Views: 1<\/p>
[Note: <\/strong>This MS is available in larger font on our Manuscripts<\/strong> page.]<\/span><\/p>\n Introduction<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n From his earliest knowledge that God planned the church, Satan has despised the very concept of it and everything pertaining to it. His first plan of attack was to do all that he could to prevent its establishment. He used the monstrous, murderous Herod the Great, in an unsuccessful attempt to destroy the infant Christ in Bethlehem. He personally and powerfully tempted the Lord to abandon His Heavenly mission as He prepared to launch his work of preaching, teaching, and miracle working. The devil employed the Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians, scribes, and lawyers to oppose, try, and tempt the Lord relentlessly during His work on earth. He used one of Jesus\u2019 apostles to betray Him to His enemies and another of His most intimate apostles to deny that he even knew Him.<\/span><\/p>\n Satan worked relentlessly through the Jewish leaders in his trials and in inciting the mob to demand His death. Pilate bowed to will of the prince of all evil in releasing a murderer and delivering the Lord to the cross. Beelzebub thereby employed his mightiest weapon\u2014death\u2014in an effort to thwart the kingdom plans of the Father and His Son. However, as Jesus plainly prophesied, even death itself, \u201cthe gates of Hades,\u201d could not prevail\u2014Christ built His church just as He had promised (Mat. 16:18). Since the establishment of the church, God\u2019s faithful people in it have been a holy nation under siege by an axis of evil forces consisting of atheism, humanism, paganism, hedonism, and denominationalism, all dancing as puppets on Satan\u2019s strings. He will not cease his opposition to the God-beloved and blood-bought church of Christ until he is finally cast into the lake of fire and brimstone and confined there forever as his just due (Rev. 20:10).<\/span><\/p>\n From almost the church\u2019s beginning \u201cfifth columnists,\u201d traitors within the kingdom of Christ, have arisen. While feigning loyalty to their Commander-in-Chief and His Constitution, all the while they are guilty of spiritual high treason by consorting with the enemy. They sometimes have great swelling words of praise for the enemy while they harshly criticize and belittle the Lord\u2019s elect in the very presence of the foe. Beginning in the last third of the twentieth century these members of Judas\u2019 band have proliferated. They are in places of immense influence as elders, preachers, publishers, editors, authors, and university administrators and professors.<\/span><\/p>\n These ungodly and misguided erstwhile brethren are attacking the church at every fundamental point of doctrine and practice, thereby attempting to change it to fit their culturally dictated agenda. Such changes, where successful, have actually destroyed the congregations involved as far as their Scriptural identity is concerned. Their threat is undeniably real, and blind leaders that they are, they have already led thousands of blind followers into the destructive pit of sin and error which such leaders occupy. This threat from those that were once among us is actually more sinister and destructive than that which comes from outside forces.<\/span><\/p>\n Satan\u2019s Attacks on Scriptural Unity<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The New Testament doctrine of unity is a principal area of attack by these \u201cBenedict Arnolds\u201d who have gone out from us. It may surprise some to learn that only David and Paul employ the lovely word unity<\/em>, and they use it a total of only three times in Sacred Writ:<\/span><\/p>\n Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! (Psa. 133:1).1<\/sup> Giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:3).<\/span><\/p>\n Till we all attain unto the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a fullgrown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ (Eph. 4:13).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n David used a Hebrew term that refers to a state of being together, in union, in harmony, or alike. His statement is a proclamation of the wholesomeness, pleasantness, and joy of such harmony, which applies equally to both physical and spiritual brethren. Paul used a Greek word, which in both passages in Ephesians carries the force of unanimity and agreement. His first reference is a ringing exhortation (\u201cgive diligence\u201d) to the Ephesians to keep <\/strong>(i.e., guard, preserve, take care of) the precious and pleasurable unity that they then enjoyed. In his second reference, Paul discusses a \u201cunity\u201d which they did not yet possess or enjoy (\u201c…till we all attain <\/strong>unto the unity of the faith…\u201d). It is thus different from the unity of Verse 3, which they already enjoyed and were to give diligence to keep. My judgment has long been that Paul is not referring to unity among the Ephesian (or other) brethren in Verse 13. Rather, he is here referring to the completion of the New Testament revelation, as he does in 1 Corinthians 13:8\u201312.2<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n Although the word unity <\/em>is rare in the Bible, the concept of it certainly is not. Scriptural unity among the Lord\u2019s people in the Gospel Age may be summarized under three headings:<\/span><\/p>\n A Prayer <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Unity\u2014oneness\u2014is one of the three significant themes of Jesus\u2019 great prayer in John 17\u2014the true \u201cLord\u2019s Prayer.\u201d He first prayed for and about Himself (vv. 1\u20135). He then turned His attention to the apostles (vv. 6\u201319) and prayed, among other things, concerning them: \u201cHoly Father, keep them in thy name…that they may be one, even as we are\u201d (v. 11b). Believers on Him through the apostles\u2019 teaching are the third subject of His prayer:<\/span><\/p>\n Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that believe on me through their word; that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me. And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as we are one; I in them, and thou in me, that they may be perfected into one; that the world may know that thou didst send me, and lovedst them, even as thou lovedst me (vv. 20-23).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n While the Lord would have all those in the corrupt system of denominationalism (who claim to believe in Him) bow to His will and thereby become united in His one church, they were not the aim of His prayer. It is rather aimed at those who will believe on Him to the extent of obeying Him and becoming His disciples. His will is that all of His followers\u2014those whom He has added to His church upon their Gospel obedience\u2014should be one, united, in harmony and agreement with one another.<\/span><\/p>\n Moreover, the Lord did not pray for a mere superficial or artificial \u201cunity\u201d that ignores obligatory doctrine and practice. He specified the nature of the unity He sought. It is to be measured by the very unity that characterizes His relationship to the Father and vice versa. This subject must have been a sublime concern of the Christ for Him to dwell on it so earnestly as it pertained both to His apostles and to all who would obey the Gospel.<\/span><\/p>\n A Plea <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Paul issued an almost impassioned plea for unity in the divided and confused church in Corinth:<\/span><\/p>\n Now I beseech you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment (1 Cor. 1:10).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Note first that Paul\u2019s plea rests upon the foundation of \u201cthe name of Christ,\u201d a reference to His authority. This plea therefore carries all of the weight of a command, though politely stated. It consists of three parts:<\/span><\/p>\n This fitting together was to involve the very way they thought and reached conclusions. While these pleas were abundantly appropriate for the Corinthian Church at the time, we are not to suppose that the apostle desired such thoroughgoing harmony of doctrine, speech, thought, and judgment only for the errant Corinthians. Several other passages issue the same exhortation to various recipients (e.g., Rom. 15:5; 2 Cor. 13:11; Phi. 1:27; 2:2; 4:2; 1 Pet. 3:8; et al.).<\/span><\/p>\n A Plan <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Paul set forth a sevenfold plan whereby the Ephesian Church (indeed, any congregation) might maintain the unity they enjoyed and were to keep:<\/span><\/p>\n There is one body, and one Spirit, even as also ye were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all (Eph. 4:4\u20136).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n These seven elements (of which there is only one of a kind) embrace every facet of religion, including the church, the hope of life eternal, the one faith of the Gospel, the key to accessing the cleansing blood of Christ (baptism), and all three persons of the Godhead. Those who respond to the faith in baptism are added to the one church, in which alone there is hope, vouchsafed by the triune Godhead. If all abide in the one faith, they cannot be otherwise than united.<\/span><\/p>\n Humble submission to the doctrine of Christ is the pivotal element in unity. To the \u201cdoctrine-doesn\u2019t-matter\u201d crowd, I assert that it matters altogether. The Lord prayed that His apostles and that other believers would be one, even as He and the Father are one. This would necessarily include uniformity of doctrine. Christ came from Heaven to do the Father\u2019s will (John 6:38) and to speak what His Father \u201ctaught\u201d Him to speak (12:50). Biblical unity does not ignore doctrine for the sake of loose \u201cunion,\u201d but said unity depends upon adherence to doctrine from which true unity derives.<\/span><\/p>\n Likewise, Paul\u2019s injunction\u2014that all of the Corinthians speak the same thing and be of the same mind and the same judgment\u2014involves uniform compliance to the doctrine of Christ. Furthermore, the apostle\u2019s seven-point plan for unity is grounded in specific doctrines and their respective implications. When one attempts to separate doctrinal emphasis and compliance from unity, he is advertising either his ignorance or his liberal agenda.<\/span><\/p>\n The very unity for which the Lord prayed was beautifully realized in the early days of the church in Jerusalem: \u201cAnd day by day, continuing steadfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they took their food with gladness and singleness of heart\u201d (Acts 2:46). We do not have to wonder how such wonderful unity characterized these saints. Luke had written four verses earlier: \u201cAnd they continued steadfastly in the apostles\u2019 teaching…\u201d (v. 42).<\/span><\/p>\n Biblical unity is not forced or contrived. It is initially achieved \u201cautomatically\u201d when two or more people obey the Lord\u2019s plan of salvation. Only as long as they steadfastly continue in the same doctrine, they will continue to be Scripturally united, and not one minute longer.<\/span><\/p>\n The church in Jerusalem demonstrates this very pattern. The people were told to repent and be baptized, which about three thousand souls did (Acts 2:37, 41). The Lord added them to His church (vv. 41, 47), that is, they became united with Christ and with one another by obedience to the same commands of Scripture. That blissful unity continued as long as they continued in \u201cthe apostles\u2019 teaching\u201d (v. 42). Claimed \u201cunity\u201d on any other basis is utter vanity. John forcefully taught the same principle: \u201cIf we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sin\u201d (1 John 1:7).<\/span><\/p>\n Divisive Factors <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The precious unity that should characterize God\u2019s people is often shattered by a carnal- minded man or woman possessed of unholy ambition or in search of power and control. Such folk may not be doctrinal apostates, but they are definitely behavioral apostates. Sometimes an elder or deacon will let his ego get the upper hand, and rather than swallow his pride in humble repentance, he may split the church. Preachers are sometimes guilty of the same shameful behavior. The issue may be nothing more significant than the color of paint or carpet for a building renovation or who is to teach a class or lead singing. Whatever the issue, such utterly selfish folk are bound to have their own way or divide the church trying. The destruction of unity is sometimes so devastating that congregations take years to recover, and some never do. All such folk, who have become pawns of Satan, badly need to remember the New Testament\u2019s emphasis on unity.<\/span><\/p>\n While selfishness still causes heartbreaking division, perhaps the devil\u2019s most effective weapon against Biblical unity in recent times has for some four decades been a continual escalation of doctrinal corruption and aberration. Likely a week does not pass but that several congregations are rent asunder by teachers of strange doctrines. Ironically, one of the most divisive doctrines Satan has \u201cinspired\u201d in some, who at one time were our brethren, is a false view of unity. It is not really a new doctrine, but one that the denominations have been teaching for generations; it is a \u201cpretend\u201d unity. The tactic is to redefine unity <\/em>so as to accommodate division. Such folk long ago decided to \u201cagree to disagree\u201d and call it \u201cunity.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n The Fellowship Factor <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The study of unity involves the subject of fellowship. Unity implies fellowship. Satan has had a \u201cfield day\u201d in leading various ones to attack the Scriptural concept of fellowship as it pertains to the church. The liberals\u2019 plan to bring about religious unity involves extending the borders of fellowship to almost all who claim to believe in Jesus as the Christ, regardless of their heretical doctrines and\/or practices. This assault by enemies of the Truth upon the doctrine of fellowship is understandable.3<\/sup> If this writer were going to try to destroy the church, he would certainly make fellowship a primary target of assault because it is so fundamental to the purity and unity (yea, the very existence) of the church. If the Lord\u2019s enemies (whether within or without) can destroy or even blur the borderline between the power of darkness and the kingdom of light, they will hardly need to succeed in any other assaults. If the battle is lost on the issues of unity and fellowship, it is lost completely. This being so, we need to study carefully the weapons Satan is using to attack the church on this issue.<\/span><\/p>\n While the church was riding the crest of a tremendous wave of growth in the late 1950s and early 1960s, some of the \u201cmainline\u201d denominations (e.g., Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Episcopalians, et al.) were being overwhelmed with modernism. They were \u201csitting ducks\u201d for modernism because they had long been enslaved to liberal theology and hermeneutics, which had produced liberal doctrine and practice (a part of which was \u201cfellowship-everybody-ism\u201d). These religious bodies, captured almost totally by modernism, no longer stand for anything but super-tolerance of everything and everybody\u2014except those still determined to abide in the doctrine of Christ. The Southern Baptist Church began to feel the same pressures in the 1970s, and those in that denomination who still claim to believe in the inspiration and authority of the Bible are in a fight-to-the-finish struggle for control with liberals and modernists. This struggle threatens to split the Baptists right down the middle.<\/span><\/p>\n It was predictable that sooner or later these religious currents would affect the Lord\u2019s church. There had been isolated cases of loose fellowshipers among us all through the years, but they were just that\u2014isolated. Even as late as the early 1960s, when a liberal preacher or professor was discovered, he was generally dismissed and deprived of a pulpit or classroom unless he repented. Liberalism would soon prove to be not so isolated and unpopular. One of the early indications of a more widespread influence of liberalism among us was the accusation from some brethren in the early 1960s that preachers had over-emphasized the plan of salvation to the neglect of Christ Himself. The \u201cMan or the Plan\u201d issue, as it came to be popularly styled, was thoroughly discussed in the brotherhood papers. This was an early attempt by some to shift emphasis away from sound doctrine, which obviously had some success to that end.<\/span><\/p>\n The late Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett called their version of this assault in the late 1950s, \u201cUnity in Diversity.\u201d They sought to convince brethren that religious people do not have to be united in \u201cdoctrine\u201d (e.g., worship, congregational organization, etc.), only in a few basic tenets of the \u201cgospel\u201d (e.g., the virgin birth, the Deity of Christ, et al.). It appears that they may have succeeded beyond what most of us anticipated.<\/span><\/p>\n Mission Magazine<\/em>, a monthly journal that first appeared in July 1967, played a leading role in this effort. Until its demise about twenty years later, it would carry the banner of liberalism (at times evincing outright modernism) for the young liberals in the church. It attacked the concept of a Biblical pattern for the church and the Scriptural bounds of fellowship at least as early as the January 1973 issue. Likewise, in the late 1960s Reuel Lemmons, editor of The Firm Foundation<\/em>, defended Pat Boone\u2018s fellowship with Oral Roberts on nationwide television. The attack on Scriptural fellowship and the pressure for some sort of unity with denominationalism were accelerating.<\/span><\/p>\n During the 1970s the influence of those who wished to extend the fellowship boundaries picked up momentum. They were led by such forces as the once solid (and still influential) Highland Church of Christ in Abilene, Texas, and the Herald of Truth radio and television programs, which had come under strong criticism for their liberal leanings. These criticisms culminated in a marathon meeting in Memphis, Tennessee, in 1973 attended by over two hundred preachers and numerous representatives of Highland and Herald of Truth. The meeting only intensified the fears and confirmed the suspicions of concerned brethren.<\/span><\/p>\n Institutions of higher learning were a fertile breeding-ground for the digression that carried away so much of the church in the nineteenth century. They are repeating this dubious function in the present. Since the 1950s Pepperdine University in Malibu, California, has been a bastion of liberalism on the West Coast. The school\u2019s concept of \u201cfellowship\u201d is best demonstrated by the fact that it has non-Christians on its faculty and board. For many years its lectureships have been a haven for purveyors of every strange doctrine. The other colleges were generally perceived until the 1970s as conservative, with some more so than others.<\/span><\/p>\n With the retirement of Don Morris as president of Abilene Christian College (now ACU) in 1970, a spirit of unprecedented tolerance on that campus soon became observable. The Bible department and the lectureship gradually began to be increasingly staffed with men of \u201cuncertain sounds,\u201d including the subject of fellowship. With succeeding administrations, the drift has become an open and obvious shift.<\/span><\/p>\n Today ACU is one of the foremost proponents and encouragers of unscriptural unity and fellowship as the following matters illustrate:<\/span><\/p>\n There should be room in the Christian fellowship for those who differ on…whether the Lord\u2019s Supper must be taken every Sunday, or whether instrumental music is used in worship. There should be room in the Christian fellowship for those who believe that Christ is the Son of God, but who differ on eschatological theories such as premillennialism…or soteriological matters such as whether baptism is \u201cfor\u201d or \u201cbecause of\u201d remission of sins.\u201d5<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n All of these things relate directly to the tearing down of the limits and bounds of fellowship as set forth in the New Testament. Lamentably, several other colleges and universities supported by the Lord\u2019s people are rapidly following this ecumenical, \u201cunity-in-diversity,\u201d lead of ACU.6<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n In 1983 Rubel Shelly shocked the brotherhood by declaring his newfound ecumenism, stating that he believed there were faithful and devout Christians among all the denominations. This represented a total reversal of his previous strong and true doctrinal stance spanning several years in defense of the Truth. The next year he and his cohorts organized the first of a continuing series of \u201cUnity Forums\u201d with leaders of the Independent Christian Church (ICC). A major aim of these meetings was to pursue fellowship and unity between the Lord\u2019s people and the ICC. These Forums were \u201ctailor-made\u201d for the devil\u2019s devious designs against the church, and he has used them to the fullest.<\/span><\/p>\n From the beginning these sweet little powwows almost exclusively featured men who purported to represent the church of the Lord, but who were known for their ultra-liberalism by their repeated capitulations on both doctrinal and practical issues. One of the ICC prime movers in the Forums soon began a tabloid he named One Body<\/em>, the major purpose of which was to leave the impression and to foster the concept that we and they are indeed one\u2014united and in fellowship\u2014in spite of their numerous departures in doctrine and practice. Many liberals who have abandoned the Truth were all too willing to take up the ICC unity <\/em>mantra. Both Pepperdine and ACU have hosted these Forums at various times. (In spite of the hundreds of hours spent in these discussions, the ICC people have adamantly said they are not about to give up their unscriptural innovations, particularly instrumental music in worship.)<\/span><\/p>\n Instead of steadfastly calling for the ICC folk to repent of their apostasy, many of our soft, compromising, and \u201cirenic\u201d brethren who were (and are) participating in the Forums began to urge that we view the use of instruments as merely a matter of opinion or conscience, rather than one involving Scriptural authority and sin. In the very first Forum (1984), Furman Kearley suggested that congregations could first begin using ICC preachers to teach a class, and then gradually move them into our pulpits. (Significantly, a few months afterward Neil Anderson, publisher of The Gospel Advocate, <\/em>summarily removed the late Guy N. Woods as editor and replaced him with Kearley.) In 1985 Calvin Warpula, one of the frequent Forum speakers, dogmatized that it was \u201cuntenable\u201d to demand the that ICC folks publicly repent of error and sin in using instruments in worship before we extended fellowship to them.7<\/sup> Such folk have achieved the only kind of unity in which they seem to be interested\u2014\u201cunity\u201d in error.<\/span><\/p>\n Several publishers, editors, and authors through periodicals and books have lent (and continue to lend) themselves to Satan\u2019s agency. Besides Mission Magazine, <\/em>referenced earlier, other publications contributed to the fellowship apostasy. Reuel Lemmons, who had compromised Biblical fellowship and unity for several years as editor of The Firm Foundation<\/em>, was relieved of his editorship by its new owners in 1983. Within a year he had found backing from Alton Howard (an elder in the notoriously digressive West Monroe, LA, church) for a new journal (Image Magazine<\/em>), in which he could have full freedom to propagate his liberalism and ecumenism. In 1992 Rubel Shelly was instrumental in beginning Wineskins, <\/em>an even more liberal journal (difficult as this was!).<\/span><\/p>\n The Christian Chronicle<\/em>, which was all but dead by the 1970s, was purchased and revived by Oklahoma Christian University in the mid-1980s. Its editors have turned it into the major \u201cunity-in-diversity\u201d influence (do not miss this additional school connection). Its purpose statement reads in part that it \u201c…seeks to inform, inspire, and unite churches of Christ worldwide.\u201d It informs <\/strong>all right\u2014about everything liberal and outlandish. It must surely inspire <\/strong>and encourage liberals greatly in their liberalism. Through its utter lack of discrimination relating to apostates and their activities, it seeks to unite <\/strong>all\u2014as long as everyone will submit to its liberal, fellowship-everybody agenda.<\/span><\/p>\n A spate of books from liberal brethren (again, many of them professors in \u201cour\u201d universities) has flowed from the press the past two decades, and their central theme is one: The church must make whatever changes are necessary, including broadening its fellowship, to attract, adapt to, and unite with those addicted to current culture. They have all but completely abandoned any quest for Scriptural authority for their changes. Books and periodicals have played a major role in leading many astray.<\/span><\/p>\n Ecumenism has also received great impetus from various workshops, seminars, and lecture programs. In 1978 the first \u201cTulsa Soul-Winning Workshop\u201d was conducted. By 1980 the liberal doctrinal agenda of this annual event was clearly evident. From year to year it provides as speakers a \u201cwho\u2019s who\u201d of the most liberal and denominationally minded people who were once among us. They have not been timid about urging fellowship with those outside the family of God. In 1989 three of the largest and most liberal churches in and around Nashville, Tennessee (Woodmont Hills, Madison, and Antioch), at the prompting of Madison, planned the first \u201cNashville Jubilee\u201d (now defunct, for which we thank God). One did not even need to see the first slate of speakers to understand that it would be another hotbed of avant-garde doctrine and practice. The three sponsoring congregations were evidence aplenty of where it was headed before it even started. When the lectureships of some of our higher institutions of learning, as already mentioned, are added to these efforts, these combined forces constitute a powerful force for the \u201cgospel of change\u201d concerning fellowship as legislated by the Son of God.<\/span><\/p>\n Rubel Shelly has been the foremost advocate among us of fellowship with children of darkness in recent years, both in word and deed. Besides his statement that he believes there are devout Christians in all the denominations (1983) and his leadership in the ecumenical Forums with the ICC (beginning in 1984), and he has subsequently been even more blatant. On April 10, 1994 he was the featured speaker at the post-Easter \u201ccelebration\u201d of seven denominations (including Woodmont Hills for which he preaches). It included the employment of various kinds of unauthorized music, including choir singing and a brass band. The theme of his sermon was unity and fellowship based on the \u201ccentral\u201d and \u201ccore\u201d themes of the Gospel, of which the resurrection is an example, never mind such \u201ctrivialities\u201d as Christ\u2019s law concerning the work, worship, and organization of the church.<\/span><\/p>\n Three days later (he was a busy boy that week!) he spoke at Christ\u2019s Church, a Pentecostal Holiness group in Nashville. He praised their pastor as a \u201cgodly man\u201d and said that God\u2019s kingdom is \u201cwider, deeper, larger, greater\u201d than any of the denominations (including us, of course). He condemned the setting of boundaries against one another in religion and gave the Lord\u2019s church a good bashing, much to the delight of his sectarian audience. He called the church \u201cour little part of the body of Christ.\u201d8<\/sup> One could not frame statements more directly opposite to the New Testament doctrine of unity and fellowship.<\/span><\/p>\n Attacks on the Undenominational Nature of the Church<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n When Jesus said, \u201cI will build my church\u201d (Mat. 16:18), He did not have a denomination (a mere part <\/strong>of His church) in mind. When the church became a reality on Pentecost (Acts 2:38\u201347), it was not a denomination (merely a part <\/strong>of the church). When the Lord began adding people to the church (Acts 2:41, 47), He did not add them to a denomination (one among two or many religious bodies). When the apostles and other brethren began to take the Gospel to Judea, Samaria, and finally, to \u201cthe uttermost part of the earth\u201d (1:9), they did not establish varying denominations or congregations of the same denomination. They simply established the church of the Lord Jesus Christ, for which He died (20:28; Eph. 5:25). In its very nature, the church Jesus built is not only un<\/strong>denominational\u2014it is also anti<\/strong>-denominational.<\/span><\/p>\n Some exceedingly basic principles are involved in the foregoing statements, none more basic than the invariable seed\u2013harvest rule: \u201cBe not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap\u201d (Gal. 6:7). From the beginning God decreed that this principle would govern the world He had created. Its earliest applications related to the vegetable and animal families. Seed corn has never produced watermelons, dogs, or roses, but invariably, more corn. From the first union of a ram and nanny goat until the present, the offspring of such unions has never been a toad, a turnip, or anything else but a kid goat. (This same inviolable law exposes a major fallacy of evolutionary theory, incidentally.)<\/span><\/p>\n While the foregoing principle is so elementary and universally observable that none should ever be able to forget or gainsay it, some nonetheless deny its application in the realm of religion and morals. Paul wrote the inspired statement of this rule primarily in application to moral, spiritual, and religious issues. However, we do not have to wait for the Gospel era to understand that it has always been in force relative to religion. As men proliferated and were scattered abroad from Babel, they invented their own gods, religions, and doctrines. God\u2019s sowing and reaping law is behind His revelation of the law to Moses and His decree that parents were to keep it faithfully themselves and teach it constantly and without fail to their children (Deu. 6:1\u201314). God knew that, religiously and morally, they would be the products of their teaching. He knew that only the \u201cseed\u201d of true teaching could produce future generations that would remain true to the very first commandment He gave them: \u201cThou shalt have no other gods before me\u201d (Exod. 20:3). Just as the false doctrines about idols could not produce faithful Israelites, neither would God\u2019s pure law ever produce idol-worshipers. Lamentably, of the second generation of the settlers of Canaan, the Bible describes the evil harvest of the false doctrines (\u201cseed\u201d) they accepted:<\/span><\/p>\n And…there arose another generation after them, that knew not Jehovah, nor yet the work which he had wrought for Israel. And the children of Israel did that which was evil in the sight of Jehovah, and served the Baalim; and they forsook Jehovah, the God of their fathers, who brought them out of the land of Egypt, and followed other gods, of the gods of the peoples that were round about them, and bowed themselves down unto them: and they provoked Jehovah to anger\u201d (Jud. 2:10\u201312).<\/span><\/p>\n The sowing and reaping principle in regard to doctrine is implicit in every admonition to abide in and faithfully teach God\u2019s Word (e.g., Jon. 3:2; Mark 16:15; John 8:31; Rom. 10:15; 2 Tim. 4:2; et al.). It is also implicit in every warning against accepting or teaching false doctrine (Mat. 7:t5; 16:6; 24:11; Gal. 1:6\u20139; Col. 2:8; 2 Pet. 2:1; et al.).<\/span><\/p>\n In Luke\u2019s account of the Parable of the Sower and Jesus\u2019 explanation of it (Luke 8:4\u201315), Jesus began His explanation by saying, \u201cThe seed is the word of God\u201d (v. 11). Two indisputable implications derive from the fact that the Word of God\u2014the Gospel, God\u2019s Word since Calvary\u2014is the seed of the kingdom:<\/span><\/p>\n The late Thomas B. Warren nailed it exactly in the title of one of his books: The Bible Only Makes Christians Only and the Only Christians. <\/em>If the undenominational church of Christ came into existence and was maintained by the preaching of the apostles originally (and it was), then the same undenominational church of Christ will come into existence and will be maintained by the preaching of that same Gospel in any age. In spite of the simplicity and clarity of this principle, there are those who still want to be counted as part of the church, but who despise both the principle and the nature of the undenominational church it produces.<\/span><\/p>\n Such folk deny that the faithfully restored church of Christ in our age is the church of the apostolic age. They deny the possibility of as well as the need for restoring the New Testament church. They cannot abide the distinctiveness of the church revealed in the New Testament. They view themselves as members of merely another denomination that may be a little closer to the New Testament than other denominations, but nonetheless a denomination. (Of course, if they are only talking about the congregations they have corrupted according to their denominational concepts, then we could not agree more that they are members of denominations. Many religious bodies still hypocritically wear \u201cChurch of Christ\u201d on their buildings and property when they long ago ceased to be such.) Lynn Anderson, while preaching for the Highland Church of Christ in Abilene, Texas, stated in a 1973 sermon that \u201cthe Church of Christ is a big, sick denomination.\u201d Many have followed his lead with the same perverted view of the church in the ensuing years.<\/span><\/p>\n The Crux of the Matter, <\/em>a 2001 book by three ACU professors, provides ample evidence and is a good sample of the elitist attitude that can think of nothing but denomination <\/em>when it hears the word church<\/em>. The book ridicules the idea that the saved can be identified only with the church of the Lord. Its authors label such an idea as \u201carrogance\u201d and describe the church of Christ as merely an \u201cAmerican-born body.\u201d9<\/sup> They declare that it to be \u201cextremely sectarian\u201d to deny that anyone \u201coutside our churches could be a true Christian.\u201d10<\/sup> Disparaging the idea that we (or they) are members of the church that the Christ founded and to which He still adds obedient believers, they speak of the Campbells, Stone, and other early nineteenth-century restorers as \u201cthe founders\u201d and \u201cfounding leaders\u201d of churches of Christ.11<\/sup> The erudite ACU authors obviously do not believe that Christ founded the church. (Once more, do not miss the campus as the source of this material.)<\/span><\/p>\n It would be bad enough for such folk to abandon the Truth themselves (for they will be lost if they persist in their error). However, they are determined to \u201cconvert\u201d as many as possible to their denominational paradigm. With but few exceptions, those who are attacking the undenominational nature of the church are trying to stay among us. Casting aside even the possibility of restoration, they are bent on restructuring the Lord\u2019s body after human designs. Unfortunately, the hyper tolerant climate of society in general, coupled with gross and general Biblical ignorance in most members of the church, provides fertile soil for their poison seed. The devil must be gleefully smiling at their efforts on his behalf. We will do well to notice some of the tactics Satan is using to destroy the church by denominationalizing it.<\/span><\/p>\n The Way We Are to View and Interpret the Bible<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Some of the liberals who attended the first unity forum with the ICC in 1984 came home crying for a \u201cnew hermeneutic\u201d (i.e., a new set of rules of Bible interpretation) so we could have fellowship with those in the ICC despite their being members of a denomination. A few years later some of the self-proclaimed \u201cscholars\u201d began to holler for a \u201cnew hermeneutic\u201d at their \u201cscholars\u2019 conferences.\u201d They especially want to discard any respect for the prohibitive nature of the silence of Scripture. They would have us believe we do not have any law under Christ, that the New Testament is not a \u201cconstitution,\u201d but merely a \u201clove letter\u201d from Heaven. They deny that the Bible contains patterns for the church or that we are obligated to follow it strictly. Some have already taken positions, the implications of which constitute a denial of the verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture. What chance has the Scriptural teaching on fellowship or the undenominational nature of the church if such views of the Bible prevail?<\/span><\/p>\n The Way We Are to Worship <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Some are suggesting (and practicing) the observance of the Lord\u2019s Supper on other days besides the Lord\u2019s Day. Some now say that the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship is a non-issue\u2014that they have no scruples against them and can worship with those who use them. An increasing number of congregations are regularly using \u201cspecial\u201d or \u201cpresentation\u201d music (i.e., solos, choirs, and other groups such as \u201cpraise teams\u201d that are separate from the congregation) in their worship assemblies. Casually dressed suave promoters presenting pop-psychology pep talks\u2014laced with a few funny stories\u2014long ago replaced Bible- quoting preachers in many pulpits.<\/span><\/p>\n Drama and theatrical productions are frequently filling or almost crowding out the normal sermon time in some congregations. The practice by those in the congregation of lifting and fluttering their hands over their heads during songs and prayers and applauding (during the songs, at points of agreement with the preacher, at a baptism, or at some announcement) is on the rise. Some have already done away with a Gospel invitation and ridicule those who continue to offer one at each assembly. It has become increasingly common for congregations to meet only on Sunday morning and to replace the normal evening worship period with \u201ccell\u201d or \u201clife group\u201d meetings in homes.<\/span><\/p>\n Some congregations now have two morning worship assembles. One is structured along \u201ctraditional\u201d lines and is conducted for those who might be offended by \u201cnon-traditional\u201d practices. The other, usually styled \u201ccontemporary,\u201d is for liberals who care little or not at all for Scriptural authorization for what they say or do and who, sooner or later, will impose their entertainment \u201cworship\u201d on the whole church. Ironically, they do not seem to realize that what they are doing is not \u201cfresh\u201d or \u201cnew.\u201d Rather, they are merely borrowing hollow, worn-out practices and rituals of sectarianism and combining them with the religious jive of Pentecostalism, as if these wholly emotion-driven activities possessed some magical formula for creating \u201cspiritual worship.\u201d All of these represent major alterations that already greatly affect the subject of fellowship and the church\u2019s undenominational status.<\/span><\/p>\n The Role of Women in the Church <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The secular, social, political, and humanistic \u201cwomen\u2019s liberation movement\u201d of the 1970s and 1980s has had an obvious influence on some brethren who seem to care more about being \u201cpolitically correct\u201d than about being doctrinally correct. The liberals are pushing women into leadership roles in the church as rapidly as they can. Their usual beginning point is to use them as ushers or announcers and to pass the trays during the Lord\u2019s Supper.12<\/sup> The next \u201cprogression\u201d in the incremental change agenda of the liberals is to have them read Scripture (perhaps while seated on the front pew) or lead a song or a prayer from a pew. The next step may then be to have them teach mixed adult classes, with the intent eventually to move them into the pulpit. A few years ago, an Alabama congregation published its agenda for appointing women as deacons, then as elders, and finally, turning the pulpit over to them. The Richland Hills, Texas, congregation recently did away with the office of deacons and in their place appointed a large number of \u201cspecial servants,\u201d which included both men and women. Faithful brethren will have no choice but to refuse to fellowship such apostates who already conceive of the whole church as a denomination.<\/span><\/p>\n The Plan of Salvation <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n As previously cited, Carroll D. Osburn, ACU Professor of New Testament, avers: \u201cThere should be room in the Christian fellowship for those who believe that Christ is the Son of God, but who differ on…soteriological matters such as whether baptism is \u2018for\u2019 or \u2018because of\u2019 the remission of sins.\u201d13<\/sup> Jimmy Allen, a longtime Bible professor at Harding University, has written an entire book devoted to the proposition that a believer need not know or understand the Scriptural purpose of his\/her baptism for it to be Scriptural baptism.14<\/sup> Max Lucado, who long ago left the church in his convictions (but still preaches for a denomination that calls itself \u201cOak Hills Church of Christ\u201d in San Antonio, Texas), told listeners to his radio program just to call God their Father and He would save them. Then, he offered, that they should be baptized, but not in order to be saved. These quotations are crucial to the issue of fellowship. If it makes no difference whether baptism is \u201cfor\u201d or \u201cbecause of\u201d remission of sins, if immersion \u201cfor any reason\u201d is Scriptural, and if baptism is not even necessary in order to be saved, then we are actually in fellowship with multiplied millions of denominationalists. In fact, the church is indistinguishable from a denomination.<\/span><\/p>\n Moral Issues <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n