Facebook and Fellowship

The preceding article is well written and well worth thinking about—especially for the younger generation. The first paragraph explains how young people are immersed in the new technology while the second one shows statistics concerning the popularity of such things as Facebook before asking the question (hypothetically) that if Jesus requested you be His friend, would you be able to accept? The author comments on sites and links you might have to remove or pictures of yourself in inappropriate places. Now all that he wrote involved fellowship with the world and dealt with immodest pictures, crude behavior, and maybe associations with unsavory music or movies. But what about spiritual associations?

Fellowship Errors

Using the same scenario, (Jesus asking for your friendship on Facebook), what spiritual associations might you need to delete? Before casting any blame on anyone else, I must admit failure to always take everything into account concerning fellowship choices a few times. The first time was when I was at a lectureship at a "brotherhood" university in the northeast, which is no longer located there. While attending a program there, I realized that something was wrong with the school's stand on the truth (or lack of it).

It was far different than attending Freed-Hardeman College's annual lectureship, where everyone showed his position from the Scriptures. In fact, many of the speakers at FHC lamented that there were so many "uncertain sounds" coming from various places in the brotherhood. Being young and inexperienced at that time, I had no idea what "uncertain sounds" were—until I attended this lectureship in the northeast. Many things were claimed for which there was no Biblical substantiation. Opinions were set forth which either were not found in the Word or contradicted it. The question arose, "Should I be here?"

A decade later one of the participants of the Joplin Unity Summit invited me to attend the three-day program, which I did. I began to wonder what was the purpose of the meeting. The final morning the event concluded with two men (one of "us" and one from those who use musical instruments) speaking about the fact that their families had been divided over the instrument, but such would no longer be the case. At least one of them was highly emotional and sobbing, but, "What exactly had happened to change the division that exists?" The answer was clearly, "Nothing." They were going to continue using the instrument, and we were not; the only thing that changed was that now some of "us" were going to fellowship them despite their erroneous view of the way God authorizes acts of worship (which excludes instruments).

God had not changed. Leviticus 10:1-2 still shows the folly of offering God unauthorized worship. Colossians 3:17 still insists that everything we teach and practice must have the authority of Christ behind it, which Hebrews 7:14 illustrates. God's principles had not changed. The Christian Church was not giving up their use of instruments. No, the only change was that some of "us" were no longer going to count it as a matter of fellowship. When they asked all of those in attendance to pose for a picture of this "historic" moment, I chose not to be associated with it.

Not long after moving to Denton, I learned there was a meeting of liberal preachers in the area, which I ignored—until one day a preacher from a nearby congregation called me and asked me to come hear him speak. He had taught in a school of preaching in another state; so I acquiesced. His presentation was all right, but noting the liberals who were present, I asked myself, "What am I doing here?" I not only felt awkward being in their midst, I repented by never returning to such a gathering. There was no way any sound preacher could be in fellowship with many of those present, and the words of Paul kept echoing—"not even to eat with such a person" (1 Cor. 5:11).

A few years later, I visited the gathering for preachers in Fort Worth and noticed a false teacher eating with us. Afterward, I told the planner of those meetings that if this particular erring brother was going to be welcomed by area preachers while believing and teaching doctrines that were not true, it would be my last time there. He refused to exclude him on the grounds that the error was not that bad; therefore it became my last such meeting.

These events from my personal experience demonstrate that my own judgment has not always been perfect (I understand others making similar mistakes)—but one can control his future policy. Looking back, there are places I should not have been—and will not be at again. The reason is that we must guard our reputations and not be guilty of associations that would harm ourselves or others. We also have no authority to fellowship those whom Jesus would not endorse, which brings us back to the purpose for this article.

Would Jesus Approve of Faulty Fellowship?

So Jesus has sent you a friend request. Do you have pictures of yourself at brotherhood events where you are mingling with heretics that you might want to delete before accepting? Have you been at inappropriate places: the Tulsa soul-winning workshop, the Spiritual Growth Workshop in Orlando, the Affirming the Faith lectures, the Oklahoma Christian University lectures, the Pepperdine lectures, the Abilene Christian University lectures?

Does your circle of friends include those who fellowship false teachers or those who are known for teaching one or more false doctrines? Do you want to link to those who also link to liberal universities and liberal events? Before you accept the Lord's request, would you need to delete some of the places you have been and some of the spiritual activities you have been involved with?

Did Brother Blackwell not argue that what people see on your Facebook page affects what others think about you, the church, and Christianity? So if they see you fellowshipping those who teach error, what are they to think? What is true of earthly connections must also be true of spiritual associations. For example, suppose the description of a movie warns that it has nudity and strong language. Is this a film you would want to see, much less link to? Oh, but what if the film is very popular? Does that then justify watching and endorsing it? No, because it is still of the world and endorses various types of corruption. A child of God does not need to immerse himself for two hours in that which totally opposes Christian values and the struggle to be holy before God.

Suppose a university has a professor or a congregation has a preacher who does not teach the truth about salvation. He says that people ought to be baptized but that they are saved first—apart from and without being baptized. This is denominational doctrine, but he is preaching at one of "our" churches or teaching at one of "our" universities. Consistent with his beliefs, he fellowships those in denominations. He may speak at their churches or even appear on programs with them. Let's call him TOE (Teacher Of Error). No one has any question about this individual not being faithful in what he teaches; he is a compromiser all day long.

Now we come to brother FUE (Fellowships Usually Everyone). For the most part, although he may say something a little strange once in a while, he presents decent material. However, he appears on programs with TOE so that, if you are looking at the program, you will see TOE and FUE together. Does FUE believe what TOE does? He may or may not, but he fellowships and associates with him.

All of this brings us to Brother DADT (Don't Ask, Don't Tell). He always brings good Bible lessons, and no one can accuse him of ever having taught anything wrong. But he fellowships FUE, who fellowships TOE. Would he speak on a program with TOE? Absolutely not! But he has no problem at all fellowshipping FUE who does. If DADT is asked about those who FUE fellowships, he will likely say, "Are you sure? I've never heard that. I can't be expected to know all about every speaker on every program." DADT is dodging the issue.

If you would not link to a movie that Jesus would not approve of, then why link to someone who does? A Christian should not only keep himself from associating with movies that are corrupting influences, but why link to either an individual or a website that will do what he refuses to? "But what if the preacher is popular and well-known? What if he is capable and does the best work in a certain field?" The question must still be: "Who is he spiritually linked to?" Are you prepared for the link to be from TOE to FUE to YOU? Some might complain that this is "chain" fellowship. Count the number of links between Teacher Of Error and you. Do you really want to be Brother DADT?

Instead of your Facebook page having the words of a Lady Gaga song, what if there is an intermediary link that you can click on to have all the lyrics of her songs? Or in this case what if DADT associates with FUE who then provides him with a whole bunch of TOEs? Does Jesus have criteria for friend requests? Yes (John 14:15). Does Blackwell, who wrote the "Facebook" article have criteria for his friends? Do they need to be faithful to Jesus and the apostles in their teaching, or can they be associated with FUE and TOE?

The Clinton "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy was in force, according to Wikipedia, from December 21, 1993, until September 20, 2011. After seventeen years of trying to ignore the problem of homosexuality, those in the military now must tolerate it. How long will it be until those who are now ignoring the problem of liberalism will be embracing it? For centuries brethren preached 2 John 9-11 with respect to false teachers. About ten years ago, brethren decided to ignore the passage as it related to certain individuals. The damage done in doing so may already be incontrovertible. Those who decided to fellowship men whom they ought to have called to repentance set a dangerous and deadly precedent, which most once-sound preachers are now following.