"If I Were Satan"
Gary W. Summers

All throughout the Old Testament Satan did everything within his power to prevent God from redeeming mankind. Through his influence man became so corrupted that God destroyed the world--except for eight souls. The nation through whom God chose to bring the Messiah into the world departed from God time after time. Even as the Christ was born into this world, Satan moved Herod to attempt to destroy Him.

But (as always) the devil could not become victorious against God. The sacrifice for the sins of all mankind has been paid (1 John 2:2). So now what can Satan do? He has failed utterly in preventing God's overall plan of salvation from being implemented, but he has not given up the fight. He is as determined as ever to wreak as much havoc as he can in the time yet allotted.

Imagine what it must have been like to be Satan on the morning of the resurrection. First of all, the victory celebration was cut short. Next, the devil had to consider the implications of the resurrection. Jesus was dead but is now alive--alive forevermore (according to Rev. 1:18). He also has the keys of death and Hades. Every person that dies can be freed from death by Jesus--raised up on the last day (John 5:28-29).

What will Satan do--give up? No, he will continue to fight against God any way that he can. He will work for the destruction of men's souls. He still has all the old techniques that have worked through the centuries so well on individuals. There is still the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life to keep people from obeying the gospel--or to get them back into the world if they have obeyed (1 John 2:15-17). But if I were Satan, I would do more than rely on these things, effective though they are. If I were the meanest individual in the whole creation, I would try to deceive those who cared nothing for evil. What special fiendish delight would be mine to mislead those who are willing to forsake the world and turn to God.

Yes, if I were Satan, I would keep sincere people out of the kingdom of God by perverting the gospel of Christ. The gospel is defined as the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (in its most limited sense--1 Cor. 15:1-4). To become a Christian one must obey that form of doctrine (Rom. 6:17) by repenting of sin and being buried with Christ in baptism for the forgiveness of sins (Rom. 6:3-11, Acts 2:38).

There is, of course, one and only one gospel (Gal. 1:8-9), but I would introduce various optional gospels (grace only, works only). I would try to circumvent every aspect of the gospel. I would change immersion into sprinkling (which is not a burial). Sprinkling is so much more convenient that people will prefer it. In fact I'll make it so commonplace that people will think that immersion is strange.

While I'm at it, let's start using it (sprinkling) on babies, too. It seems like a pious thing to do--especially if I can convince people that they are born with the guilt of Adam's sin. They'll need to wash that off right away, and they'll resent anyone who dares to teach that children don't need to be baptized. Resent? Religious authorities tortured and put to death Anabaptists such as Michael Sattler, who was accused (among other things) of teaching that "infant baptism was not promotive of salvation" on May 17, 1527. Three days later part of his tongue was cut out. "Pieces of flesh were cut from his body twice with red-hot tongs"; later he was pushed into a fire and burned to death (The Anabaptist Story by William Estep 40-47).

Yes, entrench people in falsehood so they will hate the truth. And while I am at it, it would be a tremendous oversight not to confuse people about the purpose of baptism. I must convince them that baptism is not for the remission of sins despite Acts 2:38. To get this point across I'll invent the phrase "an outward sign of an inward grace" and suggest hypothetical situations of someone getting struck by lightning on the creek bank before being immersed.

Of course, I don't want to be short-sighted in this matter. I must also convince them that repentance means you can continue in sin and that faith is just a "leap in the dark" instead of resulting from knowledge and understanding.

If I were Satan, I would change the worship God has designated. After all, He says He wants to be worshiped in spirit and in truth (John 4:23-24). So, if we can just inject a little error into worship, that should be sufficient. After all, some are going to obey the true gospel; we've got to snag them somewhere else. Let's try to persuade everyone that they are just observers of the worship instead of active participants. Then let's add instruments of music that were never used in the New Testament church and remind people there is no "thou shalt not" against it. That ought to do it. I think I can convince most everyone to only incorporate the Lord's Supper into worship once a month or so--it's so time-consuming anyway. Maybe I can talk some into thinking the bread and fruit of the vine really are the body and blood of Christ instead of just representing them.

If I were Satan, I would mix in a number of strange doctrines, some of which may even sound a little bit Biblical. Sorting out fact from fiction ought to keep believers busy for a long time--too busy to do the work they need to do.

If I were Satan, I would alter the structure of the church so that each congregation is no longer autonomous. The more dependent they can become on each other, the faster apostasy can spread. And while I'm at it, why not suggest a "pastor" system instead of elders? Everybody will probably think that's a Scriptural concept despite Acts 20:28-32 and 1 Tim. 3.

If I were Satan, I would spark problems between congregations and even sound individuals. Keep things stirred up; that's my motto. Internal strife has some merit; but the brotherhood-wide hostilities work best. Nobody will trust anybody. And as in the days of Corinth, parties can form around personalities and opinions rather than real Biblical issues that would be a matter of fellowship.

If I were Satan, I would try to discourage everyone. By constantly reminding them of all the problems (which I have created), my goal is to get them to give up on God. If I can just get Christians to blame Him for all their problems, I would almost be happy. Now hold on. I'd better be careful. It's not time to get delirious yet; there's more work to be done.

I must call faithful brethren "sectarian," Pharisaical, exclusivistic, and judgmental. That way everyone can draw false conclusions about them, and their effect can be lessened. I must also create a desire in the hearts of Christians to belong to congregations known for love, peace, and tolerance, in which you can "believe your own thing." I absolutely love it when people become too lazy to think, reason, evaluate, and contend for what is true (hee hee).

I don't want God to have any followers left when I get done implementing all my devices, but He will. Despite all my best efforts (this really gripes me!), He will.

*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as "If I Were Satan (7/16/95)."
———————————————————————————————————————————
garysummers@spiritualperspectives.org

Mr. Summers,
Excellent Article!
Thank You Brother.
Larry.

A SURE PATH TO OBLIVION

GARY W. SUMMERS

Because we are in the midst of a full-blown apostasy, reason would dictate that we all encourage one another to stand for the truth (John 17:17). We especially need to promote an understanding of the way God authorizes so that we may be correct in doctrine and pleasing to Him in worship (Col. 3:17). Unfortunately, the post-modern position of many brethren echoes Pilate's skeptical remark: "What is truth?" (John 18:38). Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the current attitude amounts to: "Who cares what is truth?"

Since congregations are teetering daily on the brink of the hill overlooking liberalism, it is indeed unfortunate that some have taken it upon themselves to criticize brethren who have heeded the Biblical admonition to mark those "who cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine," which the New Testament teaches (Rom. 16:17). The faithful who remain cannot afford sniping at one another; this is the time to support one another. It was therefore disillusioning to hear a prominent brother say these words a few months ago.

There are some preachers who think that they have been appointed of God to try to be pope over the church. And they find out everything they can about what's wrong in other places, and they're writing about it. Elders, know what your preachers are writing. And if they're tearing down the church of our Lord, and they're writing about things they shouldn't be writing, then correct them on it. Don't let them demote fellowship. But make them promote it in the brotherhood. And then all of us have an obligation to do that--and to love the entire church. We sometimes treat other congregations like they're denominations.

Although we do not deny that someone somewhere might want to be the pope over the church, we have never met this fellow. This charge seems to be a bit on the trite side. If someone has some evidence to substantiate the charge, let him present it; otherwise, this hackneyed expression is worthy of a quick burial.

Likewise, who is the fellow spying on other congregations? Most of us hear more than we care to about other churches in the area, but who is the man running around collecting data? Because our society is highly mobile, we occasionally get visits from dissatisfied members of other congregations. Some leave an apostate church and of their own free will communicate the various problems that led to their decision. If the concerns they express are legitimate, then one congregation may decide not to fellowship another one until the matter can be resolved. Churches departing from God's word, however, do not generally want to discuss such matters with those standing firm.

We receive many bulletins, and occasionally someone does write an article exposing a false teacher or apostate congregation. In the articles we have seen, evidence is offered to establish the case. Usually, the very words of the preacher or congregation in question are cited. We are grateful for the information because brethren are always asking about sound congregations they can safely worship with when they travel. Many people ask ahead of time because of bad previous experiences. There is an international publication that devotes itself to this topic, and it serves a useful purpose. Faithful brethren do not generally protest it.

Those who expose error are not guilty of tearing down the church. People such as Rubel Shelly and Max Lucado (and those who bask in their shadows) are the ones causing the problems and tearing down the Lord's church. Those who expose their false, soul-damning doctrine are not the source of conflict any more than Elijah was the troubler of Israel. The guilt lies with the false teachers and those who are allowing them to corrupt God's people.

If someone is spreading slander and gossip, that is wrong, and it ought to be stopped. If there are those who are just looking for something or someone to write up, they have the wrong motive and should be counseled to understand that brethren need to build up one another. Certainly, elders should know what their preachers are writing, but the idea should be applied to liberal preachers, also. (Why have elders with liberal preachers failed to rebuke their false doctrine? )

To the charge that we sometimes treat other congregations as if they are denominations we plead guilty. When "brethren" cease to teach baptism for the remission of sins, begin appointing women to leadership positions, introduce denominational concepts into worship, and fellowship denominations, exactly how are we supposed to treat them? There are many congregations that still refer to themselves as a "church of Christ" who ceased being such long ago. There may be a few brethren somewhere who insist on conformity with every optional matter before they will extend fellowship, but most brethren give as much slack as they can to avoid the charge of being opinionated.

To be fair, the brother who made these remarks also encouraged everyone to stand for the truth; perhaps he did not mean these things the way they came across. The elders and preacher of the host congregation made a response similar to this one in their church bulletin--and rightly so. We have no animosity toward this brother, but we disagreement his ideas was in order. To ignore or minimize a sister congregation's errors is a sure path to oblivion for the Lord's church.


"On Watchdogs and Whistle Blowers"

The above-titled article appeared in the July Gospel Advocate, and it merits similar criticism. The author, "a recently retired professor of ministries at Abilene Christian University," offers several kind remarks about watchdogs before he points out that some of them contract rabies. He does make an attempt to be fair in presenting the strengths and possible weaknesses of "whistle blowers." And in a time of relative peace among brethren the article might, with a few changes, serve a useful purpose. But again, the brotherhood would better be served with exhortations to remain steadfast. Despite his efforts at objectivity, there are a few points that need to be made.

First, in the middle of page 17 in large bold letters is this statement: "Various self-appointed watchdogs have uselessly irritated faithful people and even bitten others whom they have had no right to bite." The author is absolutely correct in this statement; everyone probably knows of a good brother who has been ill-treated at the hands of a jealous, spiritual pygmy. But one wonders two things: "Are all watchdogs self-appointed?" and "Exactly how is the author going to apply this prominently-displayed principle?"

Perhaps the answer to the first question is that the self-appointed watchdogs are the ones that create the most problems. But most literal watchdogs are bought or trained for that purpose by a master. Our master told us all to beware of false prophets (Matt. 7:15) and false doctrine (Matt. 16:12). Furthermore, He denounced the Pharisees and the scribes (Matt. 23). Paul cautioned all brethren to "beware of dogs" (Phil. 3:2), and Jude cautioned all brethren "to contend earnestly for the faith" (Jude 3). Do we not all have a responsibility to be a watchdog? And were we not appointed by our Master to fulfill that function?

To answer the question regarding the way this author applies the principles stated in the article, he applauds the work of F. LaGard Smith in his book, Who Is My Brother? Although he does not specifically state the reason for praising Smith, presumably he thinks Smith's exegetical work qualifies him to openly rebuke Max Lucado and surreptitiously take issue with Mike Cope, which Smith does in the book.

The problem is that Smith is inconsistent on the issue of fellowship; he contradicts himself often, which Daniel Denham pointed out in his 90-page scholarly review of Who Is My Brother? in Bellview's 1998 lectureship book, Fellowship (from Pensacola). Wayne Jackson, a brother never known for shoddy work, also exposed the weaknesses of Smith's work. Smith leaves the door open for fellowshipping those in denominations, and by his own admission he does so himself during the months he spends in England each year.

In an e-mail from Keith Sisman to Dub McClish, dated June 15, 1999, brother Sisman writes concerning the Ashton-Under-Hill-Free-Church:

I have visited this church with other sound brethren. They are Calvinistic (predestination and direct action of the HS in conversion). They teach that baptism does NOT save. Women lead in prayer and give testimony. The instrument is used in worship, "But not when LaGard attends."

They consider Smith a member! Smith I understand has also given financially to the work there.

Smith has criticised Lucado on his stance of failing to preach baptism, yet Smith openly worships in England with people who teach much the same thing as Lucado, plus Calvinism.

The warnings against self-appointed watchdogs begin to ring a little hollow when we see who and what the author of this article is willing to fellowship. Since he is recently retired from ACU, we might ask, "Did he not consider fellow faculty member Andre Resner's blasphemous article, 'Christmas At Matthew's House,' a barrier to fellowship?" Or was Resner a qualified scholar? And what did he think of Abilene's distinguished Carmichael Professor Carroll Osburn's book, The Peaceable Kingdom? That was the occasion of Osburn's saying that church organization, premillennialism, instrumental music, and baptism for or because of the remission of sins should not be matters of fellowship (in which case, what would be?). Does he agree with Osburn, is it a matter of fellowship, and is it wrong to "write him up"?


"Guilt By Association"

Another article in the same issue of the Gospel Advocate laments that a "congregation or university is called liberal because it has used speakers who have spoken where other speakers deemed to be liberal have spoken." Wait a minute! Why dally in obscurities such as "deemed to be liberal"? Who are we talking about? If the men in question are Rubel Shelly, Jeff Walling, and others of their ilk, they ARE liberal--not just thought to be so.

Now granted that some, in their zeal for truth, may have gone too far and drawn lines of fellowship too quickly. We should avoid such hasty actions until enough time is given to talk calmly through the situation. Again, we live in perilous times, in which many congregations and colleges have invited someone because he was popular--never mind the fact that he has associated with those who have departed from the Word of God. If elders had been more observant regarding those whom some of these speakers fellowshipped, perhaps they could have avoided division. If anything, the brotherhood needs to scrutinize preachers more closely, not less .

The writer seeks to justify his thesis that "guilt by association" is wrong by appealing to the fact that Jesus was a friend to tax collectors and sinners. The two situations are not parallel; Jesus did not endorse their immorality and fellowship their sins. The speakers in question, however, do not disagree with the liberals on the programs in which they appear. They fellowship the other men and endorse one another's teaching; otherwise, they would not be invited!

"Guilt by association" IS a Biblical principle. Jehu the prophet asked King Jehoshaphat: "Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord? Therefore, the wrath of the Lord is upon you" (2 Chron. 19:2). Although this occurred in the Old Testament, there is no reason that the same question should not be asked in this era.


"Today's Pharisees"

A third article in July's Gospel Advocate continues this theme. It is, perhaps, the most vicious of them all.

Our modern-day Pharisees are the same. All they want to know is where you go and who you know. If you do not associate with people they deem faithful, you must be unfaithful. They think that they can dictate with whom you should or should not fellowship. They have their lists and measure you by their lists instead of the Bible (15).

Really? Has the author seen these lists? Is it possible to get a copy? He sounds like an annual attendee of the Tulsa Soul-Winning Workshop or the Nashville Jubilee. The only criterion most of us use to determine fellowship is, "Does this person or group teach what the Bible teaches?" If not, we usually try to discern if the person is a babe in Christ and untaught--or if he knows what those men stand for and agrees with them. Toward the former we exercise patience and tolerance, but we must withhold fellowship from the latter. By the way, is it Pharisaical to point a finger at those who disagree with you and call them a Pharisee?

Just look at the modern Pharisees. Their empty church buildings, lack of action, and constant whining about how difficult life is are testimonies to their lack of love for the lost.

Oh! So, a facility empty of people is a mark of Phariseeism. Pity the poor animals on the ark and all the time they had to spend with Noah and his Pharisaical family! Most congregations still standing for the truth show signs of meaningful activity and are engaged in evangelistic activities. These generalizations are unwarranted and unprovable.

The motto of today's Pharisee might be, "The sins in others I can see! But praise the Lord there is none in me!"

Whew! One wonders how the writer knows the Pharisees so well. If he is acting as a watchdog, where is the scholarship that qualifies him to make these charges (as the brother who wrote the "watchdog" article insisted was necessary)? Those of us who have not met these modern-day Pharisees should rejoice immediately.

Today's Pharisees know what the Bible teaches about marriage and remarriage, baptism for the remission of sins, instrumental music in the church, fellowshipping the denominations, and paying tithes, but they do not know love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, and temperance (Galatians 5:22-23). How, O how, does this man know these folks so well that he can even describe their personal, private walk with God? Although the phrase is overworked today, this accusation really does amount to judgmentalism.

Conclusion

It is sad to see articles of this stripe in a magazine once (but no longer) known as the "Old Reliable." The Gospel Advocate still contains a number of articles by sound brethren; some of the information published is helpful, but it is not the same publication it once was.

This article was not intended to be an advertisement for the forthcoming Gospel Journal, but it certainly calls attention to the fact that the brotherhood needs a publication to take the place of some older papers that once were held in high esteem.

The purpose of this article was to protest and lament those who are calling for broader fellowship and more tolerance at the very time we need to be most alert. To complain about a few brethren who may have been overly vigilant when wolves are stealing sheep by the dozen makes as much sense as replacing light bulbs in the chandelier of the Titanic while it is sinking.

*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: "A SURE PATH TO OBLIVION (7/18/99)."

———————————————————————————————————————————
garysummers@spiritualperspectives.org

HOW TO DODGE QUESTIONS ABOUT APOSTATE BRETHREN IN NASHVILLE

Kerry Duke


The elders at West End in Livingston, Tennessee, sent a letter to Steve Flatt, President of David Lipscomb University, asking the following:

1. Do you encourage or discourage students to attend the Nashville Jubilee?
   
   
2. Would you discourage students from attending the Woodmont Hills church of Christ where Rubel Shelly preaches?
   

He responded,

"First, we neither encourage nor discourage our students to attend Jubilee. Frankly, it is a moot point since it occurs during the middle of the summer when only a small number of students are on campus. Jubilee is not a part of any campus announcements. Second, we make no public endorsement or criticism about individual congregations. We do encourage students to find a church home and that it be a congregation faithful to Christ and His Word. Personally, when asked I encourage individual students to worship at churches of Christ that are faithful to the Bible, filled with a spirit of joy, provide active opportunities for them to serve, and that enjoy a close fellowship with the majority of other churches of Christ in the area."

Here is the real politician at work. He knows how to answer questions without really answering them. He knows that what is going on at the Jubilee and at Woodmont Hills is not right. But he also knows that it will cost him in more ways than one if he speaks against these things. And, he knows that he and some of the faculty at Lipscomb have spoken at Jubilee. He furthermore knows that numerous members of the faculty and student body attends Woodmont Hills. So, he straddles the fence.

Perhaps the most revealing statement in his response is in the last line, where he encourages attending churches that "enjoy a close fellowship with the majority of other churches of Christ in the area." There we have it in his own words. If the majority of churches in a given area are faithful, then fellowship with them is good. But even then, the reason for fellowshipping them should not be because they are in the majority, but because they are faithful! And what if the majority of these churches are not faithful? Flatt's advice would have you in close fellowship with them. Had he lived in Asia when Revelation 2-3 were penned, his advice would have put him in fellowship with wayward churches. In other words, he would have been in the same situation he is in at Nashville, Tennessee.

Kerry Duke
1463 W Cemetery Rd.
Cookeville, TN 38501

In Addition.....

One wonders what Steve Flatt would have done in the 60s and 70s as Don Finto of the Belmont Church of Christ led a whole congregation into Pentecostalism. The Belmont Church is what remains. Finto was a Lipscomb professor in the 60s and they were forced to sever ties with him. He later claimed to have been made an apostle by God and still makes that claim today, miraculous abilities, etc. Back in November, "apostle" Don was at Woodmont Hills speaking on a unity forum they were hosting along with L. H. Hardwick Jr. of Christ's Church Pentecostal down the road from the Woodmont Hill's complex, plus "a Roman Catholic historian...that will help us see ourselves as others see us." (Woodmont Hills Love Lines, Volume 24 Number 43). Who would discourage entanglement and fellowship with such? The answer is obvious: faithful brethren.

Steve Flatt reminds me of Billy Graham who tells those who have "accepted Christ" through inviting Jesus into their hearts to "find a good Bible believing church to worship and grow with." It seems to never have registered with Mr. Graham that those who believe the Bible do not accept "accepting Jesus" per his denominational error nor will they find themselves denominationalists. Those who believe the Bible don't believe Billy Graham. You have to believe something else other than the Bible to be a sectarian. Likewise, Steve Flatt seems to be oblivious to the fact that congregations "faithful to Christ and His Word" have marked and avoid the very false teachers and apostate congregations Flatt remains in fellowship with. What a mess! It could be cleaned up immediately with a return to the Bible.

-- Freddie Clayton

-----------------------------
“Seek the Old Paths,” Vol. 10 No. 5

Dear Mr Moderators

Why all the old stuff from the conservative journals of years gone by?

This article is from May,1999.

It may be helpful in the future to place the original date of an article, for those that are anything but current.

Some readers not familiar with the long running discourse among the brethren may not understand that this has been going on for decades.

What brought it to my attention was the use of JUBILEE which ended years ago.

thanks
rs

Jubilee didn't end: it was stopped cold in its tracks! We STILL warn you that the Judas Bag was for "carrying mouthpieces of wind instruments."

Unfortunately the Jubilators DID NOT cease their heresy in Y2K. John Mark Hicks bridging Rubel Shelly and DLC claims that Paul taught the Lord's Supper in terms of animal sacrifices where the gods participated in eating the sacrificial meats. Babbling from Babylonia! The feast is to be held with JUBILATION.

http://www.piney.com/Hicks.Come.Table.html

John Mark Hicks: "a time for sharing, prayer and conversation about what God has done for us... (p. 188). Earlier he calls it a "Jubilee festival" (p. 63). He would have it observed with "resounding jubilation or enthusiastic outbursts" (p. 97).

When Jesus "sings in the congregation" he GRIEVES OUT A HYMN. Those who jubilate are the same Levitical Warrior Musicians who MOCKED the bleeding Jesus.

We still warn you that Satan or Lucifer (feminine) came into the garden of Eden as a NACHASH or Musical Enchanter and not a "snake." When you walk off a tall building don't FORGET the laws of gravity you learned in your youth. ZOE was known as the BEAST and the "female instructing principle." She was EVE who is still worshipped as they call Paul a liar for warning us that Eve was WHOLLY SEDUCED as a bride is taken before her marriage. That is why CAIN (from a musical note or mark) was "OF that wicked one."

No, friend, they will NEVER FORGET and history is stabbed with the purpose-driven history of these people and they will be VISIONED like the Machiavellis, Hitlers, Hegels and their modern parasites. (A harpIST was a sorcery, hypocrite and therefore PARASITE along with rhetoricians and sOPHISts (serpents). A Pharisee was a performing hypocrite.

A Koresh (remember?) was the first craftsmen including instrument players (without authority) and weapon makers: Instrument and Weapon comes from the same Hebrew word. They have no BIBLICAL or common sensical reason to PLAGUE the church but then Paul said that "fools love to be fooled" and the "blind will alway seek out a blind guide" and history--from now on--will know their names.

Ken: remember the Alamo and Pearl Harbor and Judas and Jubilee for ever and for ever Amen!

If you would like some interesting reading regarding some of these old articles try this site: www.aboutpearlstreet.com

This site also more perfectly illustrates the results of making our "tests of fellowship" smaller and smaller. When we must agree on everything, then you wil find that you can not fellowship with anyone but yourself.

Tom Brite

Tom,

What did you mean by “the results of making our ‘tests of fellowship’ smaller and smaller”? Were you speaking of when and when not to fellowship with the denominational world and share their doctrines, beliefs and practices—as the 3 magnificent “Hills” trans-[Baptist, Charismatic, Community] Churches have done with their denominational neighbors? Or, were you referring to conservative churches of Christ that you think are declining in membership?

Nobody has ever said anything that “we must agree on everything.” For generations, members of the church of Christ have never agreed on everything, but we’ve been united in spirit because we’ve all shared the same scriptural doctrines, beliefs and practices—the plan of salvation unaltered (e.g., it has not been a question whether or not redemption in the blood of the Lamb is received before or received after baptism; it has not been a question if the Lord’s Supper is for the purpose of remembering the Lord’s sacrifice, crucifixion and death on the cross, etc.). The change agents have done nothing except to confuse issues, question the truth, subvert mega congregations—“transforming” them into large-membership-driven community churches.

Tom, the change agents have used “fellowshipping” as their main criterion for a successful campaign for numerical church growth. God’s plan of salvation is nothing of that sort. Paul in his own words said: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” (Rom. 1:16, KJV)

Furthermore, we’re also familiar with the following passage: “[14] How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? [15] And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! [16] But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? [17] So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” (Romans 10, KJV).

In other words, our mission is to preach the truth first, bringing the unconverted to Christ—fellowshipping will take care of itself after that. The change agents, on the other hand, are doing their converting within the church—actually creating havoc in existing congregations!!!!!!!!

Donnie Cruz

Donnie, take a look back at the "What's wrong with the Promise Keepers Movement" thread on Feb. 3, 2004. I posted a discussion of I Cor. 1:10 which was in response to your discussion with Chai. You had used that scripture (although no specifically) to illustrate your point that we had to agree. Ken even followed my post with his response wherein the heading was "Tom: We CAN speak the same thing." Donnie, I AGREE with you that we do not have to always agree on everything to be in fellowship with each other. In fact, that was exactly the point I was trying to make in my discussion of the PROPER CONTEXT of I Cor. 1:10.

My point in using the phrase "the results of making our 'tests of fellowship' smaller and smaller" is this. Look at the www.aboutpearlstreet.com website. Here you have what was one of the pillars of the "conservative" churches of Christ torn apart by dissension over whether the Holy Spirit directly operates in the lives of christians. From reading the material, this issue has evidendly split many more conservative congregations and has effected who is now speaking (and talking with one another) of the RV Lectureship circuit. (RV meaning recreational vehicle because these more conservative lectureships seem to all have RV hookups available.) These people can not discuss this issue, study together, come to differing conclusions but still have fellowhip with each other. No, it is a line in the sand for both sides. (Someone mentioned the Alamo earlier, I thought I would throw that in.)

For those who may not be familiar with the RV Lectureship circuit, it is a rotating series of lectureships held in various congregations throughout (mostly) the Bible Belt areas of Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma, etc. that are designed to "refute" liberal doctrines and teachers. (i.e. contemporary worship songs and styles, fellowship issues, and ministers such as Shelly, Lucado, et al.)

Further, from a cursory reading, it appears that the "Contending For The Faith" brethren had to get involved and send both sides page after page of "true false" questions to determine just where everyone stood on various issues involving this dispute, in particular, and brotherhood issues, in general. Evidently, they felt the need to police the beliefs of a congregation all the way across Texas and a preacher in Florida.

Now this is not the first time that the RV Lecutureship circuit has been split. Look back a few years at the issue of whether a woman may translate a sermon "in the church" from a different language or for the deaf. That caused quite an uproar as well and there are still brothers who will not speak with brothers over this issue. (i.e. - fellowship each other) SEE THE LINES OF FELLOWSHIP GETTING SMALLER AND SMALLER.

I agree with you that churches of Christ have never agreed on everything. But I do not agree that we have been united in spirit because we all share the same scriptural doctrines, beliefs and practices. The truth is that we have been united in spirit with those with whom we AGREE in the same scriptural doctrines, beliefs and practices. You see, as a general rule, we draw our lines of fellowship with those with whom we agree and do not associate or fellowhip with those with whom we do not agree.

Donnie: - "In other words, our mission is to preach the truth first, bringing the unconverted to Christ - fellowhip will take care of itself after that." Perhaps it should, but I think the mere existence of the www.aboutpearlstreet.com site disproves your statement.

Tom

P.S. I wish I was computer literate enough to figure out how to do the highlights and color changes on this site. Looks really cool!

Tom,

I Corinthians 1:9,10 (KJV) states—“God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Now I beseech you, brethren, by 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 perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.”

That passage can easily be distorted unless we make a clear distinction between unity in the body of Christ and ecumenicity, between fellowship within the Lord’s church and affiliating with the denominational world, between non-denominationalism and inter-denominationalism. New Testament Christianity is not about ecumenicity, affiliation with just any religious body that “mentions” the word “God” or “Christ” and inter-denominationalism. If it were, it would make the church of our Lord just another denomination. That’s never been the intent for the church when it was established at Pentecost, neither by the great men of the Restoration Movement. To put it simply, unity in the churches of Christ can be best achieved by our being consistent with what we believe the Holy Scripture teaches in matters of human redemption and “teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you…”(Matt. 28:20).

There are issues that have been brought on by the change agents (Max, Rub, Rick, Jeff, Joe and others) who are actively operating in the brotherhood. Perhaps, it’s for the good of the church of our Lord that Max has gone public with Max’s Church (and in another case, Shelly’s Woodmont Family; hopefully Rick Atchley’s Church will rename itself appropriately sometime). The man of discord at Pearl Street, from what I’ve read about so far, reminds me of Joe Beam—another one of those charismatic apostates. What folks like that man and Joe Beam should do is leave the church peacefully and seek their own fellowship somewhere else. If Charismatic behavior or Pentecostalism is their desire, they should go for it and leave—just do not disrupt the local congregation. When unwanted and unwelcome changes are implemented by “coercion,” there is absolutely no reason for the faithful in the congregation to be asked to “get over it or leave if you don’t like it.” After all, the faithful members are not the intruders and disruptors. The change agents are the intruders and the disruptors!!!!!!!

The Pearl Street church situation is unfortunate but not necessarily unexpected. We have to keep reminding ourselves that even when the apostles (of all things, times and places) were still living among the early Christians, these kinds of things (dissensions, divisions, factions, disagreements) were already happening in congregations of the first century. The 21st century certainly would not be an exception.

Tom, while these incidents happen, I am convinced that conservative churches among the 13,000+ count still represent the majority. Yes, the change agents are not only intrusive and disruptive, but are also vocal and loud. But how many have succumbed to the pleasures of musical instrumentation in worship—4 or 5 congregations? How many of these have been converted to the Pentecostal or trans-Baptist “phenomenon” headed by Max and Rub, Rick and Joe?

We just cannot have it both ways! One is baptized in order to receive forgiveness of sins WHEREAS another is baptized because he has already been saved. One believes that “the Spirit is truth” (I John 5:6) and the Spirit of God or the Spirit of Christ (Rom. 8:9) or Christ himself (Eph. 3:17) or the word of Christ (Col. 3:16) DWELLS IN him WHEREAS another believes the he feels the touch or hears the words of the Spirit “person” thus causing him to “speak the heavenly language” that needs no interpretation. These differences can just go and on. This is what the Corinthian passage is referring to—having the same mind and judgment in these critical matters. The passage has NOTHING to do with incidentals—one cup vs. multiple cups, air conditioning, microphones, baptistery, etc.

Simply put, if one believes NOT that baptism is a requirement or condition in order to receive forgiveness of sins, he should fellowship with his Baptist neighbors. If one wants to behave like a Charismatic, he should be comfortable fellowshipping with the Pentecostals.

Donnie Cruz

I couldn't read the material but I thought the issue was over taxes on a private business.

If you have ever run a business you know that there NUMEROUS taxing systems--especially in Texas--who claim that you owe taxes, you claim that you do not, they don't send you to jail, you work out the differences or pay up.

From close family I can tell you that if you spend large sums of money to start a business, repair old buildings and increase the value of "downtown," hire lots of people and provide a service you cannot just GO OUT OF BUSINESS. It takes forever for all of the little hands to tell you that you owe and owe and owe.

Even if you invested a million dollars into the economy and provided jobs and then lost it all, the tax man will be after you for a year or so you keep on paying. Government tends to be anti-business.

So, I wonder how these preachers survived so long and then suddenly had an elder or two or a jealous preacher come down on them. Maybe we don't know enough to judge what happened. None of this detracts from Gary's sermons and his courage was bound to get him in trouble from the HOSTILE TAKE OVER people.

But, we know that the signs prove that MOST will endure some tribulation before things settle out. As Donnie notes, there has been only a hand full of treacherous colleges training "Prophets, Chanellers and Facilitators" to go out and CHANGE the church you thought you owned. It happened in Hohenwald because men forced themselves into leadership and still remain NOVICES. But, dangerous novices.

They yell and Hitler or Hegel or the "hate monger next door" try to shout you down and induce FEAR. It works but God always drives those who attack Him by attacking his people into self-destruction. The MOTHER CHURCH in San Antonio and the SHEPHERDING of the major "players" in their evil little game intends to PARASITE on people who can be SEDUCED by music and charismatic preaching into joining the cults to keep the money flowing. Most of these people know that they could not find a job in a faithful church of Christ ever again. And, the denominations, they think are friends are to literate and ethical to trust any who has BETRAYED their own trust. Therefore, watch for the rise of the SHEPHERDING CULT to replace the last, failed, EFFORT.

Jesus associated the clergy with the child-led choral song and dance where the end meant that the child (pais) got hurt real bad. The phrase:

Charizesthai erastais Pederasty

"The Greeks do not seem to have associated this with the kind of demagogic and irrational leadership of which Plato wrote in his Gorgias, although they were well aware of the rhapsodic "Dionysian" aspect of life;

"The shaman is not psychotic but is disturbed in some way.... showing peculiar behaviors from birth and experiencing spirit possession, trance, and epileptic seizures while a youth.

The ancient and modern charismatic is like a frontier hanging: you are both repulsed by the act and unable to keep your eyes off it. They return next week to see the SHOW. Something like a car race or a sOPHISts and MUSAE act of sorcery or witchcraft by people everyone knew to be parasites. They are loosers and the closer they get to self-destruction the more panicked they become from their self-induced hypnosis. When they discover that Hebrews 6 guarantees that they have no repentance because Jesus (contrary to the Baptists) is not going to die again for YOUR sins. To refute the CHRIST TAUGHT baptism and destroy a church to teach Zwinglian faith only or pagan baptism is to sin beyond redemption.

Ken

Ken, I hope that you will take the time to read many of the documents in the www.aboutpearlstreet.com site.

The Elders of Pearl Street have put forth that Bro. McClish and Bro. Summers were upset over the termination of the Annual Denton Lectures. They then brought up about Dub operating a "questionable" 501(c)3 corporation, basically saying that he was avoiding taxes, both personal and property, by operating his own "church" out of his house. (Even though they had sent him checks there for 10 years and his weekly contribution checks to Pearl Street had been on his corporation's account.)

Dub and Gary both contend that the three longtime Elders of Pearl Street have acquiesced, either affirmatively or by remaining silent, to the view of "direct operation of the Holy Spirit" as advocated by Mac Deaver. They have all basically said that they will no longer have fellowship with each other. As you can imagine, this has put a big dent into the RV Lectureship circuit. This, of course, is not long after the earlier split of fellowship in the RV Lectureship circuit over women translators, which was preceeded by an earlier split of fellowship in the RV Lectureship circuit over the issue of "is all of life worship." Which was preceeded.... You see the list goes on and on.

The POINT is this: IT WAS NOT (as you say) THE "HOSTILE TAKEOVER PEOPLE" WHO GOT HIM IN TROUBLE. What got him in trouble were the longtime ELDERS OF PEARL STREET who had worked with him for 8 YEARS and Dub for 20+ YEARS. THESE WERE THE PEOPLE WHO GOT HIM IN TROUBLE!!! (You do not have to believe me, read it for your self. It is excellently documented. www.aboutpearlstreet.com)

Further, it is some of the very people who have spoken at the Annual Denton Lectureship who will no longer have fellowship with the Pearl Street CONGREGATION and it's LONGTIME ELDERS. (Not any people who have taken ANYTHING.) Now, this is a PERFECT example of your philosophy coming to it's logical CONCLUSION/FRUITION that we must all AGREE (remember the misuse of I Cor. 1:10) or WE CAN NOT HAVE FELLOWSHIP.

I dare say that if we spent enough time looking, we could find authors of articles on this website, all speaking against the "change agents" who will not have fellowship with each other, much less the change agents.

Which type of "Christianity" do your readers want? I know which one I would (and have) chosen.

Tom

Tom,

It was an elder selected Feb. 2001 that has caused the problems at Pearl Street according to the documents on the site www.aboutpearlstreet.com.

Why the other elders supported this elder is unknown. Perhaps this statement will shed some light:

"Brother Chism then launched an attack upon the lectureship, saying it was “dead.” He then began quoting anonymous critics of it (both at Pearl Street and at other places), citing declining attendance figures, saying we had too few members and too many old folk to continue it, and that we (meaning “the director”) had used it to “punish” some preachers and to “reward” others."

When someone starts "citing declining attendance figures" I have to wonder what their motives might be.

IMO, most of the problems at Pearl Street have less to do with false doctrine and more to do with deceit.

Prayerfully Onward,

Kevin

Once again Donnie, I would point you to the CONTEXT of I Cor. 1:10. The "speaking the same thing" applies to following Christ, now one of the other men listed in the CONTEXT of the scripture. Your continued misuse of the scripture will only lead others to the results seen in the www.aboutpearlstreet website. You will continue to divide when someone does not see things they way you see them and the process will repeat itself over and over again.

The Pearl Street Congregation in Denton, Texas, and the other men and congregations mentioned in the site are all stalwarts of the conservative churches of Christ. Notice the letter from Terry Hightower, he specifically states that because of THE ELDERS of the Pearl Street's apparent belief in the direct operation of the Holy Spirit, he can no longer have fellowship with them. This is also pointed out in Jerry Moffit's letter to the Elders at Pearl Street. Both of these men have spoken several times at the Pearl Street (Annual Denton Lectures) Lectureship. This one issue illustrates perfectly what will happen when your lines of fellowship are drawn on ISSUES and not on Christ. Again... "speaking the same thing" and "be ye perfectly jointed together" are referring to CHRIST and not all of the VARIOUS ISSUES which our mortal minds can conceive.

Read further into the www.aboutpearlstreet.com website. Bro. Goebel Music who wrote the book "Behold the Pattern" in the early 90's and chronicled many of the early "change agents" as you (and he) call them was the champion of the conservative movement following it's publication. Now, he is also among the outcast because of his belief in the direct operation of the Holy Spirit issue. All I can do is urge you to continue to examine your views on where you will draw you lines.

Let me ask you this question. At what point in the baptism of a believer does salvation attach? Is it at the point at which one first enters the water? Is it at the point when the body is at the lowest point in the water? Is it at the point where the body first comes out from the water? Is it at the point where the body is totally out of the water? I can see four different groups separating over which is the correct answer (according to their respective beliefs) and refusing to have fellowship with those of the other beliefs. Again, the scripture they would use to justify their non-fellowship of the other groups would be I Cor. 1:10 (just as you have) because obviously, those in the OTHER groups do not have the correct interpretation. Please don't tell me this theory is silly because that is exactly what the people involved in the Pearl Street issue (and endless other issues) have done.

How sad that so many people in our churces of Christ are convinced that their salvation depends on their perfect understanding of baptism rather than on a perfect Savior. A Savior who made a perfect sacrifice so that none of us has to be perfect either before or after our baptism, nor have a perfect understanding of how our salvation occurs.

Tom Brite

Tom,

I’m quoting this passage again: I Corinthians 1:9,10 (KJV) states—“God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Now I beseech you, brethren, by 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 perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.”

I won’t even try to explain it this time. I think it’s really self-explanatory, you know, that ”that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you” stuff. And you’re accusing me of causing division? You said: “You [Donnie] will continue to divide when someone does not see things they way you see them and the process will repeat itself over and over again.” How so, Tom? I think you should examine your source [teacher] on “speaking the same thing.” The New Testament is full of warnings and cautions about diversions, apostasies, other doctrines, false teachings, false prophets, etc. I am not adding or changing any doctrine—so, how can I be causing division?

You mentioned names of a few individuals who were once upon a time “conservative” … and are no longer. Let’s not forget that Rubel Shelly was once upon a time perhaps as conservative as one could possibly be and was supposedly the future “someone” in the New Testament church of the 20th and 21st centuries—and you know what I mean by that. So, why don’t we just add those few dissenters and diversion proponents that you mentioned to our existing list of who’s who? Let’s mark them who cause division, the New Testament plainly says.

Then your question: “At what point in the baptism of a believer does salvation attach? Is it at the point at which one first enters the water? Is it at the point when the body is at the lowest point in the water? Is it at the point where the body first comes out from the water? Is it at the point where the body is totally out of the water?” [I think I heard that from Chai before.]

Perhaps we can add more to that: In the case of a person being immersed in a wheelchair, is the wheelchair also baptized and its sins remitted? Or, does it matter if it’s fresh water or salty water?

Let me reiterate: How difficult is it really for someone who believes that one is baptized BECAUSE his sins have already been remitted to be affiliated with a denomination that already believes that? I believe the Baptist Church will certainly welcome that someone with open arms.

Donnie

Donnie, not sure which names you are referring to as people who were once conservative. They are all the darlings of the conservative movement, just different areas of the conservative movement. They will all fight against the "change agents." So you see the conservative movement continue to divide and refuse to have fellowship with other portions of the conservative movement. You apparently have missed the point I was trying to make. Take a look at my latest post in response to Ken under this thread.

Ken tries to show that it was the "change agents" who caused the division at Pearl Street, but it was an internal fight among the "conservatives" who have now divided more times than a reproducing cell. You and Ken do not seem to want to read the www.aboutpearlstreet site. It will show everyone ONCE AND FOR ALL the results of drawing lines of fellowship which are not found in the Bible.

Tom

Tom: Sometimes FullBrite, sometimes halfbrite and other times just TomBrite.

Tom HalfBrite tries to divert from clear Biblical teachings by showing that ALL religionists draw lines but ALL over turf protection. The big lie is that the divisions exist among CONSERVATIVES. DISCIPLES OF CHRIST don't know what the INSANITY is over "fellowship." Only professional religionists have the TIME and MONEY and the self-ordained need to bundle with buddies in LIFE BLEEDING and DIVIDING "meetings, seminars etc" because their fraternal connections are thicker than the blood of Christ. The fact is that people can collect their circle or friends but there are no CHURCH OF CHRIST DENOMINATIONS.

On the other hand, after the FIRST GREAT AWAKENING there were about 321 separate groups which developed around the BAPTIST or 1525 Zwinglian creed. Some "counter" on the internet still claims that there are 146 distinct Baptists "organizations" which defines a denomination. Now, why would a halfbrite fellow try to blame conservatives for the Purpose Driven cult rather than the Baptists which BEGAN IT. Same is true for PK: their creed is a Baptist creed.

I think that is the meaning of DIVERSION from the fact that Jesus did not found a RELIGION but a school of the Bible. People who preach the DIRECT OPERATION also claim that there is a trinity of FATHER, MOTHER AND BABY SON (remember Xmas?). Three BEINGS which only heretical churches of Christ under people like H. Leo Boles, Max Lucado and Rubel Shelly let you repudiate The Spirit of Christ in the OT, God in Christ in the first advent which NO ONE prior saw other than Thought, Word and Breath of ONE GOD, and the "another" or FULLER COMFORTER (not heteros) now SO you can hallucinate or lie about the Spirit "speaking audibly" now, DIVIDES the churches. You can betcha that sumbuddy got u VISION for DUIN worship at Pearl Street.

But, don't get DIVERTED: if 100% of all churches were 100% wrong that would not change ONE JOT or ONE TITTLE of the Word of God which no professional can purchase from a Preacher Manufacturing Plant.

MUSIC as worship still has only 100% of perverted paganism for the charismatics meaning hedonists in the Greek to recommend it. The Bible still says that salvation and the remission of sin is provided by GRACE at the time and place of baptism. The Bible and most of history still shows that WORSHIP is defined by Paul's unique "worship" words of GIVING HEED to the TRUTH in the human SPIRIT when you ASSEMBLY using forms of SYNAGOGUE.

Ken

Ken, sorry to see that, once again, when you have nothing of substance to say that you must resort to name calling. I guess that speaks for itself.

Tom

Tom,

I think you missed my point when I mentioned Rubel Shelly. He was one special “darling” of the “conservative movement” as you call it, wouldn’t you agree?

It’s always possible that further sub-subdivision can occur within a sub-division, within a division—that’s a given. Yes, I’ve already read a lot about the Pearl Street situation. But, sorry, I’ve come to the same conclusion that Ken has—in his preceding post, he even used “factions within the Baptist group” to illustrate the point that division can occur anywhere anytime. Why? Because some dissident or dissenter comes up with “whatever” that’s not within the norm for “whichever.” Rub and Max, whether or not you’re willing to admit it, have promoted their own “improvised” gospel—and they’re still doing it. These men have become prominent interferers and diversionists in the affairs of the church, thus, causing a lot of confusion and turmoil in the church. They might as well have voluntarily left the church and started or founded their own church group(s). But they had better gimmicks—they brought along with them what is now known as [Max’s] Oak Hills [Community] Church or [Rub’s] Woodmont Hills Family of God [Church].

Perhaps, you’re underestimating the impact of this doctrine of “the direct operation of the Holy Spirit.” Before one realizes it, there comes the “speaking in tongues,” as well as, in addition to water baptism, another form of baptism—“baptism of/by/through/under/with/from the Holy Spirit”—or modern “apostolic” miraculous healings and wonders, etc., ALL associated with this “direct operation.” I believe “drawing lines of fellowship” with regard to this “direct operation” stuff is just as applicable as doing so with regard to trans-Baptist Max’s borrowed doctrine of baptism.

Finally, Tom, even if these Holy Spirit “darlings” are right [and they’re not], I do not have a clue as to why you don’t see that their doctrinal aberration “from the norm” is causing division. And I don’t see why these “darlings” do not leave the church alone and just affiliate with those of the same doctrinal stance as they do?

Donnie

Rusty,

IMO, you brought up some really good points. I’m not clear on your implication in your first statement. I certainly hope you were implying that even though it is “old stuff” and from the “conservative journals of years gone by,” that the article is still relevant and should be a source of warning to congregations which have not yet been subverted or under attack.

You did bring up a key point—“Some readers not familiar with the long running discourse among the brethren may not understand that this has been going on for decades.” Indeed, it has been … and is getting worse. Since this is still going on, hopefully, you do agree that we should continue to expose apostate activities, regardless of when they have occurred, correct?

The drawback in specifying a date (although the source, author, volume and number are provided) is that the observer might ignore or tend to diminish the intensity and seriousness of an “old” occurrence as he would think it is a thing of the past, it is history, and it is no longer a problem.

I believe the suspenseful attention given to an occurrence is significant because the level of awareness and caution should be present—the objective of this website is to alarm the unalarmed. As you know, apostasy was prevalent in the early New Testament churches, even while apostles were still living. The “old” passages that we are “very familiar with” should constantly remind us that apostasy is never going away and that we remain on guard against it.

I Timothy 4:1,2 clearly states: “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron…” (KJV)

II Timothy 4—“[1] I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; [2] Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. [3] For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears…” [KJV]

Col. 2: “[8] Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Apostasy does not promote “unity in diversity”; rather, it promotes disunity that the founder of the New Testament church abhors. If the change agents had simply and peacefully left the church and started their own, churches of Christ would not be in the big mess they’re in [well … certain congregations, i.e.].

Please feel free to post any articles that you have written and that you feel are relevant to the theme or objective of this website, i.e., to warn congregations that change agents are actively operating in the brotherhood. I am very certain that the moderators will welcome your articles!

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

Donnie Cruz
donniecruz@msn.com

"He knows how to answer questions without really answering them. He knows that what is going on at the Jubilee and at Woodmont Hills is not right. But he also knows that it will cost him in more ways than one if he speaks against these things. And, he knows that he and some of the faculty at Lipscomb have spoken at Jubilee. He furthermore knows that numerous members of the faculty and student body attends Woodmont Hills. So, he straddles the fence."

Yeah, he also knows that you're being just like the Pharisees when they questioned Jesus -- just looking for a time when he could screw up so you could call him a blasphemer or any other name you could think of to satisfy your hunger for attention. Dr. Flatt answered the question in the exact way he should have; he gave an answer that was the university's stance on the issue. Any other reply would have been seen as a personal preference.

Jeremy,

I don’t think Jesus would appreciate your analogy—the authors of the preceding article are no Pharisees and the university president is no Jesus Christ. A conservative who has not been swayed into believing liberal views is being Pharisaical—that’s undeniably how change agents would like to think and label the person. And that’s what you’ve just done!

Donnie