... Here are the links to Keith s messages: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ContendingFTF/message/6436 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ContendingFTF/message/6437Message 1 of 4 , Jun 2, 2007View SourceI had written:
> I see Keith Sisman is still trying to show theHere are the links to Keith's messages:
> Church is full of paganism and sun-worship, and
> now referencing A.C. Watters' "History of the
> British Churches of Christ" (at least he is now
> providing sources!).
In #6436 Keith refers to the book by Watters. Here is
the online version of that book:
This link may be helpful if Keith Sisman begins making
claims about something and refers to Watters as his
In #6437 is where Keith gives us a list of all the
elements of paganism whereby the Church is engaging
in worship of ancient false gods, beginning his
> Brother Valentine claims to be a scholar and preacherAs if Keith Sisman has any use for "truth"! I think
> in the Lord's Church. Whilst I do not question that he
> is indeed a brother, it is as a brother he is fallen
> and apostate to the truth.
Keith's just mad because he can't handle "Goliath" and
Bobby Valentine did! (at least Bobby did that implicitly,
by saying none of the congregations he had any dealings
with were made up of young-earthers -- although Bobby did
tell Robert on the coCBanned list he didn't want to read
anything that had the words "Goliath", or "GRAS" or
"statue" in it, he did indicate, as Robert Baty and
Foy E. Wallace before him had indicated, "the Bible
does not teach the age of the Earth".)
If you remember, on the ChristianEvidences list Keith
started making his pagan-worship-in-the-Church claims
and I asked him where he was getting his information.
I have posted that message to this list here:
Something interesting about that (other than the fact
that Keith refused to reveal his sources) is that I am
not the only one who has asked about those sources.
I gave the links (to the CFTF list) where others had
asked and got a similar non-response. And one of the
people who had previously asked about Keith's sources,
with a similar degree of unsuccess was Jim Wyly.
You do remember Jim Wyly, don't you, Daniel Denham?
I'm pretty sure Keith does.
I got an e-mail today from Wyly. He remembers the
two of you!
(Jim, I replied to you earlier and the message came
back as undeliverable -- I checked around to make
sure it was the right address and sent it again
through another channel -- if you don't hear from me,
let me know!)
Here is just one of Keith Sisman's many claims about
how paganism is practiced in the church:
> Church architecture following the RomanIs this guy for real? Well, friends, I'm afraid he
> Sun temple layout
is -- a real clown. Keith, do you know *anything*
at all about church architecture? Or are you going
to take it all the way back to Babylon, and say that
the Cross itself is just another symbol of paganism?
As we shall see, I think Keith is more than willing
to do just that.
Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
... To the ContendingFTF list http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ContendingFTF/message/6436 ... That s fine, Keith, but the Church I belong to is native toMessage 1 of 4 , Jun 9, 2007View Source--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
"w_w_c_l" <w_w_c_l@...> wrote:
>To the ContendingFTF list
> I had written:
> > I see Keith Sisman is still trying to show the
> > Church is full of paganism and sun-worship, and
> > now referencing A.C. Watters' "History of the
> > British Churches of Christ" (at least he is now
> > providing sources!).
> Here are the links to Keith's messages:
> In #6436 Keith refers to the book by Watters. Here is
> the online version of that book:
> This link may be helpful if Keith Sisman begins making
> claims about something and refers to Watters as his
Keith Sisman wrote (in part):
> Archie Watters in the preface of his book, 'TheThat's fine, Keith, but the Church I belong to is
> History of the British Churches of Christ' wrote
> "The story of the Churches of Christ in Great
> Britain is of particular value in correcting an
> error which has persisted for some time that the
> movement is peculiarly American. Alexander Campbell
> was at considerable pains to point out the fact that
> the movement was as much native to Britain as America".
native to Jerusalem.
The very first sentence of the very first paragraph of
the very first chapter of Watters' book, plainly says:
| "THE first congregations of the body known as 'Churches of
| Christ' came into existence in Great Britain and Ireland
| early in the nineteenth century."
And the first sentence of Section II of Chapter 1 says:
| "This section will deal chiefly with Movements in Scotland
| in the eighteenth century, as it is to that country mainly
| that the 'Churches of Christ' owe their origin."
Keith, it seems your source disagrees with you. Or rather,
you are disagreeing with your source, Dr. Archibald Watters.
You are also disagreeing with David M. Thompson's history,
"Let Sects and Parties Fall", of which an overview can
be read here:
Keith, you have been saying on your websites that the
Baptists fell into apostasy from the "Church of Christ",
but Thompson says the origins of the "Church of Christ"
are in the Scotch Baptists.
You do remember Dr. Thompson, don't you, Keith? What about
you, Ken Chumbley? Thompson is the one who refuted your
claim that the minute book Chumbley held in his hand at
Tottlebank was from a "Church of Christ".
In case you and Ken Chumbley don't remember, the message
I wrote to Ken Chumbley about that is appended below,
after my signature. That message contains the link to
a 2000 article in the Gospel Gazette, written by Ken
Chumbley and mentioning Keith Sisman, which makes the
false claim about Tottlebank church. My message also
contains a link to an online copy of that minute book,
which shows they were definitely not the "Church of
Christ" that Chumbley makes them out to be.
Ken Chumbley, are you going to ask the Gospel Gazette
to remove your erroneous article, or not?
Keith Sisman, are you going to give up your fantasies of
those various Reformation-period churches being of the
same "like precious faith" as the modern "churches of
Christ", or not?
Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
> Ken Chumbley:
> This is in response to your reaction on the
> ContendingFTF list to my allegations of scholastic
> dishonesty on the part of Keith Sisman.
> You wrote (message #3275):
> > I have seen some of the evidence that Keith has
> > with respect to these matters.
> > It is not a matter of "plagiarism and passing
> > them off as your own."
> Au contraire! It *is* a matter of plagiarism!
> Plain and simple; as any college professor would
> tell you on comparison of the original texts with
> the Keith Sisman versions. The evidence for this
> is insurmountable, as any college professor might
> point out in explaining to the Dean why Mr. Sisman
> had "chosen to withdraw" from the University. (Or,
> indeed, as any high school English teacher might
> point out in explaining to the principal why the
> Sisman kid flunked the Composition class.)
> You wrote (message #3275):
> > The "evidence" Rick refers to is "evidence" from
> > the Baptists who do not like the fact that there
> > is documentary evidence to show that some of the
> > older Baptist churches in England were not
> > established as Baptist Churches but Churches of
> > Christ.
> The "evidence" to which I refer is the text of
> books that were published between 1811 and 1922,
> from which Keith Sisman "borrowed copiously" (hey,
> a pun!) without documenting his sources. Whatever
> the Baptists may like or dislike is not at issue;
> the books could have been about the origin of
> marshmallows and the fact they were copied from
> and/or paraphrased without due respect to the
> authors of those works would still constitute
> p l a g i a r i s m . Period.
> You wrote (message #3290):
> > I not[e] that you [Jim Wyly] do not respond to
> > what Daniel Denham posted but rather continue
> > your attack on Keith Sisman.
> Frankly, Ken Chumbley, none of you - not you, not
> Daniel Denham, not Jerry Murrell, not Doug Post -
> responded to the charges I leveled against Keith
> Sisman of plagiarizing other authors' works and
> altering them to suit his own purposes. Nothing
> that you all posted had anything to do with the
> ethics of scholarly journalism -- no, instead you
> made up excuses for something for which there *is*
> no excuse, and attacked, and belittled, and insulted
> the ones who brought this very grievous error to
> your attention. For example, from message #3290:
> > Wyly1, where do YOU fit into this? Are you a
> > member of the Church of Christ seeking to make it
> > a denomination or are you a Baptist or some other
> > denominationalist seeking to rewrite history?
> > Listers would like to know.
> > Or are you going to be a coward and leave the
> > fray without revealing who you really are?
> [Wyly "revealed who he really is," here:
> also noting "the epithets that have been
> hurled" at him, while still "not one of you
> address Keith's plagiarized presentation..."]
> You continued (message #3290):
> > BTW, it is interesting that Rick [who] plan[t]ed
> > his "bomb" (which really didn't have any explosive
> > in it) has yet to return to the fray but you have
> > jumped to his defense. If Rick is still around,
> > he might also reveal his true self.
> Evidently it had enough explosive in it to knock out
> Keith's connection to the internet! (Please see:
> Evidently it contained enough explosive that Daniel
> Denham and Jerry Murrell declined my personal
> invitation to come to this list and try to defend
> their behavior!
> I'm betting the concussive force of my little "bomb"
> will be sufficient to keep you and Doug Post away,
> too (don't feel left out, Doug! You're next, Lord
> willing; and I think I can use you to wrap this all
> up into one neat little generalization.) But if
> you think that was a "bomb" I'm going to do my
> best to make the next one a nuclear holocaust.
> I'm a little surprised, though, Chumbley, that you
> would think I was someone other than my "true self."
> You don't remember me from CFTF -- all the smart-aleck
> comments I made about your friend Keith Sisman's many
> Oh, well. There is a point in that, too, which I
> will try to cover in my next post (on the topic of
> Keith Sisman's plagiarism and certain of the
> ContendingFTF list who chose to defend it.)
> But, for now, let's get back to you. You have an
> article online in the August, 2000, issue of the
> "Gospel Gazette," in which appears this quote
> attributed to someone named Carroll Sites:
> "I have in my files an interesting quotation from
> documentary research of a Dr. Robinson, principal of
> Overdale College, Birmingham, England."
> It reads as follows:
> "In the Furness District of Lancashire in N.W. England
> there existed in 1669, during the reign of Charles II,
> a group of eight churches of Christ. Most of them are
> not now in existence. An old minute book has been found
> of the year 1669 and it shows that they called
> themselves by the name church of Christ, practiced
> baptism by immersion, celebrated the Lord's Supper each
> Lord's Day, and had elders and deacons. There was also a
> church of Christ in Dungannon, Ireland in 1804 and in
> Allington, Denbeighshire. In 1735, John Davis, a young
> preacher in the Fife District of Scotland was preaching
> New Testament Christianity twenty-five years before
> Thomas Campbell (Alexander Campbell's father) was born."
> This "quotation", I think, can be illustrative of the
> absolute necessity of documenting one's sources in
> scholarly writing. Ken Chumbley, writing in 2000,
> did not provide a reference for the source of Sites'
> quotation, and evidently the only source of the
> quotation Sites provided was his "files." So where
> did the quote originate?
> In attempting to locate the source of Dr. Robinson's
> quotation, I ran across this article in "Truth Magazine,"
> from 1975, which I am providing in its entirety (don't
> worry; it is brief):
> > "Several months ago the following short article
> > appeared in several church bulletins:
> > "PRE-CAMPBELL CHRISTIANITY
> > "In a recent article this interesting quotation
> > appeared as a documentary research of Dr. Robinson,
> > principal of Overdale College, Birmingham, England.
> >| "'In the Furness District of Lancashire - in N.W.
> >| England - there existed in 1669, during the reign
> >| of Charles II, a group of 8 churches of Christ.
> >| Most of them are not now in existence. An old minute
> >| book has been found on the year 1669 and it shows
> >| that they called themselves by the name of Church
> >| of Christ, practiced baptism by immersion,
> >| celebrated the Lord's Supper each Lord's Day
> >| and had elders and deacons. There was also a church
> >| of Christ In Dungannot, Ireland in 1904 and in
> >| Allington, Dangighshire. In 1735, John Davis, a
> >| young preacher in the Fife District of Scotland
> >| was preaching New Testament Christianity
> >| twenty-five years before Thomas Campbell (Alexander
> >| Campbell's father) was born.'"
> [Note: Whether these "church bulletins" were the source
> of Sites' quotation, or whether Sites was the author
> of the church bulletins' article, we have no way of
> knowing; however, the Sites quotation and the church
> bulletin quotation certainly appear to have the same
> origin. The "Truth Magazine" article continues:]
> > "Wanting to check the correctness of this information,
> > I wrote Dr. Robinson on Nov. 20, 1973, quoted the
> > above article and asked him, "Is this correct? Could
> > you give me any more documentation on this? Any
> > additional information that you could supply to me
> > would be very much appreciated".
> > "I have a letter written by Mr. David M. Thompson,
> > Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, CB3 ODG, dated
> > April 15, 1975, which is self-explanatory.
> > "Dear Mr. O'Neal,
> > "Your letter of 20 November, 1973, which was
> > addressed to the late Dr. William Robinson (he
> > died in 1963) has found its way eventually to
> > me, as Secretary of the Churches of Christ
> > Historical Committee in Britain.
> > "I can give you some help on your quotation,
> > though not much. The churches in the Furness
> > District of Lancashire were, in fact, Baptist
> > Churches - it was common for dissenting churches
> > to use the title 'Church of Christ' to describe
> > themselves (though I don't think Dr. Robinson
> > realised this). I cannot tell you very much
> > about the churches in Dungannon, Allington and
> > John Davis: but I think the main point Dr.
> > Robinson was wishing to make was that the call
> > for a return to New Testament Christianity did
> > not begin with Thomas and Alexander Campbell,
> > nor has it been found only among Churches of
> > Christ. I suspect that this is as true in
> > America as it is here.
> > "I cannot help you further at present, though
> > I am expecting to publish a history of the British
> > Churches of Christ soon, which may be of interest
> > to you."
> > Truth Magazine XIX: 48, p. 764
> > October 16, 1975
> Now let's back up a little bit and look at what
> you [Ken Chumbley] wrote here (message #3290):
> > It is sad that there are those who would like to
> > rewrite history and deny the truth that is to be
> > found in order to substantiate their denominational
> > background.
> Twenty-five years after the publication of the article
> in "Truth Magazine," you are still quoting this same,
> unverified quote. Evidently "the truth that is to be
> found" was of little use to you. Were you unaware of
> the above article, or did you deliberately ignore it?
> Did you even bother to look for the original source
> of Robinson's quote, as part of "the truth that is
> to be found"? Or did you find the source, and not
> use it because you didn't like the rest of the book?
> Well, I found it. It was in "History of the British
> Churches of Christ", by A.C. Watters, 1948. Discussing
> the origin of the Kirkby-in-Furness Church of Christ,
> Watters has this to say:
> | "In the then remote peninsula of Furness there was a
> | church at Kirkby, meeting in a chapel which was
> | probably built in 1826, and the church must have been
> | in existence for at least some years before that. It
> | was not discovered by the main body of "Churches of
> | Christ" until 1854. In a yet unpublished "History of
> | the Churches in Furness" Principal William Robinson
> | (himself a native of the peninsula) writes:
> | "'This church undoubtedly owes its origin to a group of
> | Churches of similar, though not identical, faith and
> | order which began their troubled history in the troubled
> | days after the Restoration of Charles II. There were at
> | least four of these churches and three have now ceased
> | to exist. The fourth - Tottlebank - is now in the
> | Baptist Union. Fortunately it possesses a Minute Book
> | going back to its foundation in 1669. ... The Church
> | Minute Book contains a full Confession of Faith, and it
> | is interesting to note that the Church had the following
> | marks usually associated with the Reformation of the
> | Campbells -
> | "1. It was named 'The Church of Christ.'
> | "2. Only Believers' Baptism by immersion was practised.
> | "3. The Lord's Supper was the chief service of worship
> | each Sunday and only baptized communicants were allowed.
> | "4. The government was congregational and there was
> | liberty of ministry. Elders and deacons were ordained,
> | and one elder served as Teaching Elder and was supported
> | by the Church.'"
> Now, how did that quote get so garbled up? It's almost
> too tempting not to think it might have something to
> do with that English friend you refer to in your "Gospel
> Gazette" article -- you know, the one who has access to
> all those resources in the Cambridge library, the one
> that we know plays fast and loose with the facts and
> with his documentation of sources. After all, isn't
> England the place you claim, in your article, to have
> first come across the quote? Hmmmm...
> Your article in the "Gospel Gazette" also contains
> this paragraph:
> "The minute book (a transcript of which I have in modern
> English) shows that there were other congregations of
> like precious faith scattered throughout the British
> Isles. Indeed, looking at the history of some of the
> older Baptist churches in Great Britain, they reveal
> that they were not originally established as Baptist
> churches, but as churches of Christ."
> You refer to this minute book in your defense of
> Keith Sisman's plagiarism:
> > I, myself, have actually been to a Baptist Church
> > that was originally established as a Church of
> > Christ and have held the original minute book in
> > my hand. That history alone shows the beginnings
> > of that congregation and its later apostasy into
> > the Baptist Church. [message #3275]
> > As for my mentioning a minute book, it goes to
> > the heart of the issue. This church was NOT
> > established as a Baptist church and existed in
> > the same time period.
> > Thus no "red herring." [message #3290]
> Yes, it was a "red herring," and you threw it out there
> to divert the discussion from the real issue, but now,
> as you say, it does "go to the heart" of the matter.
> You may not be aware of this, Ken Chumbley, but that
> minute book to which you refer is now available on
> the World Wide Web.* I have read it. Exactly when
> and how the Tottlebank Church slipped off into Baptist
> apostasy is debatable, I suppose, but, as I was reading
> along, one thing suddenly struck me as very clear:
> You, yourself, Ken Chumbley, by your own admission,
> are in *dire* apostasy from that early "Church of Christ",
> even from its very beginning.
> Rick Hartzog
> Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
> *Records of an English Church of Christ, 1669-1842
> [These records show that the doctrine that Keith Sisman,
> Ken Chumbley, and most others of the ContendingFTF list
> hold to is NOT the doctrine revealed in the minutes of
> this early "church of Christ".]