How Important is the Holy Spirit Controversy?
Kerry Duke

God told Abraham that his son Isaac would have many descendants (Gen. 17:19-20).  But before Isaac had any children, God told Abraham to offer him for a burnt offering (Gen. 22:2).  This fact was clear to Abraham:  Isaac would live and have children.  But how could he have children if Abraham killed him?  Abraham thought of an answer.  He believed God would raise Isaac from the dead after he had offered him (Heb. 11:17-19).  This is why he told the young men, "I and the lad will go yonder and worship and come again to you" (Gen. 22:5).  Abraham was right in believing that Isaac would live to have children.  This is what God said.  But Abraham was wrong about how God would accomplish this.  God had not revealed to him how he would do this.  Though Abraham was mistaken in his belief, he did not sin in believing wrongly because he neither denied nor violated anything God had said.

Does the devil work in the world?  Does he tempt people?  Of course he does.  How does he work in the world?  How does he tempt us?  Does he speak to us today as he did to Eve?  I know of no one among us who says that he so speaks.  Some say he tempts us "through the world." They generally do not go farther and try to explain the meaning of "through the world" if there is a clear meaning.  But they do believe that temptation is real.  This view is a representative view of the devil's working.  Others say the devil acts on the world in the same way God acts on the world providentially—in an unseen, not a miraculous, manner.  This view says the devil does affect the physical world in some limited way.  This view is a mediated view of the devil's work today.  Others say he stirs rebellion in our minds in a non-miraculous, non-physical manner.  They agree with Albert Barnes that there are "furious suggestions of evil, and excitements to sin, which he may throw into the mind like fiery darts" (Notes on Ephesians, p.131).  This is a personal view of temptation.  Neither of these views says that Satan speaks to people directly today.  Neither of them says that devils possess people today.  Neither of them attributes any miraculous activity to the devil today.

Can these three groups fellowship each other?  Should they?  Should this issue be a cause of contention?  Should brethren spend hours debating the issue of how the devil works?  Does it matter what we believe about how the devil tempts us as long as we believe that he does and as long as we devote our lives to resisting temptation?  As long as our belief about how he tempts does not damn our soul, what difference does it make? Why would we argue and divide over this issue when the world is covered with sin and the church is attacked by it on every side?

The Bible says Satan "put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him" (John 13:2).  Luke says "Then entered Satan into Judas" (Luke 22:3).  Satan "filled" the heart of Ananias (Acts 5:3).  Satan "provoked" or "moved" David to number Israel (I Chron. 21:1; II Sam. 24:1).  Jesus said to Peter, "Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat" (Luke 22:31).  Satan had "bound" one poor woman with a crippling ailment for eighteen years (Luke 13:16).  His messenger buffeted Paul (II Cor. 12:7).  What do these statements mean?  How are we to interpret them?  How did the devil move David and sift Peter like wheat?  As long as we do not have views that deny human free will, the cessation of miraculous revelation, or some other biblical teaching, should we brand each other has heretics because we have different views or use different words to say the same thing?  If our differences will not send us to hell, does it make sense to spend half of our time arguing about this question?  We believe that the devil tempts us—that's the important part.  If we spend a lot of time arguing about how he tempts us, how are we going to have time to build ourselves up for when he does tempt us?  Why would brethren draw lines of fellowship on this matter?  Though the subject is intriguing and though having opinions is alright, who can we justify dividing over this issue?  Wouldn't this be shameful and ridiculous?  Even if a brother's reasoning about how the devil works is inconsistent in some points, why would we call him a heretic as long as he believes the fact that the devil does tempt us?  And even though statements of Scripture about the devil's workings are truth and all truth is of God, who would argue that a man's conclusions about the details of how the devil tempts man are as important as his convictions about resisting temptation?  Which is more important, being right about the intricate aspects of how the devil tempts us or resisting temptation when it comes our way?

Does one's view of how the devil tempts us make him one whit stronger in resisting temptation?  Does any one of the views of temptation we have mentioned safeguard a person against temptation any better than the others?  In the end, when he is feeling the pressure of temptation, does a person's theory about how the devil tempts him make him any less likely to sin?  Was Peter thinking about how the devil was going to cause him to be sifted when the devil did sift him like wheat? When Peter denied the Lord, he was not thinking about theories of how the devil causes temptation.  He didn't even realize he was being sifted when he was sifted!

Who would think of creating camps of division over this issue?  Who would think of branding a brother as a heretic over this question and calling on him to repent?  Who can justify taking valuable time away from fighting a tidal wave of religious apostasy and moral decay to argue about  things we can't even see and certainly don't comprehend?  If resisting temptation is the critical part, and we all agree that it is, then shouldn't we put the emphasis there and leave it there?

Brethren can and should fellowship each other though they disagree on this topic.  A brother who goes on a campaign to push his view of this, feeling that he has come to the kingdom for such a time as this, has things entirely out of proportion.  A brother who thinks he is a champion of the faith because he has convinced others that a view of the subject that differs from his is a damnable doctrine doesn't even know what a damnable doctrine is.  A brother that jumps into a fight without understanding it is a fool and a brother who follows his friends and supporters instead of facing the real issues is a coward.

Dividing over how the unseen hand of Satan works is no more ludicrous than dividing over how the unseen hand of God works.  To be consistent, if we're going to press the one to the point of division, then we must press the other.  Consider the work of angels.  The Bible says they are ministering spirits (Heb. 1:14); on this point we agree.  But what do they do?  How do they minister?  In what ways do they intervene in the course of human affairs?  How did the angel "fight with the prince of Persia" (Dan. 10:20)?  We agree that they do not work miraculously.  They do not reveal themselves today as they did in Bible times; they do not deliver verbal revelation today.  As long as we do not attribute miraculous, revelatory activity to them today, and as long as our theories do not deny the Scriptures in some other point, what difference does it make to our salvation what we believe about their work?  What purpose would be served by being dogmatic to the point of drawing lines of fellowship over this issue?  Consider the broader subject of God's special providence.  Do we comprehend how it works?  Do we even begin to understand how God answers prayer and intervenes in the world without removing man's free will?  Do we know how God protects us when he pray, "Lord, please keep us safe as we travel"?  Do we understand how God answers a brother's prayer like "Lord, please help the speaker to remember what he has prepared to say"?  Anyone who thinks he has the answers to these questions is unaware of his own ignorance.  And a pat answer like "Well, God does these things through natural law" is a hollow response.  If God actually works through the physical environment to accomplish His providential purposes, then He must act upon that environment, that is, He must do something to it.  Brethren are often imprecise and incorrect in their choice of words on this topic. They sometimes make statements about providence without realizing, much less believing, the implications of what they have said; and yes, it is good to clarify the nature of providence because of this misunderstanding.  But if they believe in providence in the end, why should they be labeled as heretics?  If they pray, teach others to pray, and believe God answers prayer, then why should we withdraw fellowship from them?  As long as brethren do not affirm a miraculous view of God's work in the world today, why should we quarrel about our differences and divide over this issue while liberalism is killing the church?  What is the difference between providence and miracles?  The essential difference is that miracles can be verified by the senses, while providence cannot.  Why then would brethren divide over what they cannot see and understand?

If dividing over how the devil tempts us is unjustified, then so is dividing over how God the Holy Spirit helps us.  We agree that He does not work miracles or impart revelation today.  We agree that the strengthening of Ephesians 3:16 is non-miraculous.  We agree that it does not violate man's free will.  We agree on the nature and limits of this strengthening, and yet brethren quarrel endlessly and refuse to fellowship each other over the question of the unseen hand of God in this matter!  How can brethren justify this when their fierce debating amounts to this: arguing over theories of divine providence!  If brethren are going to divide over this issue, then why don't they divide over theories of temptation?  Why don't they divide over speculations about the work of angels?  And why stop there?  Why don't we divide over how our spirit dwells in us and how it leaves the body?  What difference does it make how the strength comes as long as we reject the miraculous idea of giving it?  One brother says the Spirit acts providentially on the physical realm to affect the Christian's spirit.  Another brother says the Spirit affects the Christian's spirit in a spiritual way without the link of the physical medium. But the effect is the same.  The result is non-miraculous and non-revelatory.  In either case, God is acting.  The theories differ, but the basic beliefs and the end result are the same.  So why on earth are brethren acting as if this difference in theory is a weightier matter of the law and the greatest doctrinal challenge to the church of the Lord in this century?

Tossing around words like deism and Calvinism without understanding what these words mean only bogs the controversy down even more.  Most deists believed in providence.  It was the miraculous, and more particularly special revelation, that they denied, and that for political more than theological reasons.  Calvin was not a Pentecostal, and his idea of illumination was not the same as the belief that the Spirit directly strengthens the spirit of Christians in a non-miraculous way.  Calvin's doctrine of illumination was that the Spirit imparts understanding and grace by removing the blindfold of original sin.

Brethren have been debating how the Spirit dwells in the Christian and what he does non-miraculously for decades.  Brethren who are now severing fellowship over the question of the Spirit strengthening the Christian's spirit have said for years that we should not divide over how the Spirit indwells the Christian.  Some believe the Spirit dwells in a representative sense in the Christian through the Word.  Others believe the Spirit dwells in the Christian in a personal, literal, but non-miraculous sense.  The representative camp maintains that the personal view is wrong.   Some even say it is preposterous.  Some in the representative camp make the ridiculous argument. "If you say the Holy Spirit dwells in you literally and personally, that makes you Deity."  Yet they have not made this difference a test of fellowship.  They say we can disagree on this issue without marking each other as false teachers.  But why didn't brethren make this a test of fellowship years ago?  Why don't these brethren make this a matter of fellowship?  I am not saying that we should.  I don't believe we should.  But if the brethren who are making the current controversy over the Holy Spirit a test of fellowship would spend more time with this question, the whole controversy might diminish.  The standard reply, "Well, we don't make the indwelling question a matter of fellowship because it doesn't affect anything in the doctrine and practice of the Christian life" is not even examined by those who use it.  What is meant by "it doesn't affect anything in the doctrine and practice of the Christian life"?  Why can't brethren see that if this statement applies to the indwelling issue, it applies to any question about the non-miraculous work of the Spirit.

Brethren have devoted an enormous amount of time and energy to these questions while apostasy has taken much of the church.  Are you proud of your part in this?

Editorial

I don't know how many times I have been asked in the past twenty-five years, where is the liberal, digressive, side to the church of Christ headed?  I must say for some time I have been puzzled about the matter.  "Will the liberal element in the church of Christ get themselves a new name", I have asked myself.  "Will they keep the name church of Christ and go sailing on the ocean of religion wherever they wish," I have thought.  Just where are the liberals and the "non-traditionalists" headed and what will be their end?  I must go to some restoration history to make my case.

The real work of restoration history in this country goes back to 1800, give or take a little.  The church of Christ did a tremendous job of returning to the New Testament order of things from 1800 until 1849, at which time the Missionary Society issue rose up and sowed discord among the brethren.  Then ten years later in 1859 instrumental music was introduced into the worship of churches of Christ and this produced much more trouble among them.  Then from 1860 to 1865 the churches of Christ faced the civil war issue which sowed much more division in the church and brought about much confusion.  So it could be truthfully said that from 1849 until 1906 there was all kinds of confusion and division in the church of Christ.

By 1906 there was so much confusion and division in the church of Christ and the gap between brethren had become so wide they had to separate, thus we had the birth of the Christian church.  The liberal element went with the Christian church and the faithful brethren stayed with the church of Christ.  The Christian church took 85% of our brotherhood with them in 1906.  The Christian church took 85% of our church buildings in 1906 as well as the preachers' homes and the other property of our brethren.  In 1906 the Christian church took most of our large congregations thus they took most of the money with them.  We lost 39 of the major institutions of higher learning to the Christian church in 1906.  In 1906 the Christian church took 6,640 preachers with them leaving the church of Christ with only 2,100 ministers.  The Christian church membership in 1906 was 982,701 while the church of Christ had 159,658 members.

Other statistics could be cited to show you what happened in 1906 but those given will suffice.  The faithful brethren were told to hit the road if they did not like what was going on, even though many of them had given sweat, blood, tears, land, and hard labor to make the church what it was in those years.  The Christian schools of those years were brought into existence by men who loved the Lord and who by great sacrifice gave to make them possible.  Most of these schools still exist today but all of them have gone into liberalism and digression more or less.  Sad, sad, indeed!

Now, where is the church of Christ today and what is going to be her windup?  The church of Christ today (January, 2004) is where the church of Christ was in 1906.  Most large churches of Christ have joined in practice the Christian church along with a number of the smaller ones.  Many preachers in the church of Christ have joined the Christian church even though they have not declared it by word but their deeds and their preaching will prove it so.  Many members have already joined in heart and soul the Christian church that took over the churches of Christ almost totally in 1906. Many have said to me, "Brother Hill, why don't those liberal, digressive, preachers among us today get out of the church of Christ and join the denominations because they believe as the denominations do?"

The reason the liberal preachers in the church of Christ have not done this is because they would lose their standing, their salary, and they would have to start at the bottom of denominationalism.  This they are not about to do because their vain pride and their glory-seeking spirit is too great.  They want to be at the top of the ladder and not on the bottom rung.

We ask again, "where is the larger portion of the church of Christ headed and where will it wind up?"  She is headed to the Christian church as it did in 1906.  The Christian church will be glad to receive them because it raises their membership considerably and it gives the Christian church preachers great satisfaction to think they have won the battle again over the true churches of Christ.  On the other hand, the liberal preachers in the church of Christ will be given great prominence in the Christian church because the Christian church is willing to pay this price for membership gained along with the many side benefits such as evangelism, money, power, recognition, preaching appointments, a broadening of fellowship and brotherhood, etc.  The Christian church is happy wit the deal and the liberals in the church of Christ are happy with the deal, especially the preachers and many leaders in the church.

Another thing that needs to be noticed in this merging of the Christian church and the liberal wing of the church of Christ is that of fellowship.  Men like John York, Jeff Walling, Rubel Shelly, Glover Shipp, Jack Reese, Tom Olbrict, Prentice Meador, Don McLaughlin, John Mark Hicks, Randy Harris, Joe Beam, Lynn Anderson, Mike Cope, and around 250 others on the 2004 Pepperdine lectures are already with the Christian church when it comes to practice of unscriptural Christian fellowship.  The liberals in the church of Christ want to fellowship whoever they wish in religion and there are still those in the church of Christ that will not permit such but the Christian church will.  So the transition from the church of Christ to the Christian church by the liberals in the church of Christ fits into their plan well.  By joining hands with the Christian church they can fellowship and be a part of the Billy Graham Crusades, Trinity Network, Promise Keepers, or any other denominational outfit they wish and still be in good standing in the Christian Church.  This makes the liberals at Abilene Christian University, Harding University and Harding Graduate School of Religion in Memphis, Tennessee, David Lipscomb University, Pepperdine University, and all other liberals in church of Christ Universities, celebrities int eh Christian church and this is where these liberals want to be.  They want to maintain their superiority and notoriety and this they can do in the Christian church and still participate in and be a part of any religious fellowship they wish.  And don't forget the money side of the situation.

Will the joining of the church of Christ and the Christian church in the 2000's cause the liberal churches of Christ to change their name from church of Christ to the Christian church?  Some may change their name and some may not.  Some of these liberal churches of Christ will be like some Christian churches today who still go by the name church of Christ even though they are Christian churches in reality.  And what about the name?  Who knows what some of these church will do along this line?  They may be called by any number of names selected.  Keep in mind, they care not for Bible and Bible authority.  When people leave the Bible they always roam where they wish to roam and in most cases they split and split on down the line.

There are many proofs of what I have written in this article.  The Pepperdine lectures of 2004 is sufficient proof.  On page 13 of their lectureship book there is a panel and they will be discussing ARE CHURCHES OF CHRIST AND CHRISTIAN CHURCHES EVANGELICAL?  They have Christian church preachers on this panel.  Now what do you say?  The 2004 lectures of Abilene Christian University are just as bad and are equal to the same things.  Brethren, Most churches of Christ are not going to go into the Christian church; they have ALREADY GONE there along with most higher institutions of learning we have in the church of Christ.  The day is on us and what is your disposition?
-Malcolm L. Hill

Liberal Churches of Christ and the Christian Church
Ronald D. Gilbert

Many in the Lord's church have watched with sad hearts and amazement over the past several years as many congregations are rushing headlong into denominationalism.  Unlike the Restoration Movement  of years gone by where congregations were renouncing denominational error, many today are going as fast they can into denominationalism.

Have you considered the similarities between the liberal movement among churches of Christ and the Christian church?  Notice the following similarities:

Liberal movement among churches of Christ:

1. View self as a part of the Restoration movement, often talk about our heritage, our movement--the Christian church does the same thing.
2. View self as a part of the saved, they often talk about our brethren in denominations  -  so does the Christian church.
3. Believe the lines of fellowship have been drawn too narrow, they trade pulpits with denominations—same goes for the Christian church.
4. They practice open fellowship; willing to fellowship all believers in Jesus — the same has been done for years in the Christian church.
5. They practice open membership, willing to let people move their membership from their former denomination, without further acts of obedience -  so does the Christian church.
6. Promote unity in diversity, often encourage diversity, they don't believe God expects us to see the Bible alike—same goes for the Christian church.
7. Willing to participate with other religions on lectureships and programs without speaking out—so does the Christian church.
8. Are not willing to be dogmatic on truth or debate—same for the Christian church.
9. Don't believe those who have not obeyed the gospel of Christ will be lost; often say we are not the judge of who will be saved—so says the Christian church.
10. Do not believe one must be baptized believing certain things about baptism before they are saved; many even deny baptism is essential to salvation—same for the Christian church.
11. Have false views on all sufficiency of the Bible; some are claiming Holy Spirit talks with them—the same is done in the Christian church.
12. Believe we need a new hermeneutic in order to understand the Bible in today's world—same thing for Christian church.
13. Believe the Bible can only be understood in view of culture—as does the Christian church.
14. Make a distinction between doctrine of Christ and doctrine about Christ — as does the Christian church.
15. Believe the church and its policies must change with the times—same for the Christian church.
16. Do not understand the principle of the silence of the scripture; they often argue if the Bible does not explicitly condemn a thing then it is authorized—so does the Christian church.
17. Have false views of faith, grace, and works and harmonizing them.  Often exalt one to the exclusion of the others—as does the Christian church.
18. Hold false views on nature of God, Christ, Holy Spirit, miracles — same thing for the Christian church.
19. Have a broad unbiblical view of the role of women in the church, often allow them in leadership roles in worship — the Christian church does the same thing.
20. Have no problem with special music in worship, choirs, singing groups, even instrumental music — as does the Christian church.
21. Believe the Lord's Supper should be a celebration no a memorial — same thing done in the Christian church.
22. Lord's Supper is taken on special occasions other than first day of the week, at marriage ceremonies, special lectures, or unity meetings — same thing occurs in Christian church.
23. Have softened their views on sin, such as social drinking, gambling, homosexuality — as has the Christian church.
24. Have softened view on marriage, divorce and remarriage; no longer hold that only innocent party may put away guilty and remarry; many are saying one cannot live in adultery ; adultery is covenant breaking, not a sex act—same for the Christian church.
25. Believe there is nothing in a name, many are changing to community church, or family of God or any name they choose—same thing goes for the Christian church.

These are but a few comparisons showing the likenesses between the liberal element among churches of Christ and the Christian churches.  Several years ago the Christian churches made their decision to leave the churches of Christ.  They viewed themselves as progressive; they felt they were being held back by the conservative views of some in the church.  About 85% left the Lord's church and formed the Christian church denomination.  During the past almost 100 years, has the Christian church drawn closer to God's Word or drifted further and further away from the Bible?  Many in the church today do not realize just how serious this battle with the liberal element among us really is.  Brethren, it is later than we think in some places.  Some of the liberal churches among us today only require one thing to show to the world that they are now a part of the Christian church denomination or some other.  The one thing is to take down the old sign at their building and put up their new one.  During the Restoration movement many brethren did not enter the fight against the liberal element.  We have the same mentality among us today with many not willing to stand for truth and many times criticize those who do.

Where will you be worshiping 20 years from now, brethren, with the Christian church or the church of Christ?

A Review
Malcolm L. Hill

The Bible teaches plainly and simply that God's faithful people are not to fellowship false teachers and false doctrine knowingly and intentionally.  Notice, "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them" (Eph. 5:11).  God tells the Christian what not to do in this  text and then He tells them what to do.  What is the Christian not to do according to Ephesians 5:11?  He is to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness.  Please understand that no fellowship does not mean some fellowship.  From Ephesians  5:11 what is the Christian to do relative to the unfruitful works of darkness?  The faithful child of God is to rebuke the unfruitful works of darkness.

In Romans 16:17 we are told, "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and  avoid them."  Romans 16:17 falls in line with Ephesians 5:11, doesn't it?  To avoid means not to have any fellowship with those mentioned in the text.  Many of our brethren have gotten after the Baptist preachers for not obeying Mark 16:16, but they have turned around and have not obeyed Romans 16:17.  Romans 16:17 is just as plain as Mark 16:16 and Christian fellowship is just as much a salvation issue as water baptism is (I John 1:6-7; II John 9-11, Rom. 16:17).

For the past 25 or 30 years I have written volumes on the unscriptural practice of fellowship within the churches of Christ and within our colleges and universities.  I waited some time to let brethren search out and seek out the truth about the matter but most of them did not do what they should.  After having seen they were not going to do as they should according the  scriptures, I then began to press harder in writing and in preaching on the subject of Christian fellowship. Even though I did so it did not seem to register with most preachers and congregations and it certainly did not register with the Christian college and universities among us.  So I then go as plain as I knew how to be on the subject.  I did not do this to be mean and unkind but the love I think  I have for the church and the truth pushed me to do so. The Bible teaches us to love God supremely (Matt. 22:37-39).  We are to love God above our kin folks and family and our friends (Matt. 10:35-39).  I know I made enemies because I set forth the truth (Gal. 4:16) about Christian fellowship.  But souls are too precious for us to hold back the truth that is needed.

Some may say I was too fast to do as I have done relative to the subject of Christian fellowship.  God will judge me in this and time will tell if I have been right or wrong.  Some have said the calling of names was unnecessary but how can we point out false doctrine and false teachers unless we call name (I. Tim. 1:20, II John 9-10, Rom. 16:17)?  I have never known a false doctrine that did not have a name or names attached to it, have you?  We have been accused of extremism by some but no one can point out where we have been extreme and very few have tried to answer us and our stand.

Things are now beginning to happen and we rejoice that they are happening for the truth's sake.  In the January, 2004, issue of the Gospel Advocate  the Advocate staff gives a warning of 10 books that could prove hazardous to one's spiritual health.  They give a picture of the books and the authors.  May God bless them for doing so.  Are they extremists for doing this?  Those guilty would probably say so but the right thinking person knows better than this.  Then in the January 2004 issue of The Search Light on the front page they state that the SEARCH LUNCHEON AT THE ANNUAL OKLAHOMA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY LECTURESHIP is cancelled because of the program this year.  This is name calling, isn't it?  Is it wrong or extreme?  We think not.  The kind of things we have mentioned should have been done a long time ago and we would have saved a sizable portion of the church that is already lost to liberalism along with all our schools of higher learning.  Some of the schools are further out than others but all of them need to return more or less.

I am ready to let bygones be bygones with all those who are ready to join hands and hearts and fight this liberal mess with all our might.  It is not our desire to fight those good and righteous souls in the churches of Christ.  On the other hand, we will never give in to those truth distorters and denominational minds found within the churches of Christ.

Let's Make Worship Beautiful!
Tim McHenry

Earth-shattering bulletin from the Area Wide church of Christ...

"Phase One of our Worship revamp has already been completed and the results have been just AWESOME!  The microphones were placed in front of just the right people to give us that wonderful sound on Sunday.  And you thought we didn't have a choir!  Neither a single untrained visitor's voice, nor the sound of a single southern hick was heard, thanks to Buffy turning up the amplifier during our service of Praise.  Give her a pat on the back, she did such a wonderful job; I don't think I could have done much better myself.

Well, that brings me to Phase Two.  A few days ago some of the most faithful from church were at my house for some edifying fellowship.  As we sat around in our shorts watching some funny movie—a spiritual bomb hit me!  What if all these beautiful young people were seen everywhere on Sunday in the pews!   Not just a few of them, but everywhere you turned there was a beautiful face.  How are we going to make that possible?  I'll share this much with you and the elders.  When you come Sunday, don't ask what's wrong with the lights.  You see, just like some people have mics at their seat, there are some special places that will now be spotlighted to show off those beautiful faces.

Why are we telling you this?  We need your help.  When someone who doesn't have the gift of looks comes in, just direct them to a darker place away from the spotlighted pew sections.  I am sure this will make our worship just so exciting!.  COME AND SEE US IN BRIGHT LIGHTS ON SUNDAY!!!"

If you think the above announcement is ridiculous, just ask yourself this: How is it different from what many think is worship today?  Listen to the sermons  - full of exciting stories from anything but the Bible, and about anyone but a Biblical character.  Read the mailed church bulletins—if you can even find the plan of salvation in any form it is surprising.  Ask some church members: "What does reverence mean?" "What is honor?"  "How do you show virtue?"  See what kind of answers you get.  Look at the membership: how many churches grow by a method other than getting members from sister congregations?  We are slipping brethren, and it's not a pretty sight.

Church Shopping
Malcolm L. Hill

It is not unusual to talk with certain people about finding a church with which to worship and of which to be a part.  I call it church chopping because that is what it is with most people.  They are not looking for a congregation that really loves and follows the Bible.  They are not looking for a preacher that will preach the whole counsel of God and who knows and studies the Bible.  They are not looking for elders that really and truly oversee the flock of God (Acts 20:28).  They are not looking for a congregation that has real, genuine, knowledgeable Bible school teachers.  They are not looking for a church that is truly God's city set on a hill.  They are looking for a church that will let them do and believe what they please.  They are looking for a popular church with a people-pleasing preacher.  They are looking for a church (whether they know it or not) that will take them and their flesh and blood to hell.  How sad, how sad!!!