (I John 1:3).  That is, I want to be able to recognize as faithful those whom God does, and I want to have access to participation with or spiritual intercourse with those whom God favors as opportunity and expediency make possible.

Passages

In Galatians 2:9 Paul informs us that when James, Cephas, and John were finally convinced that Paul was doing divinely authorized work among the Gentiles that they then “gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship. . . ”

In II Corinthians 6:14-18 Paul forbids the unequal yoking of believers with unbelievers, and by a series of questions depicts the at-odds-ness, antipathy, and the impossibility or inappropriateness of mixing righteousness and iniquity, light and darkness, Christ and Belial, a believer and an unbeliever, and a temple of God with idols.  The sons and daughters of God are seen as a separated people (vv. 17-18).

Principle

John teaches us that we show love by walking in the commandments of God (II John 6).  He also mentions that we can know that we love the children of God by loving God and doing his commandments (I John 5:2-3).  We do not show love for the church when we refuse to abide by the teaching of the New Testament. In an oft-quoted passage John wrote,

Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God:  he that abideth in the teaching, the same hath both the Father and the Son.  If any one cometh unto you, and bringeth not this teaching, receive him not into your house, and give him no greeting:  for he that giveth him greeting partaketh in his evil works (II John 9-11).

The context of these remarks is one in which John is warning brethren with regard to deceivers who if successful would prevent brethren from continuing to walk in the commandments of God.  The warning is applicable to a deceiver who denies the humanity of Christ (v. 7) and to anyone whose deceptive work keeps the church from abiding in the doctrine of Christ (v. 9).  John shows us that if we remain in the doctrine, we retain fellowship with the Father and the Son (v. 9).  And John furthermore points out that if we encourage or support or endorse a person whose doctrine is different from the doctrine of Christ, we thereby become partakers in that person’s evil works (vv. 10-11).

Notice, it is plain Bible teaching that Christians cannot fellowship the world (James 4:4).  It is equally true that Christians cannot fellowship other Christians if those other Christians go beyond the teaching of Christ or fail to abide in that teaching, and thereby forfeit fellowship with the Father and Son.  When Christians fellowship false teachers in the church, we forfeit fellowship with the Father and the Son ourselves because of our joint participation with them in their evil works.  The concept is somewhat frightening and reminds us of Paul’s warning to Timothy lest he be “partaker of others men’s sins” (I Tim. 5:22).

Please note before we proceed further that in the New Testament a false teacher is not simply someone who errs with regard to just any particular fact.  All preachers have at some time in their preaching made mistakes with regard to “facts” they were discussing.  Mistakes in preaching don’t necessarily make one a false teacher.  What makes one a false teacher is teaching a doctrine that if believed damns the soul of the one who believes it.  This is a doctrine other that the doctrine of Christ which is a doctrine that if believed saves the soul (James 1:21; Acts 20:32).  Right spiritual fellowship is based on right doctrine which is the apostles’ doctrine (Acts 2:42) or the doctrine of Christ (II John 9-11).

Problem

For many years now, the church of our Lord has been the victim of massive apostasy.  Some refused to leave us yet no longer are of us (cf. I John 2:19).  Their work was a work of destruction because they came to believe certain doctrines that if believed would corrupt the church and lead to its damnation.  Many warnings were given.  Documentation was provided.  The evidence was available, clear, and conclusive.  Yet, some refused to believe and refused to withdraw their own spiritual fellowship from those who were destroying the health of the body.  The apostasy is not over.  Many false teachers are full-time preachers and/or teachers in universities.  Some of them are tremendous writers, some are skilled and eloquent speakers, most are polished diplomats, some are excellent at public relations work, and a few have winning personalities.  The one thing they have in common is that they now believe and teach doctrines that if believed will destroy the church.

The situation reminds us of Israel of old who tired of the Canaanite wars and decided to peacefully coexist with pagans.  Such negligence and weariness eventually led to calamity (Judg. 2:14; 3:1-6).  If we are in a time of apostasy we tire of warning only to our own peril.  A rattlesnake does not cease to be dangerous because he becomes familiar.  A poisonous bite is just as harmful from a snake with which I may have some acquaintance.  But many brethren have never been ready or willing to (1) search the Scriptures so as to ground themselves in a “thus saith the Lord,” nor have they been willing to (2) credit accurate reports of damning heresy being preached.  They would not investigate for themselves to see if warnings were correct.  Interest in what was factual did not run as high as interest on the part of change agents to restructure the church.

Change agents began to try to reshape the church into an image that they thought would be more acceptable to the most modern mind.  But some of the changes that they sought were not simply changes that would occur from improved judgments, but changes in compliance with which meant the change in (1) entry requirements, (2) worship, and (3) the extension of fellowship to some to whom it had formerly been withheld.  Change agents brought a changed doctrine and they forfeited the fellowship of the Father and the Son.  One prominent change agent no longer thinks it necessary for a person to be baptized in order to be a Christian.  Some of them no longer oppose mechanical instruments of music in worship on Scriptural grounds.  Some false teachers have for years now supported marriage/divorce/remarriage doctrines that are contradictory to Matthew 19:9.  Admittedly some of the “loosening up” of the church was in reaction to some of the “over-tightening” of others who were going to the far right in binding where God had not bound.  But liberalism is just as wrong as anti-ism.  Anti-ism (binding where God has loosed) stifles the church to death.  Liberalism (loosening where God has bound) turns liberty into license and destroys by the elimination of necessary conviction.  Both are ruinous (cf. Josh. 1:7).

Practice

We have watched the turmoil now for years.  Ignorance on the part of many and excessive zeal (zeal without knowledge) on the part of others have made their contributions to the weakening of the church in our day.  It is not right to endorse a preacher whose doctrine corrupts the church.  And it is not right to falsely accuse a brother of teaching a false doctrine unless we know that such is the case.  Some preachers have been utilized by some congregations as speakers on lectureships in spite of their public proclamations of damning heresy and in spite of their public endorsements of false religious groups.  Other preachers have been removed as potential speakers.  So, we have the rightly accused still used.  We have the wrongly accused not used.  And some of us seemingly wouldn’t recognize proof (either of error or of truth) if it grabbed us by the britches!  It is enough to make the most experienced son of son of God nauseated.  Yes, in the midst of the apostasy a secondary horrible thing has occurred.  Men began to bite and devour and consume (Gal. 5:15; James 4:1-2).  But the senselessness of the groundless charges against some does not negate the accuracy of some charges against others.  It is just that some of us don’t know how to tell the difference.  Now sadly some of us are more interested in religious “political correctness” and holding hands with our favorite brethren than we are in knowing the truth and knowing how to prove that it is truth (I Thess. 5:21; Rom. 12:2).  The doctrine of Christ is not as important to some as they would have us believe.  Rather their being considered “sound” by lectureship speaker selectors is now more of a thing to be desired than the knowledge of truth.  Evidence has been replaced as the high priority by church politics.  Jesus never lived this way!  He came to do the will of the Father (John 6:38).  Some of us are now more interested in doing the will of some other preacher if he can advance my personal agenda.  But to those who may want to be a brotherhood name more than they want to preach the truth, let me say that it is far better to be sound and unknown than to be know and unsound!

Now with all the biting and devouring, the genuine false teacher and/or change agent has been relieved of certain stress due to the fact that pressure that should have continued to be exerted on him has now been given to some other person whose “crime” is not worthy to be compared to that of the actual apostate.  It is hard to keep balance.  Extremes are enticing.  Some brethren can now just about as easily find an apostate behind every pulpit (except those few pulpits manned by their chief friends) as a Pentecostal can find a miracle behind every bush.  And while we watch the continual manifestation of religious paranoia on the part of well-intentioned but misguided zealots, the obvious prominent false teachers are still doing their damaging work with support of other apostate brethren.

Alarmingly, instead of rightly pointing out the dangers of liberalism and anti-ism, some of our preachers can’t bring themselves to turn down an invitation.  After all, we may reason, if I get invited to speak, surely those who invite me can’t be all that bad!  Perhaps some of us should reevaluate our own convictions and strength and capability and the circles in which we move.  I am reminded of the time I invited my cousin to speak at the Pecos River Encampment.  His response was that he didn’t think that he wanted to appear on a lectureship that would have him as a speaker!  Unlike my cousin, some of my preaching brethren seem to be willing to go anywhere they are invited to speak on lectureships with whoever else is invited (even known false teachers and those who encourage false teachers) and say absolutely nothing about the false doctrine that is represented by that false teacher.  How can a man genuinely love the church and fail to warn her of danger close at hand?  Some of us need either more conviction or more courage or both!

If I am invited to speak where a known false teacher is also to speak, then I ought either to address the false idea somewhere in my speech or refuse to participate in that lectureship.  I do not necessarily have to call his name in order to make my point clear.  And I certainly should not be obnoxious or mean-spirited.  With love for all including the apostate, I could tell the relevant truth that contradicts that for which the apostate is known.  I well remember years ago holding a gospel meeting for a congregation with which I had formerly labored as the local preacher.  Family members of a prominent false teacher were members of this congregation.  In one of my sermons, I referred to the prominent false teacher but without calling his name (so as not to humiliate his family members).

Plea

Finally, let me appeal to all gospel preachers:  Let us be as consistent and courageous in the proclamation of truth and exposure of error as by the grace of God we can be.  We surely cannot know everything about everyone.  But perhaps we should do a better job of keeping ourselves informed, investigating, refusing to accuse without proof, refusing to ignore proof, and in refusing to accept as proof what are mere undocumented accusations.  We are not out to “get someone.”  We are not trying to count sins.  We do want to believe the best about all, but it is not scriptural to play dumb, and it is not right to disregard obvious danger.  Becoming a partaker in another man’s sin is to me one of the most frightening concepts in the New Testament.  May God help us do our best to encourage the faithful, to convert sinners, and to expose false doctrine for the damning thing that it is.

The Stage Has Been Set
Kerry Duke

There is a new day in Jerusalem.  Many who formerly contended for the whole counsel of God have gradually compromised the doctrine of Christ.  They still claim opposition to Rubel Shelly and Max Lucado, whom they view as having given over to liberalism wholly.  But these brethren have been surrendering the truth inch by inch for years.  Now they have reached a decision that is apparent in what they allow and condone.

The apostasy of the past several decades has gone through three stages in terms of how those involved in it have tried to justify it.  The first stage was denial.  When charges of false teaching were first brought up, for example, about Rubel Shelly in the early 1980’s, some, even Shelly himself to some extent, denied the allegations.  The same has been true with many other preachers as well as churches, events, and schools.  When false teaching is exposed, some deny the facts, claiming the charges are hearsay, or asking, “Have you talked with this brother yourself?”  Instead of accepting the facts, they often attack the one who exposed the false teacher, indicting his motives and accusing him of being divisive.  They refuse to hear anything against a brother, regardless of the weight of the evidence, especially if they have known him for a long time or have high regard for him.  Like a chronic drinker, they deny there is a problem.  Like parents who will not admit their children’s sin, they are in a state of denial.

But clear evidence cannot be forever ignored.  The second stage then ensues: the stage of defense.  No longer can they deny the false doctrine, because it is too well documented.  Now they defend the brother who teaches the error and the brother himself enters a defense mode.  The defense may be made by citing the inconsistencies of those exposing the error.  If those inconsistencies are true, then of course the exposers themselves need to repent.  But those partaking of the false doctrine still have a problem: they are involved in error.  The defense may take a hermeneutical route.  Defenders of the error or the ones involved in it may try to justify their fellowship by citing the church at Corinth with its many sins and errors.  But Paul wrote to correct, not to justify, their errors, and therein lies the difference between Paul’s approach and the method of these brethren.  The defense may argue that some in Restoration days taught and did the same thing, that a well-known deceased brother held the same view, or that if this issue is pressed we will become isolated.  But whatever the form, the stage is the same: defend the erroneous doctrine and practice regardless of the cost.

But now more and more brethren either are tired of defending their views and practices or they have reached a level of comfort in which they no longer feel a need to justify their position.  They have moved beyond the defense stage to one of acceptance, that is, they have accepted the error and those involved in it and do not think anything is wrong with such behavior.  They have looked at the issues of controversy and have decided that they are not matters of fellowship anyway and so why argue about them?  Why defend ourselves?  We could also say this is the stage of defiance, since the brethren make it clear that they intend to do what they wish in spite of anyone who challenges them.  And it is the state of ignoring, as this is exactly how they respond to those who object to their doctrine.  They don’t believe the issues are worth arguing about anymore.  They first denied that they held the views at issue, then they defended their views, and finally they decided these issues are not consequential anyway.

The 2002 Freed-Hardeman University Lectureship was a virtual declaration to the brotherhood that the school has entered this third stage.  In light of the clear errors countenanced there, what other conclusion can be drawn?  Here are some of these errors:

1. In clear violation to Hebrews 13:17, Jack P. Lewis has taught for years that elders have no authority to make decisions in the local congregation.  FHU has been told this, and they continue to use him on their lectureship.
2. Jay Lockhart teaches falsely on divorce and remarriage, as has been documented in Living Oracles before (November/December 1997, p.7).  Jay Lockhart was on their 2002 lectureship. James Maxwell, another open false teacher on divorce and remarriage, has appeared on the lectureship program in recent years.
3. Everett Ferguson of Abilene Christian University says he is committed to the issue of woman’s role in the church “not becoming one that breaks fellowship” (Christian Chronicle, Sept. 2001).  So women preachers and women elders are not a matter of fellowship to him. Yet he spoke at the 2002 FHU lectures.
4. Ralph Gilmore, a teacher at FHU and moderator of the 2002 Open Forum at the FHU Lectures, openly taught and defended the practice of divided worship assemblies and “Children’s Church” on Tuesday in the Open Forum (Feb. 5, 2002).  Out of all the preachers and elders present, only one clearly disputed his doctrine.  Also, Gilmore and others at FHU said applauding a song or sermon was no different than saying “Amen” (1996 FHU Lectures).
5. Many participants in the 2002 FHU Lectures have shown a pattern of working with liberal churches of Christ, speaking on programs with false teachers, and appearing on denominational programs—all without making a clear stand of opposition to the liberalism and false doctrines of the people they fellowship.  Carl Brecheen spoke at the Sanctuary Fellowship of Christ on October 19-20, 2001 in Tulsa, Oklahoma. John Dale, who is also an FHU board member, participated in a service called Jubilee 2000 Revival with the Catholic Church.  Jerrie Barber, Keith Parker, and Paul Rogers appeared on the Nashville Jubilee with the Rubel Shelly gang.  This is not guilt by association.  It is guilt by participation, and guilt by going along and evading controversy instead of standing up for Jesus’ Word.

It is inconceivable that the FHU Lectureship Committee could be unaware of all of these things.  The 2002 committee was: David Lipe, Ralph Gilmore, Earl Edwards, Dowell Flatt, Samuel T. Jones, B.J. Naylor, David Powell, Milton Sewell, Billy R. Smith, and Clyde Woods.  These men did not just allow the above teachers to speak at FHU (which is bad enough); they invited them.  They are responsible.  And it will do no good to say, “But those men didn’t teach any error during the lectureship.”  As we have already seen, this is false, since Gilmore openly taught the divided assembly (which means no assembly is commanded in Scripture).  And even if this reply were true, it does not justify having such men on the program.  Would the FHU Lectureship Committee have Billy Graham or Rubel Shelly speak at the lectureship as long as they did not teach error while at FHU?

Hand-clapping, denying the authority of elders, teaching falsely on divorce and remarriage (and unscriptural divorce and remarriage equals adultery—Matt. 19:9), denying the biblical necessity of the worship assembly of the local congregation, and fellowshipping  liberals and denominations—do you believe that these are matters of indifference?  Do you believe that we should correct those promoting these ideas and practices?  Do you believe that those who speak on a program with advocates of these views are doing right by not saying anything against their errors?  With actions that are loud and clear, FHU has evidenced that they do not intend to rock the boat over these issues.

“But there were some good, solid men on this program.”  If they are faithful men, and if they understood the type of speakers they were appearing with, then they ought to have made clear their opposition to such men and their doctrines.  Did any of these men do so?  Dave Miller writes against every one of the above five points in Piloting the Straight.  But when he piloted the straight of the FHU lectureship, did he speak against such liberalism?  Did Dan Winkler and James Watkins speak against these things?  These men were joint participants in the program.  Would they speak on a program with Olan Hicks without saying anything about his error on divorce and remarriage?  How can they or any of the other speakers who knowingly participated on the program justify going along with this digression?  What would the situation have to be for them to speak openly against the error of fellow-participants in a program?  Do they believe that speaking against change agents when they are not present gives them license to work with them on the same program without saying a word against them?  If one will not say that he agrees with the above five things, what good is his speech if he acts as if they make no difference?

There is a lectureship mentality that is one of unity at all costs.  Lectureships are supposed to go smoothly, and God forbid that controversy should arise—especially between the speakers.  But if some of the speakers are troubling Israel, they should be dealt with, even if the boat is rocked.  But those who crave such speaking appointments will not do so.  They know they may not be invited back.  So the compromise gets worse, and spiritual Israel suffers.  More and more error is condoned, and the tide of digression becomes so strong that its course is practically irreversible.

Digression is not a future threat.  It is a present reality.  May God help us to have  courage.  May we disdain the praise of men and love the praise of God.  May we realize that error has already been embraced and accepted, and contend against it instead of denying reality.