What Will Doctor Shelly Say?

Recently called to the attention of your congenial editor is the fact that Dr. Rubel Shelly will be speaking at a rather prominent event at Harding University, which once was one of “our” schools. They call it the “Inspire Lectureship,” which they will host from September 28-October 1st. A number of speakers have been scheduled, as well as events. But the fact that they invited Rubel Shelly to speak tells everyone they are no longer on the road to apostasy; they have arrived.

Many people may not know who Dr. Shelly is or what the significance is of having him speak. Therefore, consider a little of his history. He once upheld, through logic, Scriptural Bible truths. He was reared in a Christian home and even at a young age was outstanding among conservative preachers. When The Spiritual Sword quarterly publication began, Shelly was the Associate Editor—Dr. Thomas B. Warren being the Editor.

The very first issue (from October, 1969) was titled: “The Gospel Versus Liberalism.” Brother Warren set forth the purpose for this publication coming into existence. One of the articles “Fellowship With Denominations?” was written by Alan Highers, who later became the editor for The Spiritual Sword for more than three decades, having recently passed away in August, 2025. Rubel Shelly wrote for that first issue, “Some Basic Errors of Liberalism.”

Shelly remained Associate Editor for three years—through July of 1972. He continued to write articles for the publication, but there was no Associate Editor for a year until Garland Elkins assumed the role in 1974. Shelly was Associate Editor when the following themes were presented to brethren (in chronological order):

“The Gospel Versus Liberalism”

“The Inspiration of the Bible”

“Jesus Christ The Son of God”

“The Church in the New Testament”

“Current Issues”

“Evangelism”

“Evolution”

“Worldliness”

“The Christian Man and Christian Woman in Marriage”

“Problem Areas in Marriage”

“Living Questions Related to Modernism”

These first twelve issues of The Spiritual Sword are so fundamental they would profit congregations today. Shelly agreed with the material in them at that time, since he was Associate Editor. In those days he believed and wrote the truth, documenting the arguments he made with Scriptures. In July of 1970 (1:4), he wrote an “Associate Editorial” with the following title: “Restoring the New Testament Church.” After introducing the topic by discussing the Reformation, he made several comments about Restoration.

The church described in the New Testament did not have a human hierarchy with archbishops, cardinals, and popes; rather it recognized Jesus Christ as the only head of the Church… (42).

Neither did the church of the New Testament teach or practice such things as infant baptism, the veneration of “the saints,” the worship of Mary or absolution from sins by an earthly priesthood (42).

[The Restoration Movement was] fundamentally a plea for religious unity based on the Bible. It emphasizes the necessity of having Scriptural authority, a “Thus saith the Lord,” for all that is done for religion (42).

The New Testament pattern allows no organization beyond the local congregation of believers…. Each church is autonomous or self-governing. Therefore churches of Christ have no conventions, annual meetings to determine “church policy” or official publications (46).

He went on to plead that in Christianity, people ought to give up “wearing divisive human labels” (46). The vast majority of brethren back then agreed with Shelly’s reasoning. Concerning the men who would oppose the principles espoused above, Shelly heartily condemned in an article published in the April, 1972 (3:3) issue of The Spiritual Sword. He did not refrain from calling a spade a spade. Some of those are:

The liberal is careful to appear humble, pious and genuinely concerned for the welfare of the church…. He compromises the truth and undermines the strength of the gospel (42).

One of the greatest dangers of liberalism is its inherent dishonesty! (42).

[Liberals] go about their insidious work of overthrow from within (42).

Christ established only one church (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 4). (2) all those who obey the gospel…are…added to that church when they are baptized unto the remission of their sins (Acts 2:38, 41, 47) (43).

(5) Christ’s church is not on a par with denominations established by men and perpetuated by false doctrines (Matt. 15:13) (43).

If we do not intend to maintain our distinctiveness, we have no right to exist (43).

Let liberalism be called what it really is, i.e., damnable heresy to overthrow the faith (44).

In those days, Shelly sent out copies of his weekly sermons. Your congenial editor has several of them (somewhere). They were excellent and always Biblical. Shelly even wrote an extremely helpful and pertinent book, which asked the question, What Shall We Do With the Bible? Brother Warren published it in 1975, and it was as sound as it could be.

However….

Everyone knows this is coming. BUT, despite all the marvelous truths Shelly had spoken and written, he slowly began to slide away from them. Sometime around 1980 he began to drift away from the truth. In 1984, he published the book, I Just Want to be a Christian. Brother Warren did not endorse or publish this one.

Previously, Shelly believed that “Christ’s Church must abide in his doctrine (II John 9-11)” (The Spiritual Sword 3:3:43). Now he has decided that this text only applies to false teachers who deny the Deity of Jesus (90), which opens the door to fellowshipping such errors as Pre-millennialism (among other false teachings). He wrote in 1984:

Suppose someone’s eschatology entails the view that Christ will reign on earth for 1,000 years at his return. I think he is wrong in his opinion-doctrine. But so long as he does not deny the place of the church as Christ’s spiritual body and teaches that all will be held accountable at the second coming and the Judgment, is it necessary for him to be severed from the fellowship of the body?

First: What is opinion-doctrine? A teaching is either true or false. It may be an opinion on a complicated topic (such as baptism for the dead in 1 Corinthians 15:29), or it may be the truth based on the Scriptures, but it is not both. Shelly’s classification is gibberish. Second, Pre-millennialism is false. Foy Wallace and others battled against this concept entering into the church in previous decades; now Shelly seems willing to raise the white flag of surrender.

Most brethren are aware of what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 1:10: “Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” The reader may be surprised to learn that Shelly disagrees with Paul:

it is a nonsensical interpretation of the verse to understand it to mean that one must be in perfect agreement on every detail of Christian faith and practice before he can share in the fellowship of the body (97).

He fails, however, to provide a sensible interpretation of this verse for us. If the Bible teaches it, why should brethren not accept it? What detail of Christian faith is optional? Only matters of opinion and indifference can be optional (Rom. 14).

The Purpose of Baptism

Consider the following paragraph from Shelly in his 1984 book:

One becomes a Christian only through his or her faith in Christ, repentance from all known sin, and baptism in Jesus’ name. There is no other way to become a part of the fellowship of the saints. For those in the body of Christ to extend spiritual brotherhood to anyone who has not yet become a child of God is for them to fail to acknowledge the divine principle of inclusion (89).

Does that sound pretty good? Before concluding that Shelly seems right on the money here, notice that, while he mentioned the necessity of baptism, he did not point out that it should be “for the remission of sins.” And, no, it was not an oversight. The group he led at the Joplin Unity meeting in August of 1984 came up with the same definition, leaving out its purpose (your congenial editor was present). Shelly actually argues that to require the penitent soul to be baptized for the remission of sins makes “a scriptural reason for baptism into the scriptural reason for it.” Worse yet, he charges that such insistence turns baptism “into a partisan fetish” (102).

Seriously? Baptism is further explained in Scriptures, such as Romans 6:3-5, but how can one not know the purpose of baptism is to wash away sins? Those on Pentecost knew it (Acts 2:38); Saul of Tarsus knew it (Acts 22:16). It cannot legitimately be called a fetish to know the reason why someone is doing something. When those on Pentecost asked what they should do (Acts 2:37), Peter did not say let me give you a reason to be baptized. No, he told them the reason—to have forgiveness of their sins. On the basis of this logic, Shelly would need to fellowship anyone who was immersed for practically any reason—including Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Pentecostals, and Baptists.

The Church

Are all of those listed above in the church? If not, why not? At the very least, they would, of necessity, be erring brethren. So, his “fellowship of the saints” is disingenuous. Consider what Shelly said about the church just twelve years later at a meeting in Florence, Alabama.

We will not lose our separate denominational identities, we will not give up our particular heritages and histories, we will not have to give up our distinctive practices with regard to our different organizational structures, worship, and so on. I see no need for that.

Compare what Shelly wrote about denominations in the ’70s with what he said in the ’80s and ’90s. Now, on September 28th, Dr. Shelly will speak at Harding University. It will be a keynote speech made at 7:00 p.m. on the topic of “One Body.” In light of his past changes from truth to error, the question cannot help but be asked: “What will Dr. Shelly say about the church?”