Preachers, Politics, and Brotherhood Cliques
Kerry Duke

“Whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person” (Gal. 2:6).

When some brethren say, “Contend for the faith and expose error,” they mean expose anyone’s error except theirs. I learned this lesson by experience in dealing with two issues in the early nineties. One was the question of remarrying a mate one had divorced. I was naive enough to think that if I just put the evidence in a book, brethren who taught wrongly on the subject would change. Some did. But the loudest proponents of the view I was exposing were startled that I would disagree with them. Roy Deaver and Andrew Connally had taught me to contend for the faith, and I appreciate the truths I learned from them. But when I tried to reason with them about this issue – first privately and then publicly – they viewed me as a radical who needed to be silenced. I also observed what to me was an odd thing: other preachers who disagreed with them on this issue got along fine with these men. Why was I treated differently? I was not in their clique. I had violated an unspoken rule of brotherhood politics: when you contend for the faith, make sure you ask the clique what to make an issue, who to make it with, and how to say it.

This lesson came home to me again when the issue of women translators arose. Many of us had not given much study to the issue before the fall of the Iron Curtain. But when brethren going into the former Soviet Union began using women translators, preachers began to study the issue. With some the issue was purely a matter of whether or not the Bible authorized this practice. Others were more concerned about who was on which side of the issue. Some who approved of the practice exhorted those of us who disagreed with them not to speak and write on the issue lest we divide the brotherhood. But they spoke and wrote in favor of the practice! The February 1996 and February 1997 issues of Contending for the Faith were both dedication to this question. Amazingly, in an editorial in the February 1997 issue , Ira Rice said that “Curtis Cates and Garland Elkins pleaded with us all, last April, at the Memphis School of Preaching Lectureship, not to push the woman translator matter to the dividing of brethren.” Yet brother Rice devoted this entire issue to the subject, and even listed articles for and articles against the use of female translators! Who was being divisive? Where did these brethren get the idea that they had the right to push their side of an issue, but those who disagreed were to be quiet? This arrogance and inconsistency is typical of those who play the game of church politics.

Now the same spirit surrounds the issue of fellowship. A number of brethren agree in principle that fellowshipping false teachers is sinful. They teach that we should expose error and that we should hold those who do not accountable. But their practice is often determined more by politics than principle. We are not to fellowship error – but we are supposed to check with camps in the church before holding a man accountable for fellowshipping error. Alan Highers was enraged a few years ago that Holger Neubauer would challenge the Spiritual Sword’s use of Jack P. Lewis, a man who for decades has taught against the authority of elders. Brother Highers referred to brother Neubauer as radical because he rightfully exposed the liberalism at Freed-Hardeman University. Brother Neubauer’s expose of FHU in the November/December 1997 issue of Living Oracles was well documented and beyond disproof; but he was “radical” for writing such material. But brother Higher in the October 2002 issue of Spiritual Sword calls LaGard Smith’s name and the names of several men associated with the Christian Chronicle. Why was brother Neubauer a radical when brother Highers is doing the same thing? Brother Neubauer made the mistake of going against political groups in the brotherhood: he forgot to ask certain people which certain ones he could write about. The utter inconsistency of this issue of the Spiritual Sword is that many of the writers and speakers are participants in the Freed-Hardeman lectureship who refuse to address the liberalism that is there. It was encouraging to see a more aggressive stand against liberalism in this issue, but as long as the problem of FHU’s liberalism and the silence of these brethren is ignored, liberalism will have its way.

The Gospel Journal camp has been very selective in the matter of fellowship. For instance, Contending for the Faith of July 1999 exposed Mack Lyon for fellowshipping Steve Flatt and other liberals. Yet Curtis Cates worked with Mack Lyon at the 2002 Southern Christian University lectureship, and the Contending for the Faith group and Curtis Cates get along fine. Brother Dub McClish has been critical of brother Malcolm Hill’s holding men accountable for speaking at lectureships with liberal men and not speaking out against the liberalism. Yet the October issue of the Gospel Journal calls the names of numerous men who do the same. Is brother Hill a radical and brother McClish a champion of the faith for doing the same thing? But there is more to this story. Other writers in this issue of Living Oracles call attention to some of the participants in the Florida School of Preaching lectures. Brother McClish can run a full page ad of this lectureship, but he considers Tennessee Bible College too extreme to even acknowledge. He prints Marlin Connelly’s name (p. 29), but when we mention that East Tennessee School of Preaching used Connelly, we are being radical.

Honest folks can see through this disgusting behavior. Preachers who use lectureships as a way to promote themselves are a disgrace to the church. Many lectureship circuits are corrupt from brotherhood politics. God help us to say the truth to the people who need to hear it regardless of who it is and what it costs us.

Editorial

In this issue of the Living Oracles we are reviewing the last issue of The Gospel Journal, which would be October 2002. Brother Dub McClish serves as the editor of this journal, and their Board of Directors is composed of Curtis A. Cates, Joseph Meadow, Michael Hatcher, Kenneth E. Ratcliff, and Tommy J. Hicks. The reason we did this review is because of the nature of the material contained in that particular issue. While we commend Brother McClish for running the material contained therein, we have several unanswered questions. This is why we have reviewed this issue of The Gospel Journal.

First, why have Brother McClish and those on the Board of Directors been so long in getting to material like that contained in the October 2002 issue? If you read the editorial of this issue, you will find that Brother McClish has known about such goings-on in the church for several years. He says, “from the later 1960s through the 1970s to the point that many congregations and some schools were willing to support and defend men who openly taught error.” If my arithmetic serves me correctly, this has been about thirty years that Brother McClish has known about this situation. We realize that The Gospel Journal is not very old, but Brother McClish, Brother Curtis Cates, Brother Joseph Meadow, Brother Michael Hatcher, Brother Kenneth Ratcliff, and Brother Tommy Hicks are much older than The Gospel Journal. They know about what is going on in the church both then and now. Their open stance against that which has already destroyed many churches of Christ is, to say the least, about 20 years too late in coming. Why, brethren, why?

Second, why have Brother McClish and those on the Board of Directors been so critical with reference to the work we and those like us have done? They have said we are without balance and common sense. They have said we are extremist and yet we say a hearty amen to the 2002 issue of The Gospel Journal. We agree with them in this issue without hesitation. In fact, I had to take a second and third look in order to see what they had said. It is what we have been writing in the Living Oracles for the past eleven years and what we have been standing for since this liberal mess began. How is it that when Brother Dub McClish and the Board of Directors write as they have in the October 2002 issue of The Gospel Journal, calling names, they are balanced and using common sense; but when we at Tennessee Bible College and the Living Oracles do the same, we are extremist and not using common sense? Would you say the legs of the lame are equal or not equal with reference to this matter?

Third, we hold Brother McClish, Brother Cates, Brother Meadow and the others accountable for helping the liberals out in days gone by. How have they done this? They have done so by remaining silent when they should have been speaking out loudly and clearly against the liberals among us today, and they are many. Not only is this the case, but also they have flirted with liberalism in their fellowship from time to time. Let us give you a case or two in point of this. Brother Dub McClish was on the East Tennessee School of Preaching lectures in 1999 with Marlin Connelly, a three-time Nashville Jubilee speaker. Tom Holland, who has fellowshipped liberal after liberal, was on that same program. V.P. Black was on that program, and just this year Brother Black was on one of the most liberal programs to be found anywhere when he appeared on the Tahoe Family Encampment July 20–27 with such liberals as Jack Evans, Willard Tate, Marlin Connelly, and others. I realize this is after the East Tennessee School of Preaching lectures of 1999, but Brother Black has done this type of thing time and again.

Brother Curtis Cates had Brother Billy Smith of Freed-Hardeman University on their lectures at Memphis School of Preaching of late. Brother Smith has been a part of inviting such liberals as F. LaGard Smith to be on the Freed-Hardeman lectures. Another thing I find quite interesting is that in the same issue of The Gospel Journal of October 2002 the Florida School of Preaching lectures for January 2003 are advertised on page 7. They have W.E. Hamblin on the program, and Brother Hamblin has been and still is with Heritage Christian University in many of their activities. Heritage Christian has had about as many liberals on their program as they could and get by. Brother V.P. Black is on this same program along with Brother Tom Holland. So in the same issue of condemning the liberals in The Gospel Journal of October 2002, we have Brother Dub McClish advertising some of them to be on the lectures at Florida School of Preaching. What kind of a deal is this? Does Brother McClish not know about these things? Is he in the dark on brotherhood problems and Christian fellowship? It is no wonder to us that he gets disturbed when we ask him to meet us in a public discussion about these matters. He knows as others do that the feathers would fly if such a discussion should take place. How can he get after Rubel Shelly’s kind for fellowshipping Billy Graham and McClish condemns the liberals (and we are for this) then turns right around in his Gospel Journal and advertises some who have and still do practice open fellowship?

Does Brother Dub McClish and The Gospel Journal crowd really want to rid the church of the liberals? Just how much do they want unity of believers based on the Bible? Are they ready to pay the price for standing for the right? Are they ready to go all the way in marking those who are responsible for the disunity and unscriptural change in the body of Christ today? Are these brethren ready to set their foot down even though it may land on one of their close friends and buddies? Are they ready to give up some preaching appointments and some lectureships as well as some gospel meetings? Talk is very cheap, but deeds are where the rubber meets the road.

How can we say we truly love the Lord and be unwilling to reason together (Isa. 1:18)? If we sincerely love the Lord and His church, we are willing to meet and settle the things that are before us that divide us in Christ. We might as well forget the liberals because they are gone and gone forever in most cases. Most of the antis will never return to the faithful in Christ. The people who are straddling the fence are doing the greatest damage to the church of Christ at present. They want to practice open fellowship and at the same time they want to be faithful to Christ. Such is impossible to do. Brother J. W. McGarvey told us this a long time ago. Brother McGarvey said, “It won’t work” and it won’t! If the brethren who have been trying to get along with both sides would at this time take a strong stand with us, we could and would save at least half of the church today. If I am wrong and my colleagues are wrong, we are ready at any time to meet wherever and settle any issues by the Bible. Nothing would suit us better. I am ready to let the past be the past and start now in a united way to save what remains in the church of Christ. What a day it would be if this could be accomplished. Only the devil can keep it from happening.
–Malcolm L. Hill

Finally “Getting the Grip” on Christian Fellowship
Glenn B. Ramsey

With pleasant surprise and a great deal of thanksgiving, I read the October 2002 issue of the Gospel Journal. When this issue of Living Oracles was dedicated to a review of this issue of The Gospel Journal, I was happy. While I do not personally know several of the writers in The Gospel Journal, I do commend their efforts.

In an associate editorial, Brother David B. Watson wrote on the subject of “Change Agents and Fellowship.” This article is primarily an exposure of the false teachings of Max Lucado, minister for the Oak Hills Church of Christ in San Antonio, Texas. I commend Brother Watson and Brother Dub McClish for finally “coming to grips” with the issue of fellowship! This is not to imply that they did not know of this problem before, but to chide them for waiting so long! Indeed, several of our writing brethren have been critical of those who write for the Living Oracles because of articles along this line that have been published in the Living Oracles for several YEARS now! It’s good to see them come around! Welcome, brethren – we need all the help that good men can give!

Brother McClish said in his editorial of The Gospel Journal (p. 5) that he hesitated to list Lucado among the change agents “because he is so far out on the fringe that he does not even consider himself a part of the church. . .” But, nevertheless, Brother Watson does a fine job in “re-exposing” the heresy of Lucado’s false doctrine.

Brother Watson properly points out that one must attain fellowship with God and then must maintain that fellowship. To attain fellowship with God one must obey God’s commands. To maintain that fellowship one must continue to obey God’s commands! This is not an over-simplification of the matter. To obey God’s commands implies a lifetime of continued submission to the authority of God’s Word. Such is not a “do it once and it is done” type of thing.

While mentioning those of various churches who participated with (fellowshipped) the Franklin and/or Billy Graham Festivals/Crusades as being change agents, I wondered why Brother Watson did not mention others who had fellowship with F. LaGard Smith and others like him when they spoke at Freed-Hardeman University Lectureships as well as David Lipscomb Lectureships.

One thing I especially like about Brother Watson’s article is that he closed it with II John 9-11 and an application of that passage. It is wonderfully refreshing to see that passage of God’s Word discussed in journals other than just in Living Oracles! He said, “Only those who abide in the doctrine of Christ have fellowship with God and Christ. All who abide not in the doctrine of Christ have no fellowship with God. Any that bring not the doctrine of Christ should not be received/accepted into our fellowship. Those who bid Godspeed to evil become partakers of such evil. May God’s children hear and heed the Bible doctrine of fellowship and oppose and reject the change agents and their false view” (p. 11). Amen, Brother Watson. Preach on!

As a side note to this brief writing, I was also happy to see the Spiritual Sword devote an edition to the subject of fellowship. While some have been quick to rebuke some of us who write for Living Oracles because we sometimes called the names of individual false teachers and discussed specific cases of false doctrine and fallowship it seems that more are “seeing the light”!

Come on in, boys, the water is rather warm, but the exercise is great!

Review of “Change Agents and Leadership” by Marvin L. Weir
Ronald D. Gilbert

The October 2002 issue of the Gospel Journal (GJ) was entitled “Special Theme: The Change Agent Movement.” I want to say a few things about this issue of the GJ and some other matters and then a brief review of brother Marvin Weir’s article. The GJ dealt with some very timely issues – the cover page list:

What Is a Change Agent?
Change Agents and Fellowship
Change Agents and the New Hermeneutics
Change Agents and Worship
Change Agents and Salvation
Change Agents and Leadership
Change Agents and Their Use of Schools and Gatherings

I was glad to see the GJ deal with these topics. Change agents and those who fellowship them, I believe to be the pressing issue that needs to be discussed in the church today. For the past several years, the men here at Tennessee Bible College have been writing and seeking to warn brethren about the change agents and false teachers among us. I invite the reader to go back and read Living Oracles issues Oct/Nov 1999, March 2000, Feb. 2001, March 2001, April/May 2001, Aug. 2002, and Feb. 2002. These issues of Living Oracles are not cited to say we are the only ones to speak out but to say we have been speaking out. Some have accused us of being radical or unbalanced because of our efforts to warn brethren.

I find it strange that the GJ refused to receive a paid advertisement from TBC, but they can advertise lectureships with men speaking who have been on other programs with change agents (see Living Oracles June 2002 front page for a copy of a letter from Dub McClish to David Hill). In brother McClish’s letter he stated, “We could/should be fighting the great apostasy together, but it cannot happen as long as you fellows continue to viciously attack and challenge for debate men who have for several decades hated and opposed liberalism and false doctrine every bit as much as you all do. Some of us will be willing for anyone to compare our records of opposing error and preaching the truth with your father’s [brother McClish is referring to Malcolm Hill] any time.” Since you made the invitation, brother McClish, let’s examine your record in this very issue, October 2002 of the GJ.

Since you are the editor, I am assuming you are in agreement with the articles in this issue of GJ. And I know you have the power to include or exclude advertisements because you refused ours. On page 29 of the GJ October 2002 issue, brother Jerry Murrell writes a good article on “Change Agents – Their Use of Schools.” He points out liberal programs like the Orlando Spiritual Growth Workshop and their 2002 speakers, which included John Clayton, Marlin Connelly, Charles Hodge, Everett Hafford, Dennis Jones, Keith Lancaster, Cecil May, Jim McGuiggan, Ronnie Norman, Calvin Warpula, and Larry West. Then on page 7 of this same issue of the GJ, there is an advertisement for Florida School of Preaching Lectureship. Among the speakers is W. E. Hamblen. Heritage Christian University on their web page lists Willie Hamblen as an adjunct faculty member. Brother Hamblen was on the IBC lectureship program September 27–30, 2000. The same Dennis Jones that brother Murrell was exposing, brother Hamblen is fellowshipping. Heritage Christian University (formerly IBC) 2002 Lectures lists as speakers Harold Taylor, Jerry Jenkins, W. B. Hamblen, Charles Hodge, and others. It doesn’t seem to be very consistent, brother McClish, to allow men to write articles exposing change agents, then the GJ advertise those who fellowship them on other programs. Pointing out these types of inconsistencies have caused some to call TBC radical or unbalanced. Sometimes brethren don’t know some of these connections, and we should be patient with them if they are ignorant.

Also, the Tahoe Family Encampment July 20–27, 2002 in Lake Tahoe, California lists their speakers as: George Bailey, V. P. Black, Marlin Connelly, Mike Crowley, Jack Evans, Jr., Jack Exum, Jim Gardner, Tom Holland, Eli Hooper, Bill Humble, Paul Shero, John Smith, Mike Hackett, Kerry Williams, Stan Williams, and Willard Tate (and others being confirmed).

Again, in brother Murrell’s article in GJ page 29, he lists Marlin Connelly as being among the speakers on this digressive program. But then again on page 7 of the GJ, in the Florida School of Preaching lineup is V. P. Black. Brother Black was at Tahoe with Marlin Connelly and a host of other false teachers. If brother Black was there to speak out against these false brethren, then God bless him, but if there to speak on his assigned topic and fellowship these false teachers, then I hope he will consider his actions. Tom Holland is also scheduled to be on the Florida School of Preaching lectures, but he was on the same program in California as brother Black. It seems to be that the GJ includes articles speaking out against change agents then promotes lectureships or runs their advertisements with men who seemingly have no standards as to where they will speak and with whom they will appear!

Now concerning brother Marvin L. Weir’s article in the GJ, I thought he did a great job dealing with change agents and leadership. He dealt with the authority of elders and had some good material. A side point concerning elders – I have often wondered why men like Jack P. Lewis, who teaches false doctrine on elders having no authority, can be used in journals like the Spiritual Sword. Do these brethren not consider it a matter of consequence? Is a man a radical or unbalanced who would oppose Jack P. Lewis appearing on a lectureship with supposed faithful brethren?

Brother Malcolm Hill has called for a debate, and it appears one is needed. Is it wrong to appear on lectureship programs with change agents and known false teachers without rebuking them? Some brethren are saying yes while others are saying by word and action no! Which is true, brethren? We at TBC say it is wrong. Why not have someone who teaches by word or practice to step forward and debate this critical issue.

To show the need for such a debate, a few years ago a preachers was in correspondence with Mack Lyon concerning brother Lyon’s appearance on the Lipscomb lectureship with Joe Beam. Brother Lyon wrote him back and said he didn’t know Joe Beam and that he spoke at a dinner for friends of the Search television program, but he had no part in the lectureship. Then in an attempt to justify his actions, he cited an example. Brother Lyon said, “I also rode on an airplane with two Baptist preachers to get there, but I do not consider that as having fellowship with them or giving endorsement to Baptist doctrines.” It is quite obvious a debate on fellowship is needed when men like Mack Lyon do not see the difference in being a part of Lipscomb’s lectureship and riding on an airplane with two Baptist preachers.

Next in brother Weir’s article he mentions Dave Miller. He points out some things about brother Miller and the practice of “reaffirmation of elders.” Brother Miller is another man who apparently feels it is alright to be on programs with change agents and false teachers. In his book Piloting the Strait on page 505 under the heading of “Dances With Wolves” brother Miller said:


They are no longer described as “false teachers” who promote “false doctrine.” Now they simply “challenge our thinking” or “broaden our horizons.” Rather than being duly noted and avoided (Rom. 16:17), they continue to operate freely and even function in influential capacities (e.g., staff writers for publishing companies and magazines). They are given latitude to voice their false ideas through major brotherhood publications. They continue to be used as guest speakers in pulpits and on lectureship platforms. We no longer call for repentance as John did in Matthew 3:7-8. Now we “negotiate merger” and “reconciliation” or seek unity.

If we expect to please God, if we desire the church to survive these satanic assaults from within, we simply must adhere to God’s guidelines for dealing with false teachers (Rom. 16:17; Gal. 6:1; Eph. 43:14-15; 5:11; II Thess. 3:6; II Tim. 2:25-26; Tit. 3:10-11; Jas. 5:19-20; II Pet. 2:1-2; I Jn. 4:1; II Jn. 9-11). Amen to what brother Miller said in his book. But now consider his practice. By the way, brother Miller’s book is copyright 1996. My copy came from East Hill Church in Pulaski as a gift dated August 1996. Then the very next month September 25-28, 1996, he spoke on the IBC 25th Annual Workshop in Florence, Alabama, the theme was Striking the Balance. The speakers included: Willie Franklin, Charles Hodge, Tom Holland, Jimmy Jividen, David Lane, Jim Bill McInteer, Harold Taylor, Dave Miller, and others. Again, if brother Miller was there to rebuke these change agents and false teachers, then God bless him, but if not perhaps he should heed what he writes.

I thought brother Weir’s article on leadership was a good article. However, I fail to see how the GJ can feel consistent by refusing to run paid ads from TBC but can run ads from schools that promote men who are in fellowship with change agents and false teachers. May God helps us all to fight together in the battle against change agents and false teachers.

Bible Balance
Malcolm L. Hill

There is much being said these days about balance in preaching and in the work of the church. If we want to be balanced as God would have us to be, then we need to turn to the Bible and follow it. There is no greater balance in all the world than Bible balance. God who created all things gave balance to all things. Man sometimes does not agree with God but this is not the important thing. This only amounts to the fact that man is wrong and God is right. Man's disagreement with God does not counsel out the wisdom of God.

What is balance in preaching for now and eternity? We need to teach and preach on faith, repentance, confession, and baptism. We need to preach and teach about the worship of God as found in His Holy Word. What is God's plan for worship on the first day of the week? God demands that we preach, pray, give of our means, take the Lord's Supper, and sing in the congregation. Of course this must be done in spirit and in truth (John 4:24).

Balanced Christians, according to the Bible, put on the whole armour of God and stand up for Jesus and His Word (Eph. 6:10-17). Bible balance demands that we follow the Word of God wherever it may lead us (Col. 3:16-17). Bible balance means that we dare not bind on others what God has not bound and loose for others where God has not loosed (Matt. 16:19).

Bible balance teaches the Christian to help the poor and the needy. He may do so in a personal way and the church may do so as a whole if they so desire (James 1:27). There is not one single pattern in the Bible for helping the poor and needy.

Christians may have Sunday School if they wish and they may not if they so desire. This is left up to the elders where there are elders and it is left to the individuals of a congregation where they have no elders. I can see no reason not to have Sunday School or Bible Study. Christian balance demands that we have Bible authority for all things.