In response to an article entitled 'The baby and the bathwater" which appeared in the November 2004 issue of the Gospel Appeal (editors Elders Bob Dickerson and Stanley Cadle), I would like to offer some thoughts concerning the position that the author seems to be promoting in laboring to remove the dirty water--(false doctrine/practice) without throwing out the baby - (dropping fellowship) with those that are willing to live with the dirty water.

In dealing with false practices/doctrines, which come in among us, I agree that there must be laboring in love and a sincere care for the cause but we must realize that our duty lies in maintaining strict observances to New Testament laws. We must not be unduly persuaded to halt between obeying God's laws of the New Testament Church and the cry of Peace! Peace! and neglect to take a stand. The present day progressive/liberal movement has been active among us for a number of years and we are seeing the results of not timely addressing the problems associated with the movement. The author's statement "it is the right of each individual church to decide who she will and will not fellowship and what preacher she will or will not use" gives the impression that a church has no rights whatsoever concerning who their sister churches fellowship. That just isn't true! In the following quote, Elder C. M. Mills clearly expresses the basic tenet concerning church fellowship. "We cannot have the fellowship of the Church, if we do not obey the Laws of Christ. Neither if we live in such things, that will bring Shame and reproach upon the Church."

In the article under consideration and in subsequent articles (Divisions 1&2, and The 156^th session of the Yellow Creek Association) appearing in the Gospel Appeal, the editor's strong words against some of his conservative brethren, appears to put himself in direct opposition to his previous stand as an active participant in writing the Pitts resolution. There appears to be a vindictive spirit against some of his outspoken conservative brethren, rather than a spirit of love and labor, of which the author implies, we should show to the promoters of change. The accusation of dictatorship and lying (falsehoods) are serious charges and should require credible evidence to back them up. Presenting one side of an issue, without that credible evidence, is a detriment to peace. Indeed, the accusations are inflammatory and fan the flames of division; hindering the stand Old Line Primitive Baptists must take against the encroachment of liberalism.

In the article 'Divisions', appearing in the July 2005 issue of the Gospel Appeal, the author presented some past history about a problem that happened in the early 1940's and he declared one side the orderly side which I just imagine is supportive of his view of what is going on now in that part of the country. I've seen the liberals use a similar tactic in the Powell's valley/Chattanooga Church dispute and in a group of ministers declaring that there was never really anything wrong with Zack Guess, so we should fellowship him. In both cases, for thirty years are more the majority of Primitive Baptists respected the labor of the churches involved and indeed deemed their work correct. But in the outbreak of liberalism, among the Primitive Baptists, some are completely disregarding past church labor. I encourage the editors of the Gospel Appeal to not be a party to that disorderly practice.

In the article Divisions (part 2), the author removed phrases in two of the twelve items in the Pitts Resolution. One was "or organized bible study classes" and the other was "(Preacher's Schools)". It would make one wonder if they were left off on purpose! Sadly this article appears to be essentially an unsubstantiated accusation against an unnamed Elder. (Although most Primitive Baptists will know who is being accused.) The author quotes one of the rules of decorum of the association to charge the unnamed Elder with a purported act of dictatorship, "#3 reads, the deacons of the several churches are to arrange the order of preaching", by the wording of this rule it could be effectively argued that a single deacon from just one of the churches does not have the authority to make the arrangements. I suggest the editors of the Gospel Appeal withdraw their support of this article because of it's failure to follow the very scriptures the article ends with (1 Timothy 5:19.) and (Psalms 105:15)

The following excerpts are from the article 'Gospel labor - laboring for peace'. These previously written thoughts are pertinent to some of the disturbing points made in the above-mentioned articles.

The present day progressive/missionary movement among the Primitive Baptists started to profess itself openly around the year 1992. It had been growing for many years prior to then because the leaders of the movement were cunningly, "speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them", but in the year 1992 there were clear and identifiable strides by the promoters of changing the Primitive Baptists. Leading the way was, Elder Lasserre Bradley Jr., of the Cincinnati Primitive Baptist Church, who introduced a preacher's school under the name preachers meeting. Other practices foreign to orderly Primitive Baptists began to be introduced such as: bible studies, youth camps, women's meetings (aux), men's prayer breakfast etc. False doctrine is now openly a part of this movement. Some of the false doctrines being promoted include: teaching Calvinism, Gospel regeneration, tithing in a modified form, perverted view of time salvation and teaching that the command (commonly called the great commission) was given to the Church not just to the apostles. It is now year 2005, which means these departures in faith, has been openly going on for approximately 13 years. To those among the Old line Primitive Baptists at this point in time that say 'let's not act hastily'; I agree with you only if you are going to actually start laboring to correct the departures in faith and thereby bring peace to the church. But if the call for restraint is tantamount to continuing to preach with ministers which either directly or indirectly support the promoters of change, I strongly disagree with your call for restraint and encourage you to reconsider.

But what about the statement that it is the right of each individual church to decide who she will and will not fellowship or what preachers' she will use? I agree they have that right if we are speaking of orderly churches/ministers but not if you mean they can fellowship or use just anybody they want to without regard to their sister churches. Orderly churches not only have the right but also the duty to labor, in love, with sister churches for using disorderly ministers or ministers which in effect are supporting the disorderly ones. By a minister or a church, in love, exhorting brethren not to preach with certain ministers or encouraging them to come out from among the progressive/liberals is not an attempt to Lord over God's heritage or dictate to them who they can preach as has been suggested but counter wise, in most cases, it is showing a concern for the welfare of Zion. No church of Christ is completely independent of her sister churches. All churches of Christ are subject to Christ and the laws he set up when he established his church. "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church; and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing." (Ephesians 5:23,24) How can a part of the body of Christ be completely independent from the other parts, especially the head?

Again, in the interest of peace, I would support giving more time to labor with erring churches if indeed there was to be labor (action) in bringing about a return to scriptural practices but if not then more time would just be giving the promoters of change extra time to destroy more churches and take more sheep away from the fold. "Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong. Let all your things be done with charity." (I Corinthians 16:13,14) --Elder Claude McKee

The complete article 'Gospel labor - Laboring for peace' can be read at the following web link.

http://www.essentialbaptistprinciples.org/ebp_published_articles/gospel_labor_cmckee.htm

The quote by Elder C. M. Mill's was taken from an article 'Christian fellowship'. The entire article can be read at the following web link.

http://www.essentialbaptistprinciples.org/ebp_published_articles/christian_fellowship_cmills.htm

For the convenience of the reader and in fairness to the Authors the articles The Baby and the Bathwater / Divisions / Divisions part 2 are presented.