Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

They are after Gil Yoder now!

Expand Messages
  • Robert Baty
    ContendingFTF · Contending For The Faith Message #3243 of 3244 August 3, 2006 List, In view of the association of OABS with MSOP, et al. and MSOP’s
    Message 1 of 4 , Aug 3 4:53 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      ContendingFTF �� Contending For The Faith
      Message #3243 of 3244
      August 3, 2006

      List,

      In view of the association of OABS with MSOP, et al. and MSOP���s association with AP and Dave Miller, etc., we thought the following editorial by the late Bill Cline from the November 1974 Defender was as timely and needful today as it was when it was printed almost 32 years ago. We are glad that the present editor of the Defender, brother Michael Hatcher, chose to run Cline���s article again in the July 2006 Defender. By their defense of their association with men who fellowship error and the way Gil Yoder is attempting to argue his case (such as it is) OABS evidently does not believe Cline taught the truth in the following articles 32 years ago. If Yoder and friends do believe Cline taught the truth in the following article, they have a strange way of proving it.

      For the Faith,
      David P. Brown

      ----------------------------

      Guilt by Association

      William S. Cline
      Pensacola, Florida

      Is there such a thing as guilt by association? When brethren, especially preachers, continually seek the services and fellowship of those who are known false teachers, is there any justification in questioning their doctrinal soundness? Brethren, if the New Testament is going to be our only rule of faith and practice, then lines are going to have to be drawn and their boundaries adhered to!

      The New Testament teaches that the false teacher is to be marked (Rom. 16:17). If any man does not obey the teachings of the Christ, we are not to have any company with him (2 The. 3:14). We do not need to wait until judgment to find out who the false teacher is so that we can mark him. We have the responsibility to make that decision here and now!

      In 2 John 10-11 John wrote, ���If any one cometh unto you, and bringeth not this teaching, receive him not into your house, and give him no greeting: for he that giveth him greeting partaketh in his evil works��� (ASV). May we all understand that to give countenance and sanction to a false teacher is to share his guilt. How judicious and cautious the Christian must be! In this passage God forbids us to do anything that would in any way encourage or support the false teacher and his doctrine! There is such a thing as guilt by association and the doctrine of Christ plainly teaches it.

      Someone may counter, ���Jesus associated with sinners��� (Luke 15). Yes, He did, but His association with them was in no way an encouragement, an endorsement, or a support of them in their sin!

      By Silence

      We may share the false teacher���s guilt by SILENCE. Not long ago I heard a preacher tell a story about Jesus talking to a young man and telling him to shave off his beard! Before the service was over the man was forced to make correction of the false doctrine. To have remained silent would have been wrong for every supporter of the truth in the audience.

      By Contribution

      We may share the false teacher���s guilt by private or church CONTRIBUTION. How many brethren privately supported the false teachers in Campus Evangelism (After going underground Campus Evangelism later surfaced as the original Cross Roads movement, DPB)? Have they repented and asked for God���s forgiveness? How many churches supported the false teachers in Campus Evangelism? Have they publicly acknowledged their sin in supporting that work? Have they repented and asked for God���s forgiveness? To contribute to the false teacher is to share his guilt. The only salvation for any who have so sinned is repentance, confession and prayer.

      By Defense

      We may share the false teacher���s guilt by DEFENSE. I have sat in meetings where men defended some of the known liberals in the brotherhood. Their very defense of them was to mark themselves. I have heard elders, deacons and preachers defend the TEV perversion of the Bible to the point that they simply became ridiculous. The false translations (a discussion of the TEV was carried in the April issue of the Defender) were defended in writing as being nothing but shortcomings! When we defend the false doctrine and/or the false teacher we share the guilt.

      By Approval

      We may share the false teacher���s guilt by APPROVAL. We have heard people praise false teachers. We have heard sermons which contained false doctrine referred to as great preaching. We need to learn that approval or endorsement aligns us with the error. [Just this past week (Nov. 9, 1974) we listened to a preacher praise lessons delivered at a campus seminar which contained error���he called them ���great messages.��� Tho he taught no error in his sermon he gave his approval to false doctrine/and consequently became as wrong as those who had preached the error. A full coverage of that seminar at Gainesville, Florida in August of this year, including the false doctrine taught and the speakers will be carried in the next issue of the Defender. We regret that the article was not finished so that it could be carried in this issue.

      ���WSC

      ----------------------------

      And More

      There are other ways we may share the false teacher���s guilt. We may share such guilt by INDOLENCE, UNCONCERN, PUBLIC COUNTENANCE, INWARD APPROBATION, OPEN APOLOGY and ASSISTANCE. We must be careful of our soul���s welfare in its association with the false teacher.

      Perhaps one of the most common ways brethren align themselves with the false teacher is in their obvious disobedience to John���s command to ���receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed��� (2 John 10b���KJV). As we have already noticed this forbids the Christian from doing anything that would encourage or support the false teacher. This was one thing that brought about the death of Campus Evangelism. Their insistence in placing men on their staff and using men in their seminars who were liberal in their teachings brought about an awakening throughout the brotherhood. The money was cut off and Campus Evangelism died.

      Today we see the Campus Ministries following the same course of action. They are using the same men that Campus Evangelism used who are still teaching the same doctrines. When brethren point out their fault in doing this they cry the wail of persecution and say they are being accused of guilt by association. May it be understood here and now that any campus ministry, any congregation of the Lord���s church, any retreat, any Bible camp, any college lectureship and any other group in the church who uses men who are false teachers are guilty by association and are partakers of their evil deeds (2 John 9-11).

      Churches need to examine the man they secure for gospel meetings. If they have already scheduled men who have now turned out to be liberals, they need to write them and tell them their services will no longer be needed and tell them why they aren���t needed. And gospel preachers, check on the places you go. Some of the liberal churches are using sound gospel preachers in their meetings. The same can be said for many of the seminars. They sprinkle the staff of lecturers with a few sound speakers. Brethren, have you ever considered your association with such? Have you considered that your name and soundness are possibly being used? Have you considered the fact that your appearance on such seminars or in such meetings may be causing brethren to question your soundness?

      We appeal for all who are concerned about the truth to carefully examine their association with others and be certain that they neither encourage nor support the false teacher. Some may say, ���Wouldn���t you go preach in a Methodist church?��� Yes, I would, but my sermon would demonstrate beyond question that I neither supported nor endorsed them in their denominational error. And it is very doubtful that I would ever be asked to speak for them a second time.

      In matters of opinion let us cultivate the widest liberality; in matters of doctrine let us cultivate uncompromising firmness.

      TRUE
      FALSE

      BILL CLINE TAUGHT THE TRUTH IN THE FOREGOING ARTICLE.

      There was a time when Tom Bright would have written the same type of article and preached the same thing as the late brother Cline. I remember when he did, but not so anymore. And the same comment could be made regarding those men at MSOP, but all of that is now history.

      If Gill Yoder says anything else in defense of OABS��� conduct regarding associating with those who support and defend Dave Miller, just remember he is defending associating with at least one false teacher and those who advocate associating with said false teacher, and who defend that false teacher (Dave Miller) such as MSOP, et al. (although they associate with more false teachers than Miller). That will put Yoder and any body else who seeks to declare that their association with false teachers is authorized by the New Testament categorically opposed to the sentiments of Cline���s article, Guilt by Association.

      ���David P. Brown

      ####################



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Robert Baty
      By way of reference: ######################## ContendingFTF · Contending For The Faith Message #3240 of 3244 August 3, 2006 ... From: David P Brown
      Message 2 of 4 , Aug 3 5:04 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        By way of reference:

        ########################

        ContendingFTF �� Contending For The Faith
        Message #3240 of 3244
        August 3, 2006

        -----Original Message-----
        From: David P Brown [mailto:jbrow@...]
        Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 8:12 AM
        To: 'Sons-Of-DEMAS@yahoogroups.com'; 'ContendingFTF@...'
        Subject: RE: [Sons-Of-DEMAS] Re: What think Ye?

        List,

        We are interested in that part of Gill Yoder���s Wed. Aug. 2, 5:00 p. m. posting to the SOD list wherein he charges me personally with sin in the following statement: ���Brethren, on both sides have erred, and need to look for ways to resolve this division.��� It will be noticed that in his statement he did not specify my sin or sins. Is brother Yoder not obligated by the teaching of the New Testament to site the direct statement(s), implication(s), and/or example(s) from the New Testament that we have transgressed; or, that which the New Testament forbids us to do that we have done?

        In our editorial in the April 2006 issue of Contending for the Faith, p. 4, we challenged ������Tom Bright or any of his ���buddyhood,��� to debate propositions concerning their thinking and actions, which thinking and actions resulted in their termination of the agreement between them and the Spring Church of Christ to ���air��� the 2006 Spring CFTF Lectures Open Forum over the facilities of OABS. Not one time in his lengthy posting did Yoder refer to our said debate challenge.

        In view of Yoder���s unwillingness to discuss with Marion Fox anything regarding that specific issue on the SOD list because, according to Yoder, brother Fox will not agree to a debate with the appropriate rules governing the same, does anyone know of a scriptural reason for brother Yoder to seek to do in this particular matter what he desires to do on the SOD list without binding on himself the same guide lines he desires to place on Fox?

        Brother Yoder has charged us publicly with error. We have every scriptural right to expect him publicly and categorically to put into a proposition(s) the error(s) he alleges we have committed. Does anyone think that we are asking too much or something unscriptural of Yoder regarding said matter in view of what he has written about us in said posting to this list?

        We await brother Yoder���s response to this posting, before we proceed in this matter.

        Before we sign off we would like to inform those on the list who do not know about the following (and others who do we remind them of it) that there is a veritable library of documentation on Dave Miller and related matters that we have been making available through a FREE CD containing said material beginning during our 2006 Spring CFTF Lectures. You can order the CD by email us via the list or at jbrow@.... Is it not interesting that with all of the information that OABS makes available over the internet that they have not made the Miller CD available to the internet public over their web site? But the Phillip���s St. elders, Tom Bright, Gil Yoder, Ron Cosby, et al. do not have a problem providing an avenue for Barry Grider and the Forest Hill-Irene Rd. (Home of MSOP) congregation���s work.

        For the Faith,
        David P. Brown

        -----------------------------

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Sons-Of-DEMAS@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Sons-Of-DEMAS@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David P Brown
        Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 6:55 PM
        To: Sons-Of-DEMAS@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: RE: [Sons-Of-DEMAS] Re: What think Ye?

        List,

        Gil���s posting would not have taken so much of his time or so much space if had simply said that we need to get HIS approval before we think, speak, or act. For us Gil can define what it means to ���jump���, tell us if we should ���jump��� or not ���jump���, which way to ���jump���, at whom, what, or how many we should ���jump���, how far we should ���jump���, how high to ���jump���, and when to come down from the ���jump���--if we should come down from the ���jump��� at all. But now Gil has ���jumped��� and into what has he ���jumped���? List, I think we have a ���jumper���. And, I suppose we should finally rejoice that someone from the halls of OABS and Phillip���s street have come out in the open���even if he is a ���jumper���. But, the director of OABS has not yet ���jumped���. We suppose that his wisdom has caused him not to put on his ���jumping��� britches, so he is going to ���lay low��� and let some one else ���jump��� on his behalf. Ron Cosby might have ���jumped��� out into the open, but he seemingly can���t get off the phone from his lobbying session long enough to ���jump���. More latter���Much Much more to come.

        David P. Brown

        ------------------------------

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Sons-Of-DEMAS@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Sons-Of-DEMAS@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Gil Yoder
        Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 5:00 PM
        To: Sons-Of-DEMAS@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [Sons-Of-DEMAS] Re: What think Ye?

        Dear Ken,

        I do not know Brother Charles Blair or anything about him other than what you have written in this post. (I don't have the attachments because they are not stored for viewing from the web interface to your group.) However, I do not find anything within the article you quoted with which I can disagree, even if it was written with the current brotherhood problems in mind.

        May I respond explicitly to several of your comments? You wrote,

        > Clearly brother Charles
        > considers the current
        > problems regarding
        > AP,MSOP SWSBS,TGJ,GBN
        > etc. as being all in the realm
        > of judgment.

        Since I haven't read your correspondence I cannot judge whether or not your assessment is just, but if this statement is true, I would agree with you that he would be in error on this point. It is clearly not the case that "the current problems" are "all in the realm of judgment." However, a good many of our problems have their roots in the realm of judgment, and this is very sad.

        To give a few examples (I could give many others) last year when brother David Watson and Dub McClish were separated from their positions with TGJ some condemned TGJ board for "firing" these brethren, others admitted that they were not fired, but that they were nevertheless "forced" to resign, and still others said that we cannot know what would have resulted if the brethren did not resign. Personally I am of the latter view. To add to the different judgments in this matter there were those who said that even if TGJ decided to let these brethren go, that would have been an internal matter for the board, and that they could do this without necessarily sinning before God. Of course some strongly disagreed with that view. I do not.

        I am sure that many disagree with my judgment, and some would even condemn me for that judgment, but if they do they would be condemning me for a difference of opinion, and not for scriptural or doctrinal error.

        It is my opinion that the reaction to Dub and David's severance from TGJ is the nexus of all of the problems that we are currently facing with regard to the current split in the church. If I am right, I am certain that God is displeased with those responsible for allowing matters to get to this point.

        It is also a matter of some judgment how some matters of fellowship are handled. I know that stating this so explicitly will give some brethren a stomach ache, but I believe we all put this into practice if we don't expressly believe it.

        For example two of the most forceful voices condemning the elders at Phillips Street and Brother Tom Bright for posting the worship services of the Forest Hills church in Memphis are Brethren David Brown and Darrell Broking. They now claim that any fellowship with Phillips Street is a sin, and thus everyone who has any association with the work at OABS stands to be condemned.

        Yet up until the week of February 26, 2006, both of these brethren were of the judgment that despite the Memphis airing on OABS, fellowship with Phillips Street was not a sin, and both of these men were joint participants with the work going forth from OABS, Darrell as an instructor of the school, and David through broadcasting the Spring lectures via the OABS web site. While they objected to the airing of the Forest Hills services they both felt they could continue their relationship with OABS at least in as far as they had a relationship. Unless they are willing to admit to sin in that regard, this shows that one could have an association with Phillips Street without necessarily condoning or approving of its airing of Forest Hills.

        It was not until another judgment was acted upon that these men decided that all fellowship with Phillips Street had to stop. I speak of course of the judgment of the elders at Phillips Street not to air the all day open forum from Spring on February 28. The suddenness of this change in judgment makes it clear that it was the Phillips Street elders' decision that motivated that change.

        That though is beside the point. The point is that these brethren had to make some judgment regarding how far fellowship should be extended, and when it should be withdrawn. Their decision to withdraw was not based solely on the fact that OABS was airing Forest Hills, but on a personal decision (judgment). Others would draw that line differently, and they should not be automatically condemned for not jumping when David and Darrell say, "Jump!"

        In my judgment the standard that some are applying today which would result in division in the church is inconsistent with past behavior. The idea that we cannot have any association with anyone who associates with someone who associates with someone who should be disciplined has never been practiced by anyone except the most extreme brethren among us, i.e., the antis. I have been opposed to Brother Dave Miller for many years, probably longer than most of those who are calling for a withdrawal of Phillips Street because Phillips Street associations with Forest Hills who associates with GBN which uses Dave Miller. I opposed Brother Dave Miller when many brethren were singing his praises for ���Piloting the Straights,��� and for some years before that. But I never heard a strong call from anyone for withdrawing from Dave, and especially for withdrawing from anyone who associates with anyone who associates with anyone who associates with Dave until the controversy between TGJ and Brethren McClish and Watson.

        I believe this is a new standard, and it seems tailored to target those who don���t jump when they are told to jump.

        Are there any matters other than judgment matters behind the current controversy? Yes, I believe there are. On the Memphis side brethren could have worked a little harder to help smooth out these issues. I would like to see something from Brother Cates and others showing that he understands the concerns that have been expressed about Dave Miller and other issues related to GBN, and that he does not support the error that Dave Miller has taught in the past. I would like to see Dave Miller take responsibility for his error, and show some contrition for it. I believe that silence on their side has contributed to the division that has resulted. However, I am not ready to lay all the blame at their feet, nor am I ready to withdraw fellowship from Memphis for this error. (As I have explained on other occasions, Dave Miller is another matter, and I will not personally have any direct association with him until he corrects his doctrinal errors.)

        There are also non-judgment matters on the other side behind the controversy. Whether an eldership has the authority to make decisions regarding things under its control is not simply a matter of judgment. The scriptures clearly give elders that authority. For elders of the Lord���s church to be openly ridiculed and held up for derision for such a decision is a matter clearly condemned in God���s word. There also have been vulgar and disrespectful comments made about those who have given a lifetime of service to the Lord. Even Satan deserves more respect than that. And finally there have been false accusations made to bolster the current agenda to bring down brethren with whom some disagree. None of these things are simply matters of judgment.

        Brethren on both sides have erred, and need to look for ways to resolve this division.

        We all need to look to the example of Christ and remember to love one another walking in his footsteps. And if we are going to set a new standard, we better be ready to defend it, and explain why we haven���t applied it in the past.

        Ken, obviously I feel strongly about this, and that is reflected in the tone of my post. But I do not mean this to be an ���in your face��� type of post. I feel that I have been on the receiving end of much of the criticism that I consider to be unjust, and for the most part have received in silence. I hope though that something might be done to get brethren talking and coming to a better understanding that would allow some of the division to start to heal.

        Gil Yoder

        --------------------------------
      • Robert Baty
        By way of further reference: ######################## ContendingFTF · Contending For The Faith Message #3241 of 3244 August 3, 2006 List, ... In my opinion
        Message 3 of 4 , Aug 3 5:18 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          By way of further reference:

          ########################

          ContendingFTF �� Contending For The Faith
          Message #3241 of 3244
          August 3, 2006

          List,

          In part (the whole of which is recorded below) brother Gil Yoder wrote:

          --------------------------

          In my opinion though the Spring Open Forum was nothing like what you suggested. The design of the forum was such that the brethren invited from Memphis would have had a distinct disadvantage. Each speaker was to be time limited to 20 minutes if memory serves me, with David Brown or one of his friends as the time keeper. It appeared from my point of view that 20 minutes out of every other hour would have been given to Memphis to give their point of view, and the rest of the time would be for David and his friends.

          That doesn't sound like a very level playing field to me.

          ------------------------------

          Frankly, Yoder���s opinion means little to nothing with us. If MSOP had hosted an open forum with the same format as the Spring Open Forum, would Yoder et al. have supported it? However, Phillip���s St. and OABS or MSOP, and their other friends are not seeking to do anything akin to hosting a forum such as we did or any other kind.

          If they can do it better than we did, let them do it.

          It again comes down to Gil not being satisfied unless everyone ���dances��� to his music. And, Yoder is so blind to his own desire to control everybody he does not realize that others can see what he and his friends are doing. Besides that, Yoder does not want a forum where all sides can be allowed equal time.

          If he can come up with a better format in a more neutral position let him do it.

          However, don���t hold you breath till he or his friends do it.

          In fact, since the close of the 2005 Lubbock Lectures the information coming from Yoder and friends is, ���Everybody stop saying or doing anything. Something big is in the works that is going to happen, which thing will really make a difference in all of the AP, Dave Miller, TGJ, MSOP, et al. problems.���

          If we since last Oct. had kept quite on these things then we would still be waiting (as we are waiting for the BIG thing to happen now) then nothing would be said-- that is exactly what MSOP, AP, et al. want to happen.

          Again, it is Yoder trying to run the show and if we don���t ���kow tow��� to his directions, anything we propose or do is suspect. Look at the supposition in the preceding quote.

          Yoder might as well have explicitly said, ���The Spring elders, David Brown, and company are not to be trusted.��� Yet, he cannot show specifically how our efforts were/are wrong. But he wants it to be, so to him it is, and if it is wrong to him, it must be wrong to everyone else.

          Well, as regards the Spring Lectures��� Open Forum as the old saying goes, ���we like the way we are doing it (exposing and refuting the errors of MSOP, etc.), better than the way he and his are not doing it.��� And if Yoder and friends did host such an open forum, why should we expect fair treatment from people who have proven that they will not honor an agreement (pulling the plug on the Spring forum at a very late date).

          How would Yoder develop a format for an open forum that would fairly accommodate everyone who needed to speak that would be so different from what we developed?

          Well, don���t worry about a better format to be forth coming from Yoder and friends, because that won���t happen. Further, I would like to see Yoder and friends get Dave Miller, the rest of the AP family, its directors, and elders, Curtis Cates, the rest of the MSOP Faculty, Forest Hill elders, Barry Grider, Joseph Meador, S. W. Church elders, Schertz church elders, Stan Crowley, et al. or a representation from said list to approve a format for an open forum in which they will participate.

          Let Yoder attempt to get the previously listed group of fellows into anything ���open��� and fair and see what success he has.

          First of all, as I said earlier, Yoder will not participate in a forum and second of all he or anyone else from OABS cannot develop an open forum program and format that the previously listed brethren and their fellow travelers will attend and in which they will participate���and that includes Tom Bright and the Phillip���s St. elders.

          When Yoder writes (see previous quote), ������with David Brown or one of his friends as the time keeper��� he again tells us that he can do a better job in said matters than we did.

          His view is that these fellows at Spring are not to be trusted.

          According to Yoder, et al., the 2006 Spring forum really was NOT open and above board. Now, brethren this is the kind of man (men) with which we are dealing. A man (men) who admits his previously quoted comments and other akin to them are only his opinion (in reality evil surmising and motive judging without adequate evidence or proper argumentation to prove his case) for his charges.

          But if it is said by Yoder, it must be true.

          You will notice that this is the routine mode of operation for Yoder���that is why I posted my ���Jumper Response��� to Yoder���s post of yesterday afternoon.

          We are not ignorant of his devices, though he seemingly is blind to them. He practices on others exactly what he thinks he sees and condemns in the persons he opposes.

          He allows for himself and his friends exactly what he will not allow for others.

          We will close for now. More later.

          For the Faith,
          David P. Brown

          -----------------------------------

          -----Original Message-----
          From: Sons-Of-DEMAS@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Sons-Of-DEMAS@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Yoder
          Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 8:16 AM
          To: Sons-Of-DEMAS@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [Sons-Of-DEMAS] Re: What think Ye?

          Mike Heath wrote:

          > Remember the "Memphis
          > Meeting" that took place
          > at Getwell on Sept.
          > 10, 1973? I do. Back then
          > the controversy was with Lynn
          > Anderson/Herald of Truth.
          > At that time, the Herald of Truth
          > was being supported by a
          > great many brethren and
          > congregations. More
          > than anything else, the Memphis
          > Meeting clarified the problem and
          > exposed Lynn Anderson, The
          > Herald of Truth and the Highland
          > congregation for what they had
          > become.

          Mike, on that date in 1973 I was just a young man of 20 (my 21st birthday was later that month), and ignorant of most issues like this in the church. I knew nothing about that meeting and as far as I know this is the first time that I ever knew that such a meeting took place.

          The first I heard of problems at the H of T was during a meeting at the church where I attended in Fort Worth probably a short time after that meeting. A representative of the program came to give a report of the work and to take questions from the members of the church. Toward the end of the meeting one of our members asked about the error that Anderson was involved in, and doctrinal problems at Highland in Abiline, but he was the only voice of opposition. His questions were fairly well dismissed. In my ignorance I thought the brother that raised the questions was pretty much a loon and a trouble maker. I was wrong. He was the only right one in the bunch, and I later came to appreciate his courage for standing up in that meeting.

          Still the 1973 meeting in Memphis did not resolve the controversy. It was only many years after that when the H of T was fairly well extracted from the budgets of churches most of us would call "faithful." It took a great deal of patience from brethren to root this problem out of the church.

          One reason for that I feel is that many brethren equated opposition to the H of T with rabid anti-ism for obvious reasons. The attitudes and arguments of the antis poisoned the wells and made it more difficult for brethren to deal with the real issues. That same party spirit, I beleive, is at play today regarding the issues we are discussing. The "my way or the highway" approach to these problems is having a negative effect, unless the purpose is to cause division.

          We need to be more willing to look for ways to resolve the problems that are facing us. I think your suggestion for a similar meeting to the Memphis Meeting shows that you have that desire. We ought not to dismiss it immediately with a "we tried that" retort. As much as I respect Ken Chumbley his response to your suggestion demonstrates what is at best described as an unwilling spirit. Even if the Spring Open Forum really was an attempt to provide a medium of communication toward a resolution between brethren, we ought not to dismiss other efforts to effect a resolution.

          In my opinion though the Spring Open Forum was nothing like what you suggested. The design of the forum was such that the brethren invited from Memphis would have had a distinct disadvantage. Each speaker was to be time limited to 20 minutes if memory serves me, with David Brown or one of his friends as the time keeper. It appeared from my point of view that 20 minutes out of every other hour would have been given to Memphis to give their point of view, and the rest of the time would be for David and his friends.

          That doesn't sound like a very level playing field to me.

          You made this suggestion:

          > Perhaps what is really needed
          > today is another "Memphis
          > Meeting" like discussion. Such
          > a meeting might include brethren
          > Dave Miller, Curtis Cates, Joseph
          > Meador, Ken Chumbley, Darrell
          > Broking, Dub McClish, David P.
          > Brown, Gil Yoder, and Tom Bright,
          > as well as being open to the public.
          > That way, each could make their
          > case, face to face, with each the
          > other and before the brethren.

          I would love to see some effort like this to work toward a reconciliation of brethren, though not necessarily with the men you listed, and not necessarily open to the public. I certainly would not need to be a participant. Up until now most of the efforts and rhetoric do not seem to be aimed at resolving the issues, but rather to attack and to inflame the passions, and perhaps to arrouse the base. We all seem to be pretty good at leveling insults toward one another, but it seems next to impossible to establish open avenues of communiction.

          Another model for a meeting similar to this would be the Arlington meeting (I don't recall what year) between anti brethren, and non-anti brethren. It was not open to the public, but prepared speeches were given before the participants, and these speeches were included in a book that was later published for the brotherhood. That's just a thought though. I would be supportive of any effort between brethren to heal this division.

          Gil Yoder

          #########################
        • Robert Baty
          More background information:###########################ContendingFTF · Contending For The Faith Message #3242 of 3244 August 3, 2006List,For those
          Message 4 of 4 , Aug 3 5:26 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            More background information:

            ###########################

            ContendingFTF �� Contending For The Faith
            Message #3242 of 3244
            August 3, 2006

            List,

            For those who do not receive CFTF, the following is our editorial for the April, 2006, issue of the paper. Following the True/False question is an article Kenneth D. Cohn, one of the two of the Spring elders, the other Spring elder being Buddy Roth. Brother Cohn���s article appeared in the April, 2006 CFTF also. I don���t expect Gil Yoder or anyone from the Phillip���s street congregation to answer our questions, but in this day of the unexpected maybe they will.

            For the Faith,
            David P. Brown

            -------------------------------

            Editorial...

            ���FACTS ARE STUBBORN THINGS:
            AND WHATEVER MAY BE OUR WISHES, OUR INCLINATIONS, OR THE DICTATES OF OUR PASSIONS, THEY CANNOT ALTER THE STATE OF FACTS AND EVIDENCE.���

            The title of this editorial is a quote attributed to John Quincy Adams. Whether it is a fact that Adams said it or not, the TRUTH conveyed in the statement is often ignored and sometimes by design overlooked. We have chosen to use said quote as the title of this editorial for the same reason we employed it in the January 2001 issue���because of its truthfulness and appropriateness���especially and specifically when applied to the actions of Tom Bright, Director of the On Line Academy of Bible Studies (OABS), along with Bobby Diggs and Edgar Schultz elders of the Phillips Street Church of Christ, Dyersburg, Tennessee, the overseeing eldership of OABS, in their decision not to carry the Tuesday, February 28 Open Forum of the 2006 Spring CFTF Lectures.

            Immediately following this editorial is the statement from the Spring elders, Buddy Roth and Kenneth D. Cohn. It was read by brother Cohn to the March 2 evening audience in house and over the internet of the 2006 CFTF Spring Lectures. The statement pertains to certain facts that follow.

            WHATEVER HAS BEEN OR WILL BE OFFERED BY THE POWERS THAT BE AT OABS AS TO WHY THEY ���PULLED THE PLUG��� ON THE SPRING OPEN FORUM THOSE ���REASONS��� ������cannot alter the state of facts and evidence��� PERTAINING TO THEIR ACTIONS

            Fact # 1: less than 24 hours before the Spring Forum was to begin, OABS reneged on her agreement with the Spring Church of Christ to carry the Spring Forum on her web site.

            Fact # 2: this action by the governing powers of OABS breached a verbal contract they had with the Spring CFTF Lectureship/Spring Lectureship director/ Spring church elders to provide ALL of the Spring lectures for viewing over the internet.

            Fact # 3: if the Spring brethren did not have connections with another internet provider, OABS���s breach of contract at such a late date would have in all likely hood effectively stopped the public transmission of the live Spring Forum over the internet.

            Fact # 4: the tailored explanation by the Phillips��� Street Church of Christ elders, Dyersburg, TN that appears, at this writing, on the OABS web site does not in any form or fashion Scripturally, logically, and/or ethically explain away the reality that in less than 24 hours before the Spring Forum was to begin, OABS ���pulled the plug��� on the Spring forum.

            Fact # 5: Tom Bright, OABS director and agent acting on behalf of the Phillip���s Street Church of Christ elders understood many weeks in advance of the 2006 Spring CFTF lectureship that the Spring Forum was a part of the 2006 Spring Lectureship. Fact # 5a: brother Bright understood, what the subject of the forum was to be. Fact # 5b: brother Bright knew who some of the participants in the forum were. Fact # 5c: He also knew at least some of those who had been invited to participate in the forum.

            Fact # 6: OABS is without a Scriptural reason for their conduct in ���pulling the plug��� on the Spring forum.

            Fact # 7: OABS has joined the ranks of AP, MSOP, GBN in their refusal to show written Scriptural cause for their actions on the late date that said actions were taken against the 2006 Spring CFTF Lectures took place.

            Fact # 8: in keeping in concert with her brotherhood project sisters (previously named), OABS does not hesitate to ask the churches and individual Christians for money to support her work. Fact # 8a: However, OABS refuses to answer questions IN WRITING regarding the reason(s) or motive(s) for her actions such as the reason(s) OABS chose, less than 24 hours before the Spring Forum was to begin, to notify the Spring elders via Kenneth Cohn of their decision to ���pull the plug��� on the Spring Forum at that late time.

            Fact # 9: As covered in the statement read by brother Cohn, (Fact # 9a) a meeting composed of 7 brethren (among the 7 men in said meeting three elderships were represented) was in progress in the Spring church library when the phone call came from brother Tom Bright to brother Cohn in which brother Bright informed brother Cohn that he (Cohn) needed to phone brother Bobby Diggs, one of the two elders of the Phillips Street Church of Christ, Dyersburg, TN. Fact # 9b: For reasons explained by brother Cohn in said public statement, all of the men present clearly heard the conversation of brother Cohn with, first, brother Diggs and, second, Phillips Street���s other elder, Edgar Schultz. Fact # 9c: clearly both elders depended on OABS director, Tom Bright for their information regarding the Spring CFTF Lectures and the Spring Forum. Fact # 9d: neither one of the Phillips��� St. elders was clear about what was being advertised on their own web site regarding the Spring CFTF Lectures. Fact # 9e: one of the Phillips St. elders went so far as to ask brother Cohn if the Spring Forum had been added to the Spring CFTF Lectures after the original advertisement for the Spring CFTF Lectures appeared on the OABS web site.

            Fact # 10: as of March 6, 2006, on the OABS web site, the Phillips��� St. elders gave the following reason for terminating the Spring Forum. Part of the statement reads:

            ���When the nature of the Open Forum was brought to our attention (please note: Tom Bright has requested that it be known that he, and he alone, was the one who failed to communicate to the elders; he has apologized to us for this), we felt the nature of the Open Forum was something that non-members (around the world) did not need to see.

            Now, this and this alone was the reason for our decision. We were not influenced by any outside source��� (http://www.oabs.org/OABSExplanation.htm).

            Fact # 10a: the following view of the Phillips Street Church of Christ elders is not authorized by the New Testament:

            ���we felt the nature of the Open Forum was something that non-members (around the world) did not need to see.

            Now, this and this alone was the reason for our decision. We were not influenced by any outside source��� (Ibid).

            Fact # 10b: the Holy Spirit recorded multitudinous church problems and trouble between Christians in the writing of the New Testament for people in and out of the church to read. Fact # 10c: the reason the Phillips Street elders gave for ���pulling the plug��� on the Spring Forum is contrary to what is recorded in the New Testament regarding problems in the church. Therefore, their (the Phillips Street elders) reason stands in opposition to the divine pattern found in the Scriptures relative to internal problems in the church being revealed to non-members. Fact # 10d: the Phillips Street elders are inconsistent in their decision not to allow the Spring Forum to be on the internet because they approved of the rest of the Spring CFTF Lectures (Anti-ism���From God or Man) to be put on the internet, which lectures pertain to trouble and division in the Lord���s church and does not necessarily concern non-members. Fact # 10e: seven men heard one of the Phillips Street elders admit to brother Cohn when facts # 10c and # 10d were pointed out to him by brother Cohn, that they knew they were being inconsistent in their decision to allow the part of the Spring CFTF Lectures that pertained to Anti-ism (internal church problems) to be put on the internet by OABS, but they would not allow the Spring Forum (pertaining to internal church problems), part of the Spring CFTF Lectures, to be put on the internet through the auspices of OABS. Fact # 10f: the Phillips��� Street elders knew they were inconsistent, but they did not care, they were going to carry out their inconsistent decision no matter what.

            Fact # 11: the following quote is also from the Phillips Street elders��� statement found on the OABS web site. ���Tom Bright has requested that it be known that he, and he alone, was the one who failed to communicate to the elders; he has apologized to us for this������ To date Tom Bright has not apologized to the elders of the Spring Church of Christ. Also, he has not apologized to the director of the Spring CFTF Lectures, David P. Brown.

            Fact # 12: the authority delegated to elders by the New Testament does not authorize elders to violate the Golden Rule, and does not authorize elders to be inconsistent, or make any decision(s) without Scriptural reason(s) for said decisions.

            Fact # 13: there is no Scriptural way for Tom Bright, the Phillips Street Church of Christ elders, or anyone else to successfully prove that the actions of OABS taken against the 2006 Spring CFTF Lectures Open Forum was authorized by the New Testament of Jesus Christ (Colossians 3:17).

            QUESTIONS

            1. Will Tom Bright and/or the Phillips Street Church of Christ elders put into writing the Scriptural reasons given by Bright to them (Phillips Street elders) that necessitated their (and Bright���s) change of mind from their original agreement with the Spring congregation to carry the 2006 Spring CFTF Lectures Open Forum over the internet?

            2. Will Tom Bright, or any of his ���buddyhood,��� affirm any one or all of the following propositions in public debate?

            A. Resolved: ���The authority delegated to elders by the New Testament authorizes them (elders) to violate the Golden Rule.���

            B. Resolved: ���Tom Bright and the Phillips Street elders practiced the Golden Rule in coming to their decision to refuse to carry the Spring CFTF Open Forum over OABS.���

            C. Resolved: ���The New Testament authorizes Christians to be inconsistent.���

            D. Resolved: ���The Scriptures teach that the Phillips Street elders were acting consistently when they decided to carry the lectureship portion pertaining to ���Anti-ism��� (an internal problem in the church), but refused to carry the Open Forum part of the 2006 Spring CFTF Lectures that pertained to an internal problem in the church.

            E. Resolved: ���The Open Forum part of the 2006 Spring CFTF Lectures that pertained to an internal problem in the church was a sinful activity.���

            ���IS IT NOTHING TO YOU, ALL YE THAT PASS BY��� (LAMENTATIONS 1:12)?

            In times past many of us stood ���shoulder to shoulder��� in our opposition to error of any kind, committed by anyone, and in defense of the objective static standard of infallible Gospel Truth that is the authoritative New Testament. The Tom Bright I thought I knew (and this is true of certain other brethren as well) seemingly were not more interested in defending their special projects and their funding sources when such meant compromising the Truth in doctrine and practice in order to do so. They were not guilty, or if they were we did not know it, of the sin of respecting men���s personages and acting in an inconsistent manner in teaching, applying, and practicing the Truth of God���s Word on any point. With the uncompromising apostle Paul we ask: ���Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth: This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.��� (Galatians 5:7-9).

            ���David P. Brown, Editor

            THE FOLLOWING TRUE/FALSE QUESTIONS ARE FOR GIL YODER OR ANYONE CONNECTED WITH THE PHILLIPS STREET CHURCH OF CHRIST OR OABS WHO HAS THE KNOWLEDGE NECESSARY TO ANSWER THEM.

            1. T F Less than 24 hours before the Spring Forum was to begin, OABS reneged on her agreement with the Spring Church of Christ to carry the Spring Forum on her web site.

            2. T F The action to renege on the agreement with the Spring Church of Christ by the governing powers of OABS breached a verbal contract they had with the Spring CFTF Lectureship/Spring Lectureship director/ Spring church elders to provide ALL of the Spring lectures for viewing over the internet.

            3. T F If the Spring brethren did not have connections with another internet provider, OABS���s breach of contract at such a late date would have in all likely hood effectively stopped the public transmission of the live Spring Forum over the internet.

            4. T F The explanation by the Phillips��� Street Church of Christ elders, Dyersburg, TN that appeared at the time these questions were written on the OABS web site does not in any form or fashion Scripturally, logically, and/or ethically explain away the reality that in less than 24 hours before the Spring Forum was to begin, OABS ���pulled the plug��� on the Spring forum.

            5. T F Tom Bright, OABS director and agent acting on behalf of the Phillip���s Street Church of Christ elders understood many weeks in advance of the 2006 Spring CFTF lectureship that the Spring Forum was a part of the 2006 Spring Lectureship.

            6. T F Brother Bright understood all along what the subject of the 2006 Spring forum was to be.

            7. T F Brother Bright knew who some of the participants in the 2006 Spring forum were.

            8. T F Brother Bright knew at least some of those who had been invited to participate in the 2006 Spring forum.

            9. T F OABS is without a Scriptural reason for their conduct in ���pulling the plug��� on the Spring forum.

            9a. If one answers question # 9 is False, please list the direct statement, implication, or example from the New Testament authorizing OABS Scripturally to ���pull the plug��� on the Spring forum.

            10. T F OABS has joined the ranks of AP, MSOP, GBN in their refusal to show written Scriptural cause for their actions on the late date that said actions were taken against the 2006 Spring CFTF Lectures took place.

            10a. If one answers question # 10 with False, please specify why it is that OABS has not joined the ranks of AP, MSOP, GBN in their refusal to show written Scriptural cause for their actions.

            11. T F In keeping in concert with her brotherhood project sisters (previously named), OABS does not hesitate to ask the churches and individual Christians for money to support her work.

            11a: However, OABS refuses to answer questions IN WRITING regarding the reason(s) or motive(s) for her actions such as the reason(s) OABS chose, less than 24 hours before the Spring Forum was to begin, to notify the Spring elders via Kenneth Cohn of their decision to ���pull the plug��� on the Spring Forum at that late time.

            As covered in the statement read by brother Cohn, (Fact # 9a) a meeting composed of 7 brethren (among the 7 men in said meeting three elderships were represented) was in progress in the Spring church library when the phone call came from brother Tom Bright to brother Cohn in which brother Bright informed brother Cohn that he (Cohn) needed to phone brother Bobby Diggs, one of the two elders of the Phillips Street Church of Christ, Dyersburg, TN. Fact # 9b: For reasons explained by brother Cohn in said public statement, all of the men present clearly heard the conversation of brother Cohn with, first, brother Diggs and, second, Phillips Street���s other elder, Edgar Schultz.

            12. T F Both of the Phillip���s street elders depended on OABS director, Tom Bright for their information regarding the Spring CFTF Lectures and the Spring Forum.

            12a. T F For a number of weeks prior to said phone call to the Spring elders, neither one of the Phillips��� St. elders was clear about what was being advertised on their own web site regarding the Spring CFTF Lectures.

            13. T F One of the Phillips St. elders went so far as to ask brother Cohn if the Spring Forum had been added to the Spring CFTF Lectures after the original advertisement for the Spring CFTF Lectures appeared on the OABS web site.

            14. T F The Holy Spirit recorded multitudinous church problems and trouble between Christians in the writing of the New Testament for people in and out of the church to read.

            15. T F Dave Miller is in fellowship with God.

            16. T F Marion Fox is in fellowship with God.

            17. T F David P. Brown is in fellowship with God.

            18. T F Tom Bright is in fellowship with God.

            19. T F Curtis Cates is in fellowship with God.

            20. T F Gil Yoder is in fellowship with God.

            21. T F I have New Testament authority to extend fellowship to people when I know they are guilty of sin of which the refuse to repent.

            22. T F I do not know who actually is in fellowship with God.

            23. T F It is absolutely impossible to know that anyone other than myself is in fellowship with God.

            24. T F I know and can prove that Rubel Shelly is not in fellowship with God.

            25. T F I know and can prove that Curtis Cates is in fellowship with God.

            26. T F I know and can prove that Dave Miller is not in fellowship with God.

            27 T F The New Testament authorizes a faithful child of God to fellowship those who are not in fellowship with God.


            A STATEMENT REGARDING the ABROGATION BY OABS OF AN AGREEMENT TO BROADCAST THE 2006 CFTF SPRING CHURCH OF CHRIST LECTURESHIP OPEN FORUM FEBRUARY 28, 2006

            Read by Kenneth D. Cohn on March 2, 2006, during the Contending For The Faith Lectures at Spring, Texas

            Kenneth D. Cohn

            On Monday, February 27, 2006, during the lunch break between the last morning session and the first afternoon session of the CFTF Spring church of Christ lectureship (the topic of which was ���Anti-ism, From God or Man���), I received a phone call from Tom Bright, director of Online Academy of Bible Studies. In our conversation, brother Bright conveyed to me a request from the elders of Phillips Street church of Christ, Dyersburg, TN, overseeing eldership of OABS, that the elders of the Spring Church of Christ call them respecting the Open Forum. Using my cell phone, I called the phone number given me by brother Bright. Brother Bobby Diggs, one of the two elders of Phillips Street, answered the phone. (At the time of this call, Buddy Roth, my fellow elder, and I were in a meeting with David Watson, Dub McClish, Denny Durigan, David Brown, Michael Hatcher, and Lynn Parker. All were privy to the ensuing conversation, not because of any effort on my part to have witnesses, but rather because I had the volume turned up higher than normal because of my reduced hearing capacity, which consequently allowed the others to hear as well.)

            PERMISSION DENIED

            I knew before I placed the call received by brother Diggs that they would not permit the Open Forum to be broadcast over OABS. Brother Diggs stated that it was the decision of the eldership of Phillips Street not to permit the Open Forum to be broadcast over OABS. In questioning brother Diggs as to the reasons for this decision, he stated, among other things, that: 1) he did not know that the Open Forum was to be broadcast over OABS until the previous night when Tom Bright so informed him; 2) it was the decision of the elders and brother Bright did not have the authority to make the final decision; 3) it was not appropriate to broadcast the Open Forum over OABS because the purpose of the Open Forum was to deal with a matter concerning only members of the church; and 4) non Christians may sign on to the web site and be exposed to what these elders considered to be an internal church matter (comparable to what the antis do, or so they said). Brother Diggs stated that this decision only applied to the broadcasting of the Open Forum, they would still broadcast the lectureship itself.

            INCONSISTENT CONDUCT

            Although I could have cited many New Testament examples of matters that dealt only with internal matters (e.g., Ananias and Sapphira, Paul confronting Peter to his face, and so on), I pointed out to brother Diggs the inconsistency of their position of denying permission to broadcast the Open Forum while broadcasting the lectureship itself the topic of which (Anti-ism) only pertained to an internal matter of the church and did not pertain to non Christians. He said that on this matter they would just have to be inconsistent. During our conversation, he stated that he was not saying that we should not hold the Open Forum. He even said that he would like to be in attendance.

            In an attempt to highlight his inconsistency, I made the offer to provide him a DVD of the Open Forum provided that he keep its contents confidential. Much to my surprise, he accepted the offer and agreed to keep it confidential. During the same phone call, I talked to brother Edgar Schultz, fellow elder of Phillips Street, and made the same offer and confidentiality stipulation. He also accepted. The action of the Phillips Street elders caused CFTF at a cost of several hundreds of dollars to contract on an emergency basis with an internet broadcast service to carry the Open Forum. Although the Phillips Street elders agreed to recommence broadcasting the lectureship, we elected not to do so.

            WHY DID IT HAPPEN?

            Some observations, questions, and answers are in order. The elders stated that they had learned of the Open Forum only a few days ago. Yet CFTF and OABS, through Tom Bright, the agent of the elders, had consummated an agreement months before. The lectureship and the Open Forum had been first advertised in the pages of CFTF last November. Phillips Street advertised the lectureship and Open Forum on its website weeks before the lectureship began. Does the eldership have oversight of the website as well as OABS? Are they aware of the content of the website? Are there established lines of communication among Tom Bright and the elders? What was the imperative in this case that caused Tom Bright, outside the normal lines of communication, to specially and specifically inform the elders only a day or so before the Open Forum? In a conversation with an elder of a supporting congregation in Oklahoma, Tom Bright stated that he takes full responsibility for the decision and that it was not the result of any arm-twisting by MSOP. The elders, however, stated that they had the final decision in this matter. Who, then, was responsible for the decision? Why mention that MSOP exercised no arm-twisting? Why mention MSOP at all? Does MSOP exercise such undue influence over OABS that brother Bright must make this statement? Were there some unnamed others who may have twisted a few OABS arms?

            In all of this we must look to motives behind the action. I publicly made a statement as to the role that money may have played in all of this. Any organization that depends on outside sources of funds will have under consideration, at least to some extent, the impact that their actions will have on fundraising. I have heard from some an unconfirmed comment of brother Bright that money was not the motivating factor. Since I cannot prove that money was, or was not, a motivating factor in the decision of the elders or Tom Bright, I will reserve judgment in this area until the evidence compels a determination one way or the other. But exactly what was the motivating factor or factors?

            1. The elders stated that the church should not, in effect, air its ���dirty laundry��� before non-saints. There are some matters that should be handled only among members, such as some church discipline, but others, such as false teachers, that need to be broadcast as widely as possible. The New Testament is replete with examples of internal matters. These may be read by Christians and non Christians alike. Certainly this cannot be the compelling motivation of the Phillips Street elders, or Tom Bright, since they had already broadcast lectures on the topic of ���Anti-ism���, peculiar only to churches of Christ, and were ready and willing to continue to broadcast this topic before and after the Open Forum. Although we elected not to do so, OABS, of their own volition, placed on their website a link to our broadcast of the lectureship, and then took it off again. There was something peculiar about the Open Forum that gave the elders and Tom Bright serious heartburn. What was it?

            2. Was the Open Forum teaching error, or at least giving Godspeed to those who do? If so, it is incumbent upon them to specify the error and why it is false after the fashion of ���prove all things, hold fast that which is good��� (I Thessalonians 5:21). It is notable that an elder of a congregation that financially supports OABS and four OABS instructors appeared in the Open Forum. Furthermore, brother Diggs expressed a wish to be in attendance and both elders wanted a DVD of the Open Forum, not to mention the OABS staffers signing on to our alternative broadcasting website. Are the Phillips Street elders willing to make an assertion that their own instructors and supporters are either teaching error or giving Godspeed to those who do? Let them do so.

            3. Perhaps the elders claim that CFTF was not practicing ���longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace��� (Ephesians 4:2,3). In ���pulling the plug��� on CFTF, did the Phillips Street elders practice ���longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace���?

            THE BOTTOM LINE

            OABS and CFTF entered into an oral contract in which mutual promises were exchanged that benefited each party. OABS breached that contract causing CFTF to incur charges of hundreds of dollars to mitigate damage. We are not asking OABS for reimbursement of these costs nor would we accept it if offered. We are asking OABS and its overseeing elders, at the very least, to explain their violation of the Golden Rule when they informed us the day before a scheduled event that was advertised months in advance that they would not broadcast it without giving any reason that will stand critical scrutiny. If they have not violated the Golden Rule, please explain why not. Lest it be said that I have not asked the Phillips Street elders, or Tom Bright, to answer any questions, I hereby request that they answer in writing all questions herein. Let it also be known that other questions are forthcoming at a different time, in a different forum, and in a different media outlet.

            ���P. O. Box 39

            Spring, Texas 77383

            NOTE: The Open Forum in its entirety is available on DVD, CD, and VHS tape from: James E. Green, 2711 Spring Meade Blvd., Columbia, TN 38401, 931.486.1364 (PH.), jgreencoc1986@..., www.jgreencoc-video-ministry.com.


            #########################



            -----Original Message-----
            From: Robert Baty
            Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2006 8:04 PM
            To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [M & B] Re: They are after Gil Yoder now!


            By way of reference:

            ########################

            ContendingFTF �� Contending For The Faith
            Message #3240 of 3244
            August 3, 2006

            -----Original Message-----
            From: David P Brown [mailto:jbrow@...]
            Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 8:12 AM
            To: 'Sons-Of-DEMAS@yahoogroups.com'; 'ContendingFTF@...'
            Subject: RE: [Sons-Of-DEMAS] Re: What think Ye?

            List,

            We are interested in that part of Gill Yoder���s Wed. Aug. 2, 5:00 p. m. posting to the SOD list wherein he charges me personally with sin in the following statement: ���Brethren, on both sides have erred, and need to look for ways to resolve this division.��� It will be noticed that in his statement he did not specify my sin or sins. Is brother Yoder not obligated by the teaching of the New Testament to site the direct statement(s), implication(s), and/or example(s) from the New Testament that we have transgressed; or, that which the New Testament forbids us to do that we have done?

            In our editorial in the April 2006 issue of Contending for the Faith, p. 4, we challenged ������Tom Bright or any of his ���buddyhood,��� to debate propositions concerning their thinking and actions, which thinking and actions resulted in their termination of the agreement between them and the Spring Church of Christ to ���air��� the 2006 Spring CFTF Lectures Open Forum over the facilities of OABS. Not one time in his lengthy posting did Yoder refer to our said debate challenge.

            In view of Yoder���s unwillingness to discuss with Marion Fox anything regarding that specific issue on the SOD list because, according to Yoder, brother Fox will not agree to a debate with the appropriate rules governing the same, does anyone know of a scriptural reason for brother Yoder to seek to do in this particular matter what he desires to do on the SOD list without binding on himself the same guide lines he desires to place on Fox?

            Brother Yoder has charged us publicly with error. We have every scriptural right to expect him publicly and categorically to put into a proposition(s) the error(s) he alleges we have committed. Does anyone think that we are asking too much or something unscriptural of Yoder regarding said matter in view of what he has written about us in said posting to this list?

            We await brother Yoder���s response to this posting, before we proceed in this matter.

            Before we sign off we would like to inform those on the list who do not know about the following (and others who do we remind them of it) that there is a veritable library of documentation on Dave Miller and related matters that we have been making available through a FREE CD containing said material beginning during our 2006 Spring CFTF Lectures. You can order the CD by email us via the list or at jbrow@.... Is it not interesting that with all of the information that OABS makes available over the internet that they have not made the Miller CD available to the internet public over their web site? But the Phillip���s St. elders, Tom Bright, Gil Yoder, Ron Cosby, et al. do not have a problem providing an avenue for Barry Grider and the Forest Hill-Irene Rd. (Home of MSOP) congregation���s work.

            For the Faith,
            David P. Brown

            -----------------------------

            -----Original Message-----
            From: Sons-Of-DEMAS@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Sons-Of-DEMAS@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David P Brown
            Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 6:55 PM
            To: Sons-Of-DEMAS@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: RE: [Sons-Of-DEMAS] Re: What think Ye?

            List,

            Gil���s posting would not have taken so much of his time or so much space if had simply said that we need to get HIS approval before we think, speak, or act. For us Gil can define what it means to ���jump���, tell us if we should ���jump��� or not ���jump���, which way to ���jump���, at whom, what, or how many we should ���jump���, how far we should ���jump���, how high to ���jump���, and when to come down from the ���jump���--if we should come down from the ���jump��� at all. But now Gil has ���jumped��� and into what has he ���jumped���? List, I think we have a ���jumper���. And, I suppose we should finally rejoice that someone from the halls of OABS and Phillip���s street have come out in the open���even if he is a ���jumper���. But, the director of OABS has not yet ���jumped���. We suppose that his wisdom has caused him not to put on his ���jumping��� britches, so he is going to ���lay low��� and let some one else ���jump��� on his behalf. Ron Cosby might have ���jumped��� out into the open, but he seemingly can���t get off the phone from his lobbying session long enough to ���jump���. More latter���Much Much more to come.

            David P. Brown

            ------------------------------

            -----Original Message-----
            From: Sons-Of-DEMAS@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Sons-Of-DEMAS@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Gil Yoder
            Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 5:00 PM
            To: Sons-Of-DEMAS@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [Sons-Of-DEMAS] Re: What think Ye?

            Dear Ken,

            I do not know Brother Charles Blair or anything about him other than what you have written in this post. (I don't have the attachments because they are not stored for viewing from the web interface to your group.) However, I do not find anything within the article you quoted with which I can disagree, even if it was written with the current brotherhood problems in mind.

            May I respond explicitly to several of your comments? You wrote,

            > Clearly brother Charles
            > considers the current
            > problems regarding
            > AP,MSOP SWSBS,TGJ,GBN
            > etc. as being all in the realm
            > of judgment.

            Since I haven't read your correspondence I cannot judge whether or not your assessment is just, but if this statement is true, I would agree with you that he would be in error on this point. It is clearly not the case that "the current problems" are "all in the realm of judgment." However, a good many of our problems have their roots in the realm of judgment, and this is very sad.

            To give a few examples (I could give many others) last year when brother David Watson and Dub McClish were separated from their positions with TGJ some condemned TGJ board for "firing" these brethren, others admitted that they were not fired, but that they were nevertheless "forced" to resign, and still others said that we cannot know what would have resulted if the brethren did not resign. Personally I am of the latter view. To add to the different judgments in this matter there were those who said that even if TGJ decided to let these brethren go, that would have been an internal matter for the board, and that they could do this without necessarily sinning before God. Of course some strongly disagreed with that view. I do not.

            I am sure that many disagree with my judgment, and some would even condemn me for that judgment, but if they do they would be condemning me for a difference of opinion, and not for scriptural or doctrinal error.

            It is my opinion that the reaction to Dub and David's severance from TGJ is the nexus of all of the problems that we are currently facing with regard to the current split in the church. If I am right, I am certain that God is displeased with those responsible for allowing matters to get to this point.

            It is also a matter of some judgment how some matters of fellowship are handled. I know that stating this so explicitly will give some brethren a stomach ache, but I believe we all put this into practice if we don't expressly believe it.

            For example two of the most forceful voices condemning the elders at Phillips Street and Brother Tom Bright for posting the worship services of the Forest Hills church in Memphis are Brethren David Brown and Darrell Broking. They now claim that any fellowship with Phillips Street is a sin, and thus everyone who has any association with the work at OABS stands to be condemned.

            Yet up until the week of February 26, 2006, both of these brethren were of the judgment that despite the Memphis airing on OABS, fellowship with Phillips Street was not a sin, and both of these men were joint participants with the work going forth from OABS, Darrell as an instructor of the school, and David through broadcasting the Spring lectures via the OABS web site. While they objected to the airing of the Forest Hills services they both felt they could continue their relationship with OABS at least in as far as they had a relationship. Unless they are willing to admit to sin in that regard, this shows that one could have an association with Phillips Street without necessarily condoning or approving of its airing of Forest Hills.

            It was not until another judgment was acted upon that these men decided that all fellowship with Phillips Street had to stop. I speak of course of the judgment of the elders at Phillips Street not to air the all day open forum from Spring on February 28. The suddenness of this change in judgment makes it clear that it was the Phillips Street elders' decision that motivated that change.

            That though is beside the point. The point is that these brethren had to make some judgment regarding how far fellowship should be extended, and when it should be withdrawn. Their decision to withdraw was not based solely on the fact that OABS was airing Forest Hills, but on a personal decision (judgment). Others would draw that line differently, and they should not be automatically condemned for not jumping when David and Darrell say, "Jump!"

            In my judgment the standard that some are applying today which would result in division in the church is inconsistent with past behavior. The idea that we cannot have any association with anyone who associates with someone who associates with someone who should be disciplined has never been practiced by anyone except the most extreme brethren among us, i.e., the antis. I have been opposed to Brother Dave Miller for many years, probably longer than most of those who are calling for a withdrawal of Phillips Street because Phillips Street associations with Forest Hills who associates with GBN which uses Dave Miller. I opposed Brother Dave Miller when many brethren were singing his praises for ���Piloting the Straights,��� and for some years before that. But I never heard a strong call from anyone for withdrawing from Dave, and especially for withdrawing from anyone who associates with anyone who associates with anyone who associates with Dave until the controversy between TGJ and Brethren McClish and Watson.

            I believe this is a new standard, and it seems tailored to target those who don���t jump when they are told to jump.

            Are there any matters other than judgment matters behind the current controversy? Yes, I believe there are. On the Memphis side brethren could have worked a little harder to help smooth out these issues. I would like to see something from Brother Cates and others showing that he understands the concerns that have been expressed about Dave Miller and other issues related to GBN, and that he does not support the error that Dave Miller has taught in the past. I would like to see Dave Miller take responsibility for his error, and show some contrition for it. I believe that silence on their side has contributed to the division that has resulted. However, I am not ready to lay all the blame at their feet, nor am I ready to withdraw fellowship from Memphis for this error. (As I have explained on other occasions, Dave Miller is another matter, and I will not personally have any direct association with him until he corrects his doctrinal errors.)

            There are also non-judgment matters on the other side behind the controversy. Whether an eldership has the authority to make decisions regarding things under its control is not simply a matter of judgment. The scriptures clearly give elders that authority. For elders of the Lord���s church to be openly ridiculed and held up for derision for such a decision is a matter clearly condemned in God���s word. There also have been vulgar and disrespectful comments made about those who have given a lifetime of service to the Lord. Even Satan deserves more respect than that. And finally there have been false accusations made to bolster the current agenda to bring down brethren with whom some disagree. None of these things are simply matters of judgment.

            Brethren on both sides have erred, and need to look for ways to resolve this division.

            We all need to look to the example of Christ and remember to love one another walking in his footsteps. And if we are going to set a new standard, we better be ready to defend it, and explain why we haven���t applied it in the past.

            Ken, obviously I feel strongly about this, and that is reflected in the tone of my post. But I do not mean this to be an ���in your face��� type of post. I feel that I have been on the receiving end of much of the criticism that I consider to be unjust, and for the most part have received in silence. I hope though that something might be done to get brethren talking and coming to a better understanding that would allow some of the division to start to heal.

            Gil Yoder

            --------------------------------





            Yahoo! Groups Links
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.