Views: 18<\/p>
[Note:\u00a0 <\/strong>This MS is available in larger font on our Manuscripts<\/strong>\u00a0 page.]<\/span><\/p>\n Introduction<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Apostate brethren have definitely undertaken a renewed and intensified \u201cunity\u201d initiative with the Independent Christian Church (ICC). This effort has been growing and gaining momentum in the years immediately leading up to 2006, the centennial year of the separation of the Christian Church from the Lord\u2019s church. Abilene Christian University had an ICC preacher on its lectureship in 2004. The Tulsa Workshop had two ICC speakers on its program in March 2004.<\/span><\/p>\n December 2004 Christian Chronicle Promotes \u201cUnity\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The Christian Chronicle<\/em> has been subtly (and at times not so subtly) attempting to blur the line of distinction between churches of Christ and the ICC for a long time. The December 2004 issue gave major ink to two news stories and an advertisement, all of which emphasize the almost feverish interest of the liberals in forging some sort of union with the ICC.<\/span><\/p>\n News Story Number One: <\/strong>Page 1 carries the headline, \u201cChurch of Christ, Christian Church leaders test waters.\u201d The article, written by Chronicle<\/em> staffer Lindy Adams, tells of \u201dMinistry Impact \u201904,\u201d an October meeting \u201cfor dialogue and fellowship\u201d in Grand Prairie, Texas (near Dallas), involving 350 men from the ICC and churches of Christ. Adams, in typical liberal jargon, refers to us, to the ICC, and to the Disciples of Christ as \u201cthree streams\u201d of the \u201cAmerican Restoration Movement\u201d and of the \u201cStone-Campbell Restoration Movement.\u201d (Note: I am not a member of a \u201cmovement,\u201d but of the church of Christ, to which He added me when I obeyed the Gospel plan of salvation [Acts 2:38\u201341, 47].)<\/span><\/p>\n David Faust, president of Cincinnati Christian University (an ICC school) denied that the confab was \u201cabout an organizational merger.\u201d Admittedly, \u201cdialogue\u201d with those with whom we differ does not imply unity or fellowship with them. Unless Adams was wrong in his report, however, they met for \u201cdialogue and<\/strong> fellowship.\u201d I need a bit of help to understand why engaging in \u201cfellowship\u201d with others does not imply \u201cunity\u201d with them, whether or not there is \u201can organizational merger.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Some of \u201cour\u201d most devoted (to liberalism) liberals who spoke had other ideas. Rick Atchley (of the Richland Hills \u201cChurch of Christ\u201d denomination near Fort Worth, Texas) wants to see a \u201cfamily reunion\u201d involving the two groups in 2006, the one hundredth anniversary of the division the ICC\u2019s founders precipitated in order to have their unauthorized and idolized instruments and missionary societies. Prentice Meador of Prestoncrest \u201cChurch of Christ\u201d in Dallas (another big city liberal church) suggested that Larimore, McGarvey, Brewer, and Lipscomb were men who believed in salvation \u201cby God\u2019s grace, not by getting everything right.\u201d (Meador here\u2014perhaps inadvertently\u2014encapsulates the liberal credo: God does not regard obedience over disobedience or being right over being wrong, but merely good intentions over bad intentions and good feelings over bad feelings.) Conveniently for Meador, the men he listed are not around to respond to his defamations.<\/span><\/p>\n The same article recorded the donation of $50,000.00 by an ICC in Colorado toward beginning a new congregation in Odessa, Texas, sponsored by the avant-garde Golf Course Road \u201cChurch of Christ\u201d in nearby Midland. The article also noted that the Northwest \u201cChurch of the Christ\u201d (Seattle, WA) and a nearby ICC had merged in September. This was hardly monumental, since Northwest was already using instruments in some of its Sunday worship assemblies.<\/span><\/p>\n Victor Knowles, ICC leader and editor of One Body<\/em> (the paper he founded in 1984 to mitigate crucial distinctions between the ICC and the Lord\u2019s church), commented that, while \u201csome will be contentious\u201d about such unification efforts, \u201cmany will welcome the opportunity to join hands.\u201d (Oh, but I thought the meeting was just for \u201cdialogue,\u201d rather than for \u201cjoining hands\u201d\u2014merger or union.) He was right on both counts: (1) Some will be \u201ccontentious\u201d about such efforts (count me among them), and (2) some (doubtless, many, including several attendees) gleefully welcome all such compromising efforts.<\/span><\/p>\n A bit of history seems appropriate here. \u201cMinistry Impact \u201804\u201d (for \u201cdiscussion,\u201d \u201cdialogue,\u201d and \u201cworship,\u201d but not \u201cunity,\u201d remember!) grew out of the series of \u201cRestoration Forums\u201d conducted over the past twenty years and the \u201cStone-Campbell Dialogue,\u201d begun in 1999. The first of these forums (originally billed as a \u201cRestoration Summit\u201d) convened in August 1984 on the campus of Ozark Bible College (an ICC school) in Joplin, Missouri. Fifty men from churches of Christ and from the ICC (all deemed to be \u201cirenic\u201d) attended by invitation only. Principal participants included Rubel Shelly (he had publicly announced his liberalism only a year earlier) and Victor Knowles (ICC unity activist identified above).<\/span><\/p>\n Of the fifty men invited from churches of Christ, perhaps six were known for their conservatism, while the rest had already made a reputation, either as doctrinally soft and\/or as unabashedly liberal. Some extremely compromising statements were made in this forum by men in\u2014but on the way out of\u2014the Lord\u2019s church (e.g., Randy Mayeux). Others who were present suggested compromises and\/or wrote articles afterward that urged compromise in the interest of \u201cfellowship\u201d and \u201cunity.\u201d Liberals in the church have eagerly participated in these ecumenical exercises.<\/span><\/p>\n While some of \u201cour\u201d participants were quite willing to ignore such differences as the use of instruments in worship (and the crucial underlying issue of Biblical authority), the ICC attitude was uncompromising relative to their compromises. Concerning instruments, their attitude was (and is): \u201cWe are not about to give them up.\u201d Since about 1987, only those on the extreme liberal fringe among us have attended these syrupy \u201clove-ins\u201d with the ICC folks. Faithful brethren rightly view these forums as both futile and malevolent because they ignore the numerous substantive hermeneutical, doctrinal, and practical errors that preclude Biblical unity.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n News Story Number Two: <\/strong>A three-page article (17\u201319, including centerfold) reviewed a new book, Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement <\/em>(more of that Stone-Campbell Movement<\/em> lingo). The reviewers, John Harrison and Lynn McMillon (both Christian Chronicle <\/em>staffers and Oklahoma Christian University religion professors at the time\u2014McMillon has since been appointed Chronicle<\/em> Editor), laud the work of the book\u2019s editors, one from each of the \u201cthree major branches of the movement\u201d (there they go again\u2014the third \u201cbranch\u201d is the modernistic Disciples of Christ denomination). The editor \u201crepresenting\u201d the \u201cChurch of Christ\u201d is Doug Foster, highly acclaimed by Abilene Christian University as its resident \u201cauthority\u201d on \u201crestoration\u201d history. (This is the same Doug Foster who, in a 1992 Wineskins<\/em> article, attributed heretical statements from a Baptist preacher to David Lipscomb, whom Lipscomb had actually quoted in the process of refuting his error. Although over thirteen years have passed, Foster has still not come clean on his appalling error.)<\/span><\/p>\n Tom Olbricht, retired head of Pepperdine\u2019s religion department and one of the originators and principal advocates of the \u201cnew hermeneutic\u201d movement a few years ago, wrote several articles concerning the church in this book (including one on hermeneutics). His credentials and his history inspire anything but confidence that his material will faithfully represent Scripture or history.<\/span><\/p>\n One could easily infer that the reviewers consider all three bodies of the \u201cRestoration Heritage\u201d (the reviewers\u2019 terminology) equally honorable and\/or culpable concerning the three-way division. They say the Encyclopedia<\/em> desires to \u201cstress the \u2018connectedness\u2019 of the three traditions.\u201d This statement and\/or aim is almost <\/strong>amusing, in light of the utter \u201cdisconnectedness\u201d that prevails\u2014and will remain\u2014as long as the Disciples and the ICC despise the authority of Scripture, and as long as faithful brethren stand for the Truth.<\/span><\/p>\n Disciples of Christ Advertisement: <\/strong>On page 15, The Christian Chronicle<\/em> carried a prominent advertisement, titled, \u201cPresident Sought.\u201d The ad seeks a new president for the Disciples of Christ Historical Society. The candidate \u201cmust be\u2026committed to reconciliation,\u201d and must have \u201ccommitment to and knowledge of all traditions in the Stone-Campbell Movement.\u201d (Strange, but I failed to find \u201cmust be committed to the Scriptures\u201d in the ad.) What business does the Chronicle<\/em> have helping a branch of the modernistic Disciples of Christ (or any other denomination) find an employee?<\/span><\/p>\n As if this were not enough, as a follow-up on the ad, the Chronicle\u2019s <\/em>June 2005 issue (p. 27) reported the appointment of Glenn Carson (accompanied by his photo) to the position advertised above. The paper combined this announcement indiscriminately with announcements of various other appointees, the rest of whom are members of the church. Here we have a blatant display of the Chronicle\u2019s <\/em>consistent attempts to blur the line of fellowship between Truth and error\u2014between the Lord\u2019s church and denominationalism. Are there still those who doubt the Chronicle\u2019s <\/em>leftward theological tilt?<\/span><\/p>\n Christian Chronicle <\/em><\/strong>Goes \u201cAll-out\u201d for \u201cUnity\u201d with ICC in 2006<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Apparently seeking to capitalize on the centennial of the 1906 division and the opportunity it provides, The Christian Chronicle <\/em>and its companions in liberalism began beating the \u201cunity\u201d drums early in 2006. They steadily increased the beat as the year wore on. The February lead story on page 1 reported that both Abilene Christian University Lectures (February) and the Tulsa \u201cSoul-winning\u201d Workshop (March) would \u201ctag-team keynote addresses featuring university presidents or ministers from both groups.\u201d The secular press carried a news story, with accompanying photo, of Jeff Walling rushing across the Tulsa Workshop stage to symbolically embrace an ICC preacher. The Chronicle <\/em>story also revealed that about forty men from \u201ca cappella churches of Christ\u201d were slated to speak at the North American Christian Convention (June), the annual national conclave of the ICC, in Louisville, Kentucky. The Chronicle<\/em> story was tilted decidedly in favor of such union efforts.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The April issue\u2019s front-page had a story headlined \u201cACU Lectures Promote \u2018Spirit of Fellowship,\u2019\u201d with the sub-head: \u201cAfter a century of division, reconciliation urged between \u2018estranged brothers and sisters,\u2019 despite differences on instrumental music in worship\u2019.\u201d ACU President, Royce Money, and Milligan College (ICC) President, Don Jeanes, delivered back-to-back opening addresses on the ACU Lectureship. Both of them basically called for a declared \u201cunity\u201d and \u201cfellowship\u201d while treating instrumental music as a mere matter of option and opinion. Along with, and as part of the lectureship, ACU hosted a \u201cunity forum\u201d with the ICC. The Chronicle <\/em>had not the slightest hint of criticism for the rankest statements of compromise and hyperemotional \u201csweet nothings\u201d exchanged by \u201cour\u201d liberals and the ICC digressives. The total emphasis was upon mutual \u201cacceptance\u201d with no suggestions of the need for repentance or attention to doctrinal issues involved.<\/span><\/p>\n The May issue featured two news stories (pp. 14, 18) that dealt with relationships on the mission fields between members of churches of Christ and the ICC. The first article indicated that the 2006 Tulsa Workshop represented a \u201clandscape that was different, with a host of displays unfamiliar to the members of a cappella churches strolling the aisles.\u201d In case the reader missed it, this \u201chost of displays\u201d belonged to and promoted ICC causes. The article on page 18 touted the efforts of liberal members of the Lord\u2019s church who have been living and working together in various foreign evangelistic efforts.<\/span><\/p>\n The only thing drastic enough to bump the unity-with-ICC agenda from the front page in June was the \u201cDa Vinci Code\u201d silliness and the tragic murder of Matthew Winkler by his wife. Even so, Chronicle<\/em> editors found a way to keep the agenda before its readers. The front page carried a picture glorifying the Pepperdine University Lectures, conducted in May. The picture featured Tim Spivey, \u201csenior minister\u201d of Dallas\u2019s Highland Oaks \u201cChurch of Christ\u201d (noted for years for its liberalism), lecturing on \u201cThe God Who Fellowships.\u201d The overall theme of the program was \u201cLife Together, the Heart of Love, and Fellowship in 1 John.\u201d One can easily imagine all of the rank statements of compromise that came out of this storied symposium of apostates.<\/span><\/p>\n The Chronicle <\/em>staff took a break in July, at least in its print medium. However, it could not keep quiet on the unity mantra, initiating an on-line poll that asked readers to \u201cvote\u201d on the following: \u201cDo you support fellowship between a cappella Churches of Christ and instrumental Christian Churches?\u201d (Too bad these pollsters do not realize that the Lord settled this \u201cvote\u201d two thousand years ago [Rom. 16:17\u201318; Eph. 5:11; 2 John 9\u201311; et al.].) The August issue got back in the thick of the fight for unscriptural \u201cfellowship\u201d and \u201cunity\u201d by printing a large photo of ACU \u201cBible professor,\u201d Jerry Taylor and Steve White, an ICC preacher, praying together after they had exchanged Bibles on the platform of the North American Christian Convention in June. The Convention theme was \u201cTogether in Christ.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Following his warm-up performance at the Tulsa Workshop in March, the notorious apostate, Jeff Walling, apparently started the Bible-exchanging gambit when he publicly presented his mother\u2019s Bible to Dale Stone, an ICC preacher. (Walling\u2019s mother had given the Bible to him in memory of his father, T.J. Walling, who, if reports I have received are true, would be appalled at the doctrinal surrender of his son.) One can almost see the reporter who wrote the story (Bobby Ross, Jr.) drooling as he wrote: \u201cIn an emotional display of love and acceptance, several prominent leaders of a cappella Churches of Christ and instrumental Christian Churches joined Walling and Stone in exchanging personal Bibles.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n It is safe to say that the 2006 ICC Convention would have been severely understaffed had it not been for liberals among us. Among the \u201cprominent leaders\u201d referenced above besides Taylor and Walling were such predictable participants as Marvin Phillips, Royce Money, Keith Lancaster (of Acappella fame), Mike Westerfield (Rochester College President), Prentice Meador, Rick Atchley, Carl Brecheen, Paul Faulkner, Joe Beam, Max Lucado, Don McLaughlin, Ron Rose, Albert Lemmons, Lynn Anderson, Mike Cope, Calvin Warpula, Buddy Bell, Randy Harris, Milton Jones, John Mark Hicks, Carroll Osburn, and Doug Foster. Talk about a \u201cRogue\u2019s Gallery\u201d of liberal \u201cPost Office pin-ups\u201d\u2014this is it!<\/span><\/p>\n These aforementioned fellows some years ago chose an all-positive, hyper-tolerant, restraint-despising elitism that has led inexorably to their present state of apostasy. The administrators of various \u201cChristian Universities\u201d are part of the list. They have in some cases led the way in these efforts and in all cases have given great encouragement to others in them. These heretics have always been able to count on their comrades at The Christian Chronicle<\/em> to promote and favorably publicize their statements and stunts, regardless of how outrageous and unauthorized they may have been.<\/span><\/p>\n On page 1 of each issue of the Chronicle<\/em> appears the following: \u201cOur mission: To inform, inspire and unite.\u201d The paper is fulfilling its mission statement in an admirable fashion. For years it has informed<\/strong> its readers (with implied approval) of every liberal project, person, plan, practice, and promotion. For years it has inspired<\/strong> departures from the faith by presenting said departures to tens of thousands of na\u00efve, uninformed, and Biblically illiterate readers as attractive and \u201cnormal.\u201d For years it has, first subtly, then with increasing openness, encouraged the Lord\u2019s people to unite<\/strong> with the ICC. The Chronicle<\/em> staff is doubtless proud of its measure of success.<\/span><\/p>\n The multifaceted 2006 crusade for union with the ICC signals that these folk have \u201ccrossed the Rubicon,\u201d if they had not done so before, on the issues of fellowship and Bible authority. Walling and others at the ICC Convention urged those attending to go home and start trying to forge a union between \u201cus\u201d and \u201cthem\u201d in their local communities. I urge a different strategy for our apostate brethren who care more about their own union goals than they do the Truth. They should follow Max Lucado\u2019s example and take \u201cChurch of Christ\u201d off of their buildings, their deeds, their letterheads, and anywhere else it presently appears. Whatever else one might say about Lucado, he was at least honest in this respect concerning His \u201cOak Hills Church.\u201d If the liberals listed above (and members of their pep squad) have an honest bone in their bodies, they will do the same. The have proved in every way possible that they despise the church which Christ purchased with His blood, the worship He authorized, the church polity He ordained, and the work He gave His church to do.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n I challenge them to quit pretending to be something they are not. Let them be honest enough to pursue to its end the road upon which they have been so persistently traveling. In smaller towns, they should immediately preach their ultra-liberal views and set about as soon as possible to convince their congregations to sell their buildings with those despised \u201cChurch of Christ\u201d signs on them. They should then take the proceeds to the nearest ICC congregation and place membership. No doubt they will be welcomed with open arms\u2014just as long as they never suggest there is no Scriptural authority for instruments in worship. In larger cities, they should at least publicly repudiate any association with the church of Christ and just as openly announce that they are now one with the ICC.<\/span><\/p>\n Is Unity the Summum Bonum<\/em> in Religion?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The foregoing considerations raise the question, \u201cShould religious unity override all other considerations?\u201d Are doctrinal Truth and Scriptural practice only secondary and relatively insignificant? Many in the church, in an ecumenism run amuck, now answer these questions affirmatively and would have all of us do so as well.<\/span><\/p>\n Some delight in stressing the emphasis the Campbells and other early restorers made on unity, especially in their early efforts to free themselves from sectarian shackles. These self-styled revisionist \u201chistorians\u201d leave the impression at times that unity was their only<\/strong> interest and plea. However, an objective perusal of only a few of A. Campbell\u2019s uncompromising, strongly worded articles in The Christian Baptist<\/em> (1823\u201329) will quickly dispel this impression. The early restorers pleaded for unity, but based on submission to, rather than sacrifice of, inspired Truth. Faithful men have never sought or proposed unity merely for its sake alone.<\/span><\/p>\n Undeniably, unity in spiritual matters is a major theme of the Bible. Jesus came to heal the great division between Jew and Gentile (Eph. 2:14\u201317). Moreover, He came to heal the ultimate alienation between God and mankind (Luke 19:10; 1 Pet. 3:18). None can (nor should any desire to) deny that the Lord and the inspired New Testament penmen urged (and urge) unity. The Lord prayed that all who would believe on Him would be one (John 17:20\u201321). Paul pleaded for unity among the Lord\u2019s people (1 Cor. 1:10; Eph. 4:1\u20133). Peace and accord are conditions that all right-thinking men highly prize and greatly admire: \u201cBehold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!\u201d (Psa. 133:1). It is still appropriate to ask, however, if unity is the ultimate goal of God and the Gospel.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Some Balancing Considerations<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The Lord\u2019s Prayer:<\/strong> As mentioned above, the Lord prayed for unity among all those who would \u201cbelieve\u201d on Him through the apostles\u2019 teaching. However, one is mistaken to identify these \u201cbelievers\u201d as those who merely reach the conclusion that He is the Son of God, while ignoring His Word in their doctrine and practice. He did not have modern \u201cChristendom\u201d or the denominational labyrinth in mind. That this conclusion is sound is attested by the even<\/em>as<\/em> clause He employed: \u201cThat they may all be one; even as<\/strong> thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us\u201d (John 17:21a, emp. DM). The Father and the Son are absolutely one in doctrine and practice, and this is specifically the unity for which the Lord prayed.<\/span><\/p>\n Further, the New Testament repeatedly uses believe <\/em>as a synecdoche for the entire Gospel plan of salvation, beginning at least as early as John 3:16. This use of the word is especially noticeable from Pentecost forward. Those who received the Word, were baptized, were added to the church (Acts 2:41, 47), and initially constituted \u201call that believed\u201d (v. 44; cf. 4:4, 32; 5:14; 1 Cor. 3:5; 9:5; et al.). Similarly, inspired writers juxtapose believer<\/em> with unbeliever<\/em> to distinguish a Christian from a non-Christian (1 Cor. 14:22; 2 Cor. 6:15; 1 Pet. 2:7). A \u201cbeliever\u201d is one who has obeyed the Gospel and whom the Lord has added to His church.<\/span><\/p>\n Surely, the Lord would not have confused us by referring in His prayer to \u201cbelievers\u201d in some other sense. Granted, He would have all men who \u201cbelieve\u201d on Him in any sense be one, but His prayer is far more specific. He did not pray for some sort of pseudo \u201cunity\u201d of His people with doctrinally diverse denominationalists in an oxymoronic \u201cunity in diversity\u201d in which they would \u201cagree to disagree.\u201d Believers<\/em> did not include such folk, so any application of the prayer to denominationalism is secondary at best<\/strong>.<\/span><\/p>\n Primarily and specifically, His prayer looked toward the fast-approaching Pentecost and the glorious new era it would inaugurate as the apostles began preaching His Word (Mat. 28:18\u201319; Mark 16:15\u201316; Luke 24:47\u201349). The \u201cbelievers\u201d were those who would believe on Him \u201cthrough their word\u201d (John 17:20)\u2014those who would obey the Gospel, as demonstrated earlier. He prayed that all these<\/strong> \u201cmay\u2026be one.\u201d May be<\/em> translates a present tense form, indicating continuing action. Hence, He prayed not only for initial, but also for perpetual unity among those who would<\/strong> obey the apostles\u2019 teaching<\/strong> and whom He would add to His church<\/strong>, as occurred in the beginning (Acts 2:41\u201342, 47).<\/span><\/p>\n Those disciples did not need a \u201cunity forum\u201d to achieve unity. Unity occurred when\u2014and because\u2014they initially obeyed the Gospel, and it continued as long as they \u201ccontinued stedfastly in the apostles\u2019 teaching\u201d (cf. 1 John 1:6\u20137). When three or three thousand persons obey the pure Gospel and continue in it, they will become and remain genuinely united, whether in the first or the twenty-first century.<\/span><\/p>\n Paul\u2019s Plea:<\/strong> Paul\u2019s plea for unity (1 Cor. 1:10) was directed to the Corinthian saints who had initially been united in Christ by obeying the Gospel (vv. 13\u201316; 15:1\u20132). For doctrinal and practical reasons in their private and congregational behaviors (e.g., 1:11\u201312; 3:3\u20136; 5:1; 6:1\u20138; 11:17\u201334; 12:1\u201331; et al.), the Corinthian saints were divided. Paul did not urge them to merely declare a state of \u201cunity\u201d in spite of their doctrinal diversity. Rather, he pleaded that \u201cye 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\u201d (1:10). They were to be of one mind<\/strong> and one voice<\/strong> because of the one message<\/strong>, which Paul taught \u201ceverywhere in every church\u201d (4:17), not because of negotiated compromises.<\/span><\/p>\n Division Commanded:<\/strong> Some depict those who dare oppose any effort supposedly aimed at \u201cunity\u201d as negative knuckleheads who delight in religious division. This depiction is neither Scriptural nor accurate. It is not even fair. \u201cUnity,\u201d if not based upon Truth, is not only undesirable\u2014it is unauthorized<\/strong>. Some moderns are apparently unaware of Jesus\u2019 declaration in Luke 12:51: \u201cThink ye that I am come to give peace in the earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division.\u201d God\u2019s forbids His people to seek or maintain fellowship and be united with those who rebel against the Lord and His Word (to do one is to do the other, John 12:48).<\/span><\/p>\n Jesus commands His church to separate from (not remain united with) one who sins against a brother and will not repent (Mat. 18:15\u201317). The church is to mark and turn away from (not unite with) those who deceive and alienate others by their false doctrines (Rom. 16:17\u201318). The church is to \u201cpurge out\u201d and no longer \u201ckeep company\u201d with a member who lives an immoral life (1 Cor. 5:1\u201313). The church must \u201cwithdraw\u201d from and \u201chave no company with\u201d brethren who are disorderly and who reject apostolic doctrine (2 The. 3:6, 14; cf. Eph. 5:11; 1 Tim. 1:19\u201320; Tit. 3:11\u201312; 2 John 9\u201311; Rev. 2:5). These passages clearly affirm that \u201cunity,\u201d arrived at by compromise or surrender of the Truth, is forbidden and sinful. The conclusion is also unavoidable that our Master requires us to disrupt fellowship and unity when men will not repent of their rebellion against Him. We are to have no fellowship even with brethren<\/strong> who persist in sin and error, much less with denominationalists who have never been in fellowship with God and His people.<\/span><\/p>\n Conclusion<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Both branches of the Christian Church (i.e., the Disciples and the Independents) are denominations, spawned by those who rebelled against the Christ and His Word. I know of no present attempt to \u201ccozy up\u201d to the radical left wing (theologically and politically) Disciples. The present thrust of liberals among the Lord\u2019s people continues to be toward the ICC. However, those who are so eager to join themselves to the ICC (in spite of its adamant refusal to repent of its many errors) may as well go ahead and start fellowship negotiations with the Disciples. The two groups share the same basic crucial erroneous attitude toward the authority of Scripture: Where the Bible is silent, we have the right to act and speak. Scriptural silence gives us freedom and license. The Disciples have simply been more consistent in following where that attitude leads.<\/span><\/p>\n The old denominational slogan, \u201cOne church is as good as another,\u201d is accurate only in reference to the denominations. If the liberals in the church of Christ accept one (e.g., the ICC), they have no logical basis on which to discriminate against and reject another (e.g., the Disciples and all the rest). Max Lucado and Rubel Shelly have been consistent\u2014if grossly in error\u2014in this respect. Not only have they openly embraced the ICC, but Catholics, Baptists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, and likely others in their open-ended ecumenism. Lucado has outdone even Shelly (and several other fellow-apostates) in at least one respect as already noted: He changed the name of his denomination so that innocent Truth-seekers are no longer confused by seeing \u201cChurch of Christ\u201d on his building. I pray that all of those who are more in agreement with and feel a greater kinship toward the denominations than with and toward the Lord\u2019s faithful people will go ahead and join them \u201cwhole hog.\u201d The \u201csooner the better\u201d it will be for the church of Christ. As beautiful and desirable as unity is, it is not the \u201cbe all and end all\u201d in religion. Jesus did not say, \u201cYe shall know unity, and unity shall make you free,\u201d but \u201cYe shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free\u201d (John 8:32).<\/span><\/p>\n [Note<\/strong>: <\/em>This MS originally appeared in a slightly different and shorter form as an \u201cEditorial Perspective\u201d in The Gospel Journal<\/em>, January 2005. I am unable to locate where\/when it was published.]<\/span><\/p>\n Attribution:<\/strong> From thescripturecache.com<\/em>; Dub McClish, owner and administrator.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Views: 18[Note:\u00a0 This MS is available in larger font on our Manuscripts\u00a0 page.] Introduction Apostate brethren have definitely undertaken a renewed and intensified \u201cunity\u201d initiative with the Independent Christian Church (ICC). This effort has been growing and gaining momentum in the years immediately leading up…<\/p>\n