"Fulfill Ye My Joy!" (Some Pertinent Thoughts)

The following comments are a response to a plea for unity made by John W. Moore, for whom I have great respect—along with his family. Most of what he says in this Christian Worker, front page article (July, 2017) is both needful and appropriate. His first paragraph contains a praiseworthy philosophy. He says that he is robbed of joy when "members of the Lord's body are divided, suspicious of one another, and fail to strive for the faith of the gospel (Phil. 1:27)" (1). Amen! This kind of atmosphere is not conducive to spiritual growth, harmony, or taking the initiative to spread the gospel. For the recent Bellview lectures, I wrote similar sentiments:

Should we not pray for healing in a fractured brotherhood? Should we not work for the restoration of unity? Above all, we should pray, "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" (Matt. 6:10) ("If You Weary Running With the Footmen, How Can You Contend With Horses?" Set Ye Up A Standard In The Land, Pensacola, FL: Bellview Church of Christ, 2017, p. 38).

In the oral presentation I also pointed out: "We should ask ourselves, 'Are we doing what is best for the church?'" However, this is only one aspect in dealing with the problems that exist, and it reflects the positive approach. We all desire that Matthew 18:15-17 would solve every problem in the church, but realistically we find ourselves having to withdraw fellowship from some because of a refusal to repent. We also pray for the results Paul obtained when he told the Corinthian brethren to withdraw fellowship from the man living with his father's wife, but the fact is that some choose to remain immoral. Still, positive efforts are needed in exhorting the wayward to return.

In this article, John is stressing the positive, but he acknowledges the fact that the "church must defend the faith (Jude 3) and confront a brother who is in error (Gal. 6:1-2)" (1). However, this sentence is curious:

Few things are as disturbing to me as those who profess to follow Jesus, but yet are factious, censorious, and seemingly so callous in condemning a brother in Christ with whom they disagree, especially in condemning a man who has spent his life preaching the gospel of the Kingdom (1).

First of all, it should be disturbing to all of us when a brother or sister is factious, censorious, or callous, period, whether or not it has to do with this subject. Those are not attitudes that are enjoined in the Scriptures; rather they are condemned, and we should be concerned whenever such expressions of ill will surface. Certainly, I have no desire to be critical of Brother Moore and trust that what follows will be taken in the spirit it is offered.

Condemnation

Although we should not be factious, censorious, or callous when we do so, some brethren must be condemned. We take no pleasure in doing so; neither did Paul, but he did so—even in the joyous epistle of Philippians. The fact that a man has spent his life preaching the gospel of the kingdom does not matter if he begins to teach false doctrine, which verses in the Old Testament and New Testament confirm. In Ezekiel 18:24 we read God's view of the matter:

"But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, because of them he shall die."

God is not factious, censorious, or callous when He states this truth. Like many hard sayings, however, they are factual and need to be said. The second passage to consider is 1 Timothy 4:16: "Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in so doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you." By implication, this passage teaches that if one does not take heed to what he teaches, and therefore begins to teach error, both he and those who listen to him will be lost. For that reason brethren need to be warned against false teachers—even if they have devoted most of their previous lives to preaching the gospel of the kingdom.

Holger Neubauer

One such individual is Holger Neubauer. For many years, he devoted his life to teaching the truth, but in the past ten years he has championed error. His views were recently scrutinized in Spiritual Perspectives (May 7, 14, 21, 28, and June 4). Since these were published so recently, it is unnecessary to cover all of the false teachings entailed in his version of the AD 70 heresy. He went so far as to claim the Jews were required to keep the Law of Moses until AD 70, even though Paul said the Law was nailed to the cross. He also posited that Jesus' Deity was absorbed by the Father and the Holy Spirit when Jesus was crucified. If that were not enough, he further claimed (after the debate with Brother Daniel Denham) that Jesus' spiritual death on the cross is what saves us—not His physical death!

When someone takes so many views that are flatly contrary to the Word of God, he is himself lost and taking to hell with him all of those whom he can convince. No one delights in saying so, but it is the truth regarding Neubauer and his followers. Therefore, he needs to be marked, as Paul insisted (Rom. 16:17-18).

Mac Deaver

Mac Deaver was sound until he began to digress about twenty years ago. Unfortunately, the work of the preceding three decades has now been undone by the heresy he now espouses. In taking the position that the Holy Spirit operates directly upon human beings, he has opened the door to the miraculous occurring today. He now teaches that all 120 were baptized in the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, that Peter and John did not lay their hands on the Samaritans to impart to them a spiritual gift in Acts 8, and that everyone who is baptized in water is also baptized in the Holy Spirit.

Much more could be said because he has now written two books entirely on the Holy Spirit—both of which are not only false, but they also contradict what he and his father Roy had taught all their lives. Proof could be provided, but he acknowledges that he is at odds with his former self; he says he has "grown" (groan), but the rest of us say he has apostatized. No one takes any pleasure in having to mark such men as these, but it is necessary because others, if they pay heed to them, will lose their souls, also.

Dave Miller

Although he heads Apologetic Press, Dave has never repented of the error he taught while he was at Brown Trail. He preached a sermon attempting to justify that congregation's "right" to re-evaluate their elders. That sermon is still available on the Internet; anyone can still listen to it—even though it was presented in 1990. Many of us thought that Dave and the Brown Trail congregation had repented of that action, in which to remain as an elder, each man had to receive a 75% approval rating.

However, in 2002 the Brown Trail congregation—with Dave's approval and encouragement—repeated the divisive practice and lost an estimated 135 members. Dave has never repented of either action and insists that he has nothing of which to repent. Though conservative brethren remain divided to this hour over this issue, and some have pleaded with Dave to resolve it, he refuses to do so. How can one who teaches others about Jesus not be interested in unity? We do not know whether or not he still teaches the same error, but we do know that he has not repented of it—even though Brown Trail has (in a statement they issued). Brethren who know Dave well ought to urge him to discuss the matter and either admit that the action was wrong or affirm that it was right and he will continue to advise brethren to practice it.

Is it wrong to encourage preachers to repent? Denny Petrillo of Bear Valley has also defended elder re-evaluation. Is it factious, censorious, or callous to point that out? Neal Pollard (also associated with Bear Valley), although apprised of the situation, held a gospel meeting where Mac Deaver's son, Weylan, preaches. The son holds to the same error as the father. Why is Pollard given a pass for violating 2 John 9-11?

Are we insinuating that Brother Moore agrees with any of the three errors mentioned? Not at all. He can speak for himself on each one, if he so desires. Our only point is that when men depart from the faith, we must mark them—even if they have given their entire lives to preaching the gospel of the kingdom. In so doing, faithful brethren do not deserve to be called factious, censorious, or callous. We are only doing what the apostles of the Lord commanded (Rom. 16:17-18).

Philippians 1:15-18

Some men who had bad motives for preaching and Paul's response toward them is cited in the article under review as a way to deal with such men. But we have not been speaking of men who merely have bad motives (although they may have). The three examples we gave are of brethren in error, whose teaching on those subjects will cause people to be lost. Paul was describing men with bad motives who were still preaching the truth. Those men were selfish and envious of Paul. Okay, in their jealousy they wanted to bring more converts to Christ than Paul. The apostle does not appreciate their attitude, but even with this faulty spirit, they were still saving men's souls, for which cause Paul rejoiced.

He did not feel the same way about Hymenaeus and Philetus and Alexander, however (1 Tim. 1:18-20; 2 Tim. 2:16-18). They may have been preaching the gospel, but it was tainted and nullified by the false teachings they added to it. Paul opposed them, declaring they had strayed from the faith and were overthrowing the faith of others. Paul even delivered them to Satan, meaning he had withdrawn fellowship from them. It is not possible to have peace and harmony with some brethren.

After a failed attempt to find common ground in a disagreement with one brother, I added the following paragraph to the previously-cited manuscript.

Having emphasized the importance of the willingness to communicate and seek resolutions, it is nevertheless the case that both parties involved in a problem must be willing to honestly assess whatever damage has been done and look for remedies acceptable to all. If that kind of cooperation is lacking, then no progress can be made. After Israel left Rehoboam to follow Jeroboam, the deserted king planned to go to war against him, but God told him not to fight him. "Let every man return to his house, for this thing is from me" (1 Kings 12:24). What thing was from God? The division. It had been prophesied by Ahijah in 1 Kings 11:31. While division seems like the worst possible circumstance, it is possible that it comes from God—and for a reason similar to that of 1 Kings 11:33.

In Philippians Paul did weep over those who were enemies of the cross of Christ (Phil. 3:18), just as he did in Acts 20:29-32, but he also called them "dogs" and "evil workers" (Phil. 3:2), thus warning the church. No one considers Paul factious, censorious, or callous.

Those who do not know what they are saying shouldn't be: