Again we feel called upon to call the attention of our readers to the move that is spreading and that is being advocated among our people to recognize and fellowship those who may agree to fellowship each other. Of course a perjured wretch can fellowship any who will fellowship him. We know of a church which had restored a man who was excluded for false swearing. There were other charges besides. Some of the other charges were such that it would be necessary to settle before being restored, but no effort was made to settle the same. Now, are you willing to fellowship that? The church where he was excluded has restored him. Yet no settlement was made of the trouble for which he was excluded. Therefore, gospel discipline was ignored. Suppose the association retains that church, and the church fails to undo her wicked course? Then will you fellowship the whole thing? Shall the association and the church be fellowshipped, when the church retains such as that in her border, and the association retains the church that does that? We think not, it is true that many times a whole association should not be non-fellowshipped on account of disorder in one church; but if a church has such disorder in it, and the association retains such a church, then the whole association should be non-fellowshipped.

If a man is guilty of fornication or adultery, and his church refuses to hear the evidence of this guilt and exonerates and retains him, and the association retains the church, then the whole thing should be non-fellowshipped. Not only the whole association, but just as many churches and associations as recognize and fellowship such should be non-fellowshipped.

We wish to say again that we will not fellowship such things as these. Reader, we put the question to you. How do you stand on this? Some of the things that have been sent to us seem to us to indicate that things like this will be fellowshipped. What do you say? What does your church say? May the Lord help us? C. H. C

 

Editor comment:

It seems that in 1922 the churches faced some of the same things we now face in the present progressive Primitive Baptist movement. By studying primitive Baptist history it can be shown that every so often there are men among us that want to lift up the Primitive Baptists to make us more appealing to the world. It amazes me that some good brethren are fooled by the same old arguments. Especially since there is clear scriptural teaching to the contrary, Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you." (II Corinthian 6:17) This scriptures context is talking about not being yoke with unbelievers. The majority of the Lords people in the world are not true gospel believers but most trust in themselves or in preachers or worldly doctrines. This verse of scripture teaches us to come out from among those non believers just as much as from the infidel who does not believe in Christ. How can you follow the teachings of this verse and support a worldly outreach to the world, such as the recent Tanzania Primitive Baptist outreach. Those that promote such are revealing that they believe that we are to make disciples or converts to the Primitive Baptist faith. I dont remember any of the ministers I was blessed to hear in north Alabama espouse that doctrine. In the latest liberal/progressive movement, it gained a foothold among the Primitive Baptists primarily through the teachings of Elder Lasserre Bradley Jr. and those he brought in to the Primitive Baptist in the past 40-50 years. The doctrine of the true church has been that God called ministers are to preach everywhere the Spirit guides them to preach. They are to leave the making of disciples to the Lord as indicated by scripture. "And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved. (Delivered to the truth)" (Acts 2:47)

A common symptom of the liberal/progressive movements, present and past, is the desire to practice weak, or all together drop, church discipline. The things spoken of by Elder Cayce in 1922 apply to todays situation also. What this article brought to its readers is exactly the same things which have occurred in the bouts of many associations in recent years. About the year 1992 the Powells Valley association and Chattanooga Primitive Baptist church dispute culminated in fellowship being reestablished with churches without proper settlement being done. Chattanooga church made the decision to break with what the majority of all associations around them recognized as correct labor in the 1960s which led to the majority of Primitive Baptists not fellowshipping Elder Avery Land and the churches under his care.

About the same time or soon thereafter, several ministers made the decision it was okay to fellowship Grace Chapel Primitive Baptist Church and its pastor without proper settlement being done. This was a case where a few men decided to redo church labor of 30 years ago with the claim, among other things, that it was done wrong back then. Regardless of the validity of church labor 30 years ago, the way in which fellowship was restored in the 1990s is a liberal/progressive trait and not orderly. The ministers who made that decision and/or supported or promoted it are troublemakers in Zion. My understanding is that the same things are happening in the Midwest and other parts of the nation also. Elder Claude McKee