Turning Points in Churches of Christ
Kerry Duke

A ship of destruction has landed in Zion.  Brethren should have seen it coming. The liberal movement has been gradually inching its way into the church for years.  It began with preachers who tested the waters by tossing out questions about our teaching on baptism, instrumental music, and other matters of doctrine.  Those preachers then began to indoctrinate, claiming that “traditional” church of Christ teaching is more rooted in the Stone-Campbell movement than it is in Scripture.  Now those preachers and the churches they have influenced are on the offensive.  They have declared war, attacking the fundamentals of the New Testament church and mocking respect for Bible authority.  The brotherhood is in turmoil.  Congregations have divided; others are on the verge.  Schools and papers that were once conscientious about pleasing God now care little about following the Bible.  The spirit of liberalism has invaded the people of God—again.

Brethren who disagreed with the liberal agenda ten years ago should have been speaking out against it.  But many of them did little.  If they spoke against it at all, their words were too general and soft to hinder the aggressive march of liberalism.  These brethren said they rejected this movement, but they continued to work with liberal leaders.  They refused to confront and expose these digressive men, and they condemned anyone who did expose them.  Their approach was to be positive and not create a scene.  They told themselves and others that things were not all that bad in the church.  All the while, the liberal movement was eating away at the church like a cancer.  Step by step, they gained control of positions of influence.  Doctrine by doctrine, they denied Bible truth.  Now virtually every biblical doctrine is spoken against by someone in this movement.  The situation is so bad now that allegedly conservative brethren who have been silent are speaking up and it is high time that they did.  They have acted like liberalism moves as suddenly as the disciples’ ship sailed to Capernaum.  They shut their eyes and would not look at the facts.  The devil does not appear in a red cape with a pitchfork.  Liberalism does not place a sign around its neck to announce to a church that it has arrived and intends to take over.  It works cunningly and by stealth.  It corrupts over periods of months and years.  It dulls the moral senses of Christians gradually, not so much by teaching outrightly things that are wrong but by not teaching things that are right.  After brethren have been put to sleep, then the spirit of liberalism stands up with all boldness and declares its victory and claims its rights.

Apostasy does not happen overnight, but its progressive nature is always the same.  Its nature is to get worse.  Once men adopt a permissive attitude, they follow it consistently and increasingly.  The Bible teaches this principle, and experience illustrates it.  “A little leaven leavens the whole lump” (I Cor. 5:7; Gal. 5:9).  “Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse” (II Tim. 3:13).  When Clark Gable cursed in Gone With The Wind, the direction was set.  Language in movies got worse and worse, and now look at it!  Many colleges in America began as theistic, Bible-teaching schools, but years of gradual compromise have turned them into schools of infidelity.  The same is true in the church, but some of our “conservative” brethren apparently thought this principle was outdated.  The signs were there. The writing was on the wall for all to see.  Now the liberal movement has taken over a large part of the brotherhood, and it refuses to go away or give back what it has taken.  Brethren who have tried to ignore the problem and be neutral are being pressed to decide.  Liberalism is in their face, and they can no longer be silent.

The year 2003 was not just a turning point in the church.  It was a time of declaration. Brethren on both sides of the liberal dispute have become more vocal.  Those who sympathized with the liberal agenda but would not openly endorse it now feel comfortable in professing it.  Those who silently opposed it now feel threatened by it and are speaking against it publicly.  The wagon was there all along; some were slow about getting on it and others were slow to warn against getting on it.  But the line of demarcation is clearer now.

Max Lucado as early as 1997 publicly denied the essentiality of baptism in an interview on Nashville television.  His doctrine and fellowship are unbiblical and ecumenical.  His best selling books appeal to Catholics and Protestants alike.  For years he was minister of the Oak Hills church of Christ in San Antonio, Texas.  This church began using instruments of music regularly in 2003 and dropped the name “church of Christ.”  Their website reads, “come join us for instrumental worship.”  The question many have raised (“why doesn’t he leave the churches of Christ if he doesn’t believe what we do?”) is now answered.  Lucado and Oak Hills have had a connection to churches of Christ in name only for some time; now they have dropped the name also.  Why did they break ties when they did?  Perhaps they got tired of the stigma of being associated with churches of Christ; denominations often look on us a legalistic cult.  Perhaps they got tired of waiting for other churches of Christ to change; maybe they gave up on converting the element of the church that resists this change.  Perhaps they just waited until the time was right in their own congregation; maybe the congregation wasn’t ready for an official severing of ties five years ago.  Whatever the reason, their transition is an open declaration to the brotherhood.  Will their example start a trend?  A number of other churches of Christ are such in name only—this may be the final drop they will make when they feel the time is right.  Dissatisfied preachers in the past left the church of Christ because they couldn’t change things fast enough.  Randy Mayieux was one of these preachers who departed over a decade ago.  Now these preachers are taking whole congregations with them step by step.

A number of brotherhood schools have made their intentions clear in recent months.  The campus of David Lipscomb University has become increasingly liberal in the last decade, but in 2003, President Steve Flatt made his stand known more brazenly than ever.  In the Spring of 2003, Lipscomb hosted a seminar on preaching.  The speaker was Fred Craddock, A disciples of Christ preacher.  This denomination is one of the most liberal groups in the country, yet brother Flatt had him to teach preachers how to preach.  In July, Lipscomb held its Summer Celebration.  Speakers included Joe Beam (who says God talks directly to him), Jeff Walling (who openly works with and endorses denominational works), and others of like spirit.  Brother Flatt virtually drew a line in the sand.  But who is surprised?  He has had no problem with fellowshipping Rubel Shelly and others for years.  He was a fellowspeaker with Max Lucado at the 1997 Jubilee in Nashville—the year Lucado announced on Nashville television his position on baptism.  Where has Steve Flatt ever voiced opposition to these liberal preachers?   The truth is that brother Flatt has been involved in the liberal movement for years. He is just more bold about it now.  In setting forth these speakers, he revealed an intention to reach out to a broader audience with broader thinking.

Freed-Hardeman University has fooled around with liberal people and liberal programs for several years.  In recent lectureships Freed-Hardeman has courted Abilene Christian University, one of the most liberal schools among us, by having some of their faculty to speak at the annual lectureship at Freed-Hardeman.  Abilene Christian has now reciprocated, and in February, 2004, Clyde Woods, a professor at Freed-Hardeman, spoke at the ACU lectureship alongside of Rubel Shelly, Leroy Garret, Don McLaughlin, and many others.    Two of the speakers were Robert Randolph from Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Lynn Mitchell from Houston, Texas.  Randolph and Mitchell defended the use of women preachers and women elders at a discussion forum in 1990.  This forum was held at Freed-Hardeman!  Now brother Woods has been a co-worker with Randolph and Mitchell in a lectureship.  At this same lectureship, Leroy Garrett publicly called the name of Freed-Hardeman University and criticized the teaching he received there in his early years.  Garrett said that the idea of “restoring” the New Testament church, as he was taught at Freed-Hardeman, was a mistaken view.  Yet Clyde Woods spoke three times at this lectureship, and if you listen to the tapes, you will not hear him say one word of opposition to the liberalism promoted on this very lectureship!

The liberal movement has grown so brazen and has affected so many that some brethren have felt pressed to make some end-of-the-year and New Year’s resolutions.  The Gospel Advocate began 2004 with a January issue that, compared to issues of recent years, came out swinging.  Four articles addressed the role of women in the church, an obvious rebuttal to liberal teaching on the subject.  But most interesting was a warning on pages 26-28: “The staff of the Gospel Advocate is concerned about the proliferation of books being published within our brotherhood advocating a disregard of many precious, biblical doctrines of the Lord’s church.”  These pages contain pictures of ten such books, the name of the authors, and a brief summary and response to each.  The list includes three books published by Abilene Christian University Press.  It also includes three books either written or co-written by teachers at David Lipscomb University!  One is Come To The Table, by John Mark Hicks.  Hicks says, “The premise of this book is that our practice of the supper as a silent, solemn, individualistic eating of bread and drinking of wine is radically dissimilar from the joyous communal meal that united Christians in the first century house churches.”  Another is The Jesus Proposal, by Rubel Shelly, and John O. York.  The Advocate observes, “The book mocks the church, ridiculing its narrowness and perceived rigidity.  It challenges practices that insist on baptism as a mark of salvation and that remove women from public roles.” Still another is Radical Restoration by F. LaGard Smith.  The Advocate says there are “serious problems” with this book.

It is good that the Gospel Advocate has exposed these works.  This paper has taken a public stance in opposition to the teaching found in these books.  In so doing, they have taken a bolder position in calling the names of false teachers, even printing pictures of their books!  Yes, the Gospel Advocate is calling names.  This was not uncommon in the Advocate of year ago, but it has given way to a milder spirit until now.  Their exposure of this material also sets them on a collision course with nearby David Lipscomb University, since three of their professors are criticized in the warning.  The May 2004 issue of the Advocate took an offensive stance again, warning brethren of the brotherhood division and again calling the names of Lipscomb professors Hicks and York (p. 13).

The Advocate has made a move—a dramatic move—in the right direction.  But the fact remains that the Advocate still has cleaning up to do.  Throughout this same issue are advertisements of the same liberalism found in those books.  Lipscomb University is advertised as “A distinctively Christian University.” The 2004 Faulkner University Lectureship, which is also advertised in this issue, honored Neil Anderson, Editor of the Advocate.  Among others speaking at this lectureship was Jim McGuiggan, a man notorious for fellowshipping groups like Pepperdine University.  Charles Hodge, whose endorsement appears on the front cover of John Edwards’ book Marriage and Divorce, (in which Edwards argues that polygamy is not condemned today) and who has worked in many liberal events, is a regular writer for the Advocate.  I hope that the  Advocate staff will face and confront these problems as well.  To be consistent, they must.

The Gospel Advocate is in the business of selling books, Bible school literature and supplies, and the journal itself.  Much of  their product line includes books like the Gospel Advocate Commentary Series, Questions and Answers by Guy N. Woods, and N. B. Hardeman’s Tabernacle Sermons.  This is the very type of writing that is scorned by liberal authors and preachers.  It is too conservative and too “traditional” for them.  The Bible class curriculum published by the Advocate does not appeal to many in this generation.  Times have changed.  The demand for solid, in-depth biblical studies has dwindled.  The more the liberal movement offers churches, the less books and literature the Advocate and similar publishers will sell.  These sellers will either have to adjust to changing market conditions and supply people with what they want or they will lose business.  Booksellers who refuse to market liberal material may go out of business.  Twenty-First Century Christian saw this change coming and adjusted—that is, they compromised.  Their catalog is full of books with heretical teaching and Bible class curriculum that is anything but Bible-centered.  They have chosen mammon over God.  The Advocate has chosen not to market this material, and for this decision we are thankful.

The economic recession of recent years has made booksellers more acutely aware of the impact of liberalism.  People have not had as much money to spend on religious literature as they had in the late nineties boom.  The war with Iraq in 2003 took the stock market lower and left wallets tightly closed. But all the while liberalism was spreading and becoming more outlandish.  The thousands who have been affected by it will not longer buy books by Guy Woods or J. W. McGarvey.  They are putting their money into books by Max Lucado.  This situation forces bookdealers to examine their convictions.  Of course, the financial aspect of this brotherhood shift is pressing others who are not in the business side of the situation to re-examine their principles.  Elders who oversee church budgets are feeling the pinch as members leave or threaten to leave for churches that offer a progressive, fun atmosphere.  Preachers are seeing what they are made of and why they preach because the number of churches who pay a full-time salary and tolerate, much less demand, solid Bible preaching is declining.  Schools, especially those that depend primarily or totally on brethren for support, are being tested.  Will they compromise to get money from liberal churches, or will they sacrifice money to keep the Truth?

Mac Lyon’s television program, "In Search of the Lord’s Way" has enjoyed having numerous supporters and viewers.  But brother Lyon evidently feels threatened by the increasing onslaught of liberalism.   In his December 2003 newsletter The Search Light, Lyon made some uncharacteristically aggressive statements about the dangers of liberalism.  Expressing concern over congregations leaving churches of Christ and warning that “others are, or will be, following soon,” Lyon called on supporters to “get behind this program with your prayers and your money.”  He insists that “this is no time to even consider ‘cutting back’ on preaching sound doctrine.” Then in the January 2004 issue of The Search Light, Lyon came out even more aggressively against liberalism.  He wrote: “We regret to announce that the 17th consecutive Search luncheon at the annual Oklahoma Christian University lectureship at noon on Monday January 26, 2004, has been cancelled.  We pray the lectureship program this year does not reflect the direction the new administration and the trustees want to take the school.” Brother Lyon is worried about the spread of liberalism.  He should be.  But why is he just now writing so boldly against it?  What has shocked him back into reality?  He writes, “In the absence of sound doctrine God is silenced.  You can silence God simply by doing nothing.”

The truth is, brother Lyon himself has been guilty of being silent.  The liberalism he is so worried about didn’t start in 2003.  It has been taking over churches for years, and brother Lyon himself has associated with liberal men and liberal works.  If anyone has silenced God by doing nothing, it is brother Lyon.  He has worked on liberal lectureships and in connection with liberal universities and has kept his mouth shut when he should have been crying out against this liberalism.  He warns readers of his newsletter against the liberal movement (although even there he gives no specifics about what this movement is), but why hasn’t he warned audiences at lectureships about the liberalism in their very midst?  Lyon has worked in lectureships or seminars with Steve Flatt (Granny White, Nashville, June 6, 1998; Lehman Avenue, Bowling Green, Kentucky, March 27, 1999), F. LaGard Smith (Westside, Norman, Oklahoma, September 25, 1999), Jack Evans (Faulkner Lectureship, 1998), and with a host of liberals at the 2003 Harding University Lectureship. There is a definite tone of alarm in his recent newsletter.  It is good to see him writing with concern about apostasy.  But the fact remains that Lyon himself has cooperated with the very movement he is worried about.

We are just beginning to see the changes the liberal movement has caused.  Leaders of the movement itself may be surprised.  They may not anticipate or agree with how far the next generation takes it.  I doubt that the leaders of the 1906 division which resulted in the Christian church foresaw that it would lead to the formation of the Disciples of Christ.  I doubt that those men in 1906 would agree with the ultra-liberal theology of present-day Disciples.  But they nonetheless initiated the loose attitude that eventually produced this group.  Similarly, Rubel Shelly is often credited with starting the ball of the liberal movement rolling in the early 1980’s.  But now the movement has clearly outgrown him.  Rubel’s teaching appealed to selfish and rebellious spirits, and now their offspring is twofold more the child of loose thinking than Rubel.  To the younger and even more liberal in the church, Rubel is too stiff and conservative.  He is too theological and intellectual, and is probably a bit too serious about hermeneutical theory and apologetics.  The new crowd wants younger, dynamic, entertaining speakers.  They want more celebration and more worshipful expression of the alleged movings of the Holy Spirit.  Rubel has no problem fellowshipping Pentecostals, but he is not one himself.  He doesn’t preach like one.  The new liberals don’t just want to hear that he will no longer condemn believing in modern-day tongue-speaking and miracles; they want to see something out of the ordinary.  They don’t want to hear Rubel say that churches of Christ have been narrow-minded in forbidding instrumental music in worship and women in leadership roles.  They want to see women in these roles, and they want to hear the music of instruments in worship. They don’t want to hear Rubel whining about growing up in a legalistic church.  That’s too negative.  They want to be thrilled and excited!  Though he prides himself in leading the movement in the past, the truth is that Rubel is getting older and cannot keep up with the demands of the upcoming modernistic church.  He will increasingly be less used by them and will be ignored at best and mocked at worst.  He created a monster that is beginning to turn against him.  But what else can one expect of preaching that appeals to the selfish, carnal side of people?

Perhaps these developments are signs that things are “coming to a head.”  Clearly a division has existed for years in churches of Christ over this issue.  Is a split like the one in 1906 imminent?  Time will tell.  For our part, nothing short of the courage of Elijah, the persistence of Nehemiah, and the conscientious zeal of Josiah will keep liberalism from spreading even farther.  It is good that brethren are beginning to wake up to the dangerous sounds of liberalism.  The question that remains is: will they get out of bed?

Editorial
Malcolm L. Hill

Dub McClish said the issue of how the Holy Spirit dwells in the Christian must be a fellowship issue.  Notice what he said in the February 2004, issue of The Gospel Journal on page 5.  “I am sometimes asked if this doctrine should be a fellowship issue.  It not only should be, it must be...”

The issue of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the Christian has been before the church for many, many years.  When I was in Freed-Hardeman University 1954-1957, this was always an issue that came up in the forum when Guy N. Woods was the moderator.  Brother Woods and brother Gus Nichols differed on how the Holy Spirit indwelled the Christian.  Brother Woods thought it was through the Word of God only and brother Nichols thought the Holy Spirit in His persons dwelt in the Christian.  Did brother Nichols think that this should be a fellowship issue?  Notice what he had to say about the matter.  “I see no reason for disturbance among us over this question so long as all believe and teach that the Holy Spirit does dwell in faithful and obedient children of God in some way.  The honest but misguided interpretations which may be made in trying to show how the Spirit dwells in us should not, by those on either side, disrupt brotherly love and unity, and ravage our brotherhood.  There are many reasons why one’s position as to how the Holy Spirit dwells in us should never be made a test of fellowship.  The only reason which needs to be stated now is, that ao all who obey the gospel from the heart, the promise will be fulfilled as God planned it, whether or not we understand “how” the Spirit dwells in us.” (Lectures On The Holy Spirit by Gus Nichols, p. 155.)

Notice what brother Guy N. Woods had to say about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  “The Holy Spirit dwells in the hearts of Christians today.  What may be properly and logically deduced from passages asserting that “The ...Spirit...dwelleth...in you?”  That the Spirit is in us today!  But do such passages designate the manner or mode of indwelling?   They do not.  Is it possible to learn from a passage merely declaring that the Spirit is in us, how he thus dwells?  It is not.  What then, was the design of inspiration in asserting that the Holy Spirit dwells in the followers of the Lord?  To evidence the fact thereof; and, the consequent blessing; not the manner or mode of its accomplishments.” (Freed-Hardeman Open Forum 1976, p. 277).

Brother Woods goes on to tell his view of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the Christian.  He nowhere ever at any time indicated that they way the Holy Spirit dwelt in a Christian should be a fellowship issue nor did Thomas B. Warren who differed with brother Woods.  I know of no reputable gospel preacher who ever hinted that how the Holy Spirit indwells the Christian should be a fellowship issue.  The Memphis School of Preaching crowd along with Dub McClish have made it a fellowship issue.  If the Memphis School of Preaching brethren do not agree with Dub McClish, then let them declare it in an open way where all will know.  Will their religious politics keep them from doing so?  We shall see.

Let me point out some glaring inconsistencies and they are hypocritical inconsistencies because the Memphis School of Preaching brethren and Dub McClish and his crowd know what I am herewith pointing out.  McClish cannot have fellowship with those who believe the Holy Spirit indwells the Christian in a personal way but he can have fellowship with those who appeared on the Nashville Jubilee with such liberals as Rubel Shelly and Max Lucado.  Curtis Cates cannot have fellowship with those who believe in the person indwelling of the Holy Spirit and that the Holy Spirit does help the Christian in his life, but he can fellowship those who fellowshipped a Christian church preacher and those who invited Don McLaughlin a most liberal preacher to be on the program at Freed-Hardeman University.  McClish and Memphis School of Preaching can have fellowship withal the men that wrote in the February 2004 issue of The Gospel Journal namely, David B. Watson, B. J. Clarke, Robert R. Taylor, Jr., Terry M. Hightower, Daniel Denham, Jerry Moffitt, Wesley Simons, and Gary Summers, all of which have fellowshipped with liberals but they cannot have fellowship with those who differ with them on how the Holy Spirit dwells in Christians.  To any thinking person, this is the height if foolishness and a declaration of plain and simple hypocrisy.  I have said it many times and I am saying it here again, these brethren along with those who are in their political party will regret the day they made how the Holy Spirit indwells the Christian a test of Christian fellowship.

The position McClish and his political party and Memphis School of Preaching and their political party takes on the Holy Spirit’s indwelling the Christian pushes them to extreme deism.  When pushed to its logical end God does nothing to answer prayer and He does nothing in providence.  If McClish denies this or Curtis Cates denies this, I would like to meet either of them in a religious discussion on the matter.  Bold they are in writing, but weak as diluted rain water when it comes to having a public discussion.

Church of Christ Archbishops
Malcolm L. Hill

There are some fourteen men, most of which are preachers of the church of Christ and most of which are connected with Wesley Simons’ School of Preaching near Elizabethtown, Tennessee, who have decided they need to determine the preachers that will be conducting gospel meetings for the churches in that section of the country.  They have already dictated to the Centerview church of Christ who they cannot have and if the Centerview congregation goes against them, they have in writing said they would not announce nor attend (blackball) the meeting.  If you would like to read about this sort of thing, then read about the Catholic church from 600 until 1300 A.D. This was their underhanded way of keeping the people under their power and control.  I have no use for such activity and little respect for those who bow to such unbiblical action.

There is not one of these men that will meet us in a public discussion on Christian fellowship and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  Wesley Simons has said he would meet me on my inconsistencies of Christian fellowship but he said I have the truth about Christian fellowship.  He must say this because I have the goods on Wesley when it comes to Christian fellowship and his position.  Even though Wesley Simons knows the truth about Christian fellowship, he sure does not practice it, thus he commits willful sin (Heb. 10:26).  The reason I have not debated Wesley Simons about Christian fellowship and my record therein, is because he is not a reliable person.  He wants to wallow with the pigs  and this I refuse to do.

If brethren are teaching false doctrine, I am not opposed to pointing this out.  But let them prove and be sure that such is the case.  If Tennessee Bible College is teaching false doctrine, I invite anyone to come and prove it to be so.  Not a one of the brethren that signed that document has the courage to do so.  If there is one or more that does have the courage to meet us in a public discussion, then let them step forth and say so.  They say they are against Tennessee Bible College because we had Mac Deaver on our lectures.  Look at their inconsistency  -  they can and have been on programs with false teachers but they cannot fellowship us for having brother Deaver on our program.  Such hypocrisy!  And by the way, I have talked with Mac Deaver as much as anyone living, about the Holy Spirit and His work, I suppose, and his position about the Holy Spirit does not merit disfellowship and I do not agree with him on every point.

Our Responsibility Now
Glenn B. Ramsey

As the apostle Paul closed the discussion of the great doctrine of the resurrection he was led by the Holy Spirit to write, “Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 15:58).  It would be hard to conceive of a situation in the history of the Lord’s church that was worse, from our viewpoint, than the conditions that prevailed at Corinth when Paul wrote this first letter to those brethren.  But, in spite of his many rebukes of their sins, and his admonitions to repent and do better, he never advocated that they just quit and let some other church do what Jesus wanted done!  He urged them to “always abound” in the work of the Lord.  All in the Lord’s body now have this same responsibility.

Actually, this is the responsibility that Christians have in any generation, under any circumstance!  There is no “reverse” gear on the great “ship of Zion!”  It is always ‘full steam ahead.’  We are often admonished to continue faithfully in our Lord’s service.  We can never see the end of things from our perspective; however,  we can believe the final conclusion of things as promised by our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.  We must “not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not” (Galatians 6:9).

But what is the specific responsibility that members of the Lord’s church have today?  Let us break it down.  Gospel preachers must continue to preach the “whole counsel of God.”  Preachers must not give in to the side of the extremists, nor to the side of the liberals.  God’s Word is the first and last authority that must be preached—and lived by preachers of the Cross.  Preachers should understand that they must not only preach the truth, but they must live according to it.  This is critically true in the area of fellowship.  The teaching of 2 John 9-11 is often neglected in the lives of preachers.  This passage says, “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.”  When preachers do NOT practice this teaching, how can those who follow them practice such?

Elders must be vigilant in following the inspired advice: “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with His own blood.  For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.  Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 21:28-30).  Elders must “rule well” over the preachers and other teachers in the church.  They (the elders) will give answer for every soul under their care.  The elders will be responsible for allowing any false teaching or practice to enter in among the flock that they are to oversee.  It will be a sad day, indeed, for many elders when they are called to answer in that great day of judgment (Hebrews 13:17).  Many elders today apparently do not have a concept of their responsibility, or they are unwilling to accept the responsibility that God has placed upon them.

Members of the Lord’s church are also responsible.  They must insist that the preachers preach the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  They must personally direct their own lives by the standards of the Gospel. They must uphold the hands of faithful preachers and elders. They must be faithful in all things.

These things, in summary form, describe our responsibility in this generation and in all generations of the Lord’s church, until He comes again!

Where are the Schools Headed?
David Hill

Sadly, the answer to the above question can be found in church history.  Our schools are headed in the same directions as our schools of the past; Bethany College, College of the Bible and many other schools are referenced in the history book, The Search Of the Ancient Order, Volume II, by Earl Irvin West.  Those colleges have long gone from the people of the Lord and the fellowship of the Lord’s church.  Why?  Maybe the answer will help us to observe properly for both today and tomorrow.

Old Bethany College, founded by Alexander Campbell, played a great role in the training of gospel preachers during the first half of the 19th Century.  As the division grew over the Missionary Society and the use of the instrumental music in worship, the college moved more and more away from the purity of the gospel.  Finally, Bethany was in the Christian church split officially recognized in 1906, and now the college has gone so far away that no resemblance of the church of Christ beginnings of Bethany can be seen.  The College of the Bible was a liberal arts college started and funded by churches of Christ with a special emphasis in the Bible Department.  You know the college today as University of Kentucky.  Its demise so far as the connection to churches of Christ adds a bit more evidence apropos to today.  Liberalism, church politics, secular politics and funding issues all lead to the eventual turn over of the College of the Bible to the State of Kentucky and now U of K.  I have asked several restoration scholars to give me an example of a departing school or college that returned and thus far no example has been given.  One possible exception being what is now Freed-Hardeman University, who did not oppose the use of the instruments in worship for a short period of time, but its leaders men like N. B. Hardeman, renounced its use and repented of the practice.

Why didn’t the schools return?  In the Christian church split of the late 19th Century the moneyed congregations became the Christian Church taking the majority of the members, money and buildings of the churches of Christ.  It takes money to operate schools and especially colleges, thus we may have arrived at one answer to our question, “why?”  The renowned false teacher John Calvin directed a lot of criticism at the Catholic “schoolmen” of his day and especially over the teaching and practice of transubstantiation (Institutes of the Christian Religion, by John Calvin).  He indicated that the men knew better but were comfortable in their roles and work as schoolmen (Book IV, Chapter XVII).  In other words, the Catholic Church was taking good care of them, so they apparently decided not to rock the boat.  Could this be the case today among schools, colleges and universities traditionally sponsored by churches of Christ?  Maybe the old attitude of the Israelites prevails today in our universities, “We will be like the heathen” (Ezek. 20:32).What else could it be when denominational preachers are openly used on lecture programs at Lipscomb, Abilene, Pepperdine, and those that fellowship them used at Freed-Hardeman, Lubbock, Rochester, and Faulkner Universities.  And those of us who have mentioned it for the past years are blacklisted, back bitten (mostly in private) for telling the truth.

Where are our colleges and universities headed?  Unless administrators get a powerful shot of courage, they are headed down the wide way that those above-mentioned colleges have traveled.  In fact, with most, if not all, of the above-mentioned, it might be too late.  Laugh if you will, but know for sure unless repentance comes, only the tears of a modern Jeremiah will suffice.  The old hymn says about carrying the gospel, “shall we sit idly as they rush onward, haste, let us hold up Christ the true light,” ("Swiftly We’re Turning," by Tillit S. Teddlie, Songs of the Church, Howard Publishing Company, 1998, pg. 503).  Will you sit idly and watch as our schools go headlong into denominationalism?  The choice is yours!