Some very disturbing events have occurred within the body of Christ during the past year, concerning which all who are Christians, interested in the unity of the church, have been mortified. Brethren who have worked together for years (and in some instances, decades), building up the body of Christ and fighting against liberalism, are no longer speaking to each other. It has been sad to watch close relationships deteriorate and dissolve before our very eyes. Even as recently as a year ago, if anyone would have predicted this kind of estrangement, he would have immediately been branded a false prophet. Nevertheless, breaches in friendships have occurred.

However, in the midst of all the hurt feelings and unkind comments—no one initially announced any withdrawals of fellowship, which was a blessing, since it is frequently a good idea to sit back and evaluate situations, allowing time for people to rethink what they and others have said and done. Certainly, it is easier for regrets and reconciliation to occur if no one has made a public statement in regard to an individual or a congregation. Brethren on both sides of The Gospel Journal controversy are to be commended for not making the issue a matter of fellowship—at least, not officially. Many have friends in both groups of differing brethren, and they did not wish to alienate anyone unnecessarily on what most perceived to be a judgment matter, even though many considered TGJ Board’s actions to be unwarranted and unkind.

Fellowship with God is a fundamental right and privilege that comes with being a Christian. As virtually all brethren know, when our sins are forgiven (at the time we repent and are baptized for the forgiveness of them), we enjoy fellowship with God and with our brothers and sisters. This relationship persists unless someone enters into sin and refuses to exit it. If that individual is warned of his wickedness and he refuses to repent of it, then the church has no recourse but to withdraw fellowship from the impenitent brother.

Such an important step cannot be taken lightly. First of all, the offense must be real, not imagined. Sometimes, when decisions are made, people come away with different perspectives of what happened. When I resigned, for example, from working with one congregation, I went away to interview with another church on a particular Sunday. On that same day, another preacher visited, preached, and met with the men. Upon returning, I was told that the man had been hired.

Another member, however, said he wished I would reconsider and stay there. Something was wrong. The men met the next Sunday, and it was discovered that there were not two but three versions of the previous meeting. Three men said that they had made the decision to hire the visiting preacher. Two said they had made no such decision, and another two or three said they had hired the man—but it was contingent upon me not remaining. How could all the men have been in the same meeting and come away with three different ideas? Miscommunication is not uncommon.

Jesus said that one individual should tell another his fault privately (Matthew 18:15-17);this practice enables two people to see if they have communicated properly. Others then accompany the offended party to verify that what he said was actually the case and not his own misinterpretation. After this verification has occurred, the church must be told of the impenitent brother and, in the absence of change, must withdraw from him.

The withdrawal of fellowship constitutes a severe step in the relationship between brethren and therefore should be done only after all reasonable efforts of maintaining fellowship have failed. Since Jesus is Lord and Head over His body, the church, withdrawing of fellowship must be done with His approval. In other words, it cannot be done merely because someone is angry with a brother over something he has done (a matter of judgment, for example). The church cannot withdraw from someone out of haste or in the absence of facts. If a person is willing to meet and discuss differences, then it is not the time to consider this option.

When a Scriptural withdrawal of fellowship does occur, then faithful brethren everywhere must (and will) recognize the action. Jesus said He would be in agreement with such withdrawals—if brethren followed the correct procedure (Matt. 18:18-20). Hardly anything can do as much damage as brethren ignoring the legitimate disciplinary action of the church. By refusing to recognize it, they diminish its effectiveness and undermine the purpose for doing it. The guilty party is likely to think, "I still have a few friends. Some may think I have done wrong, but I have others who are standing by me."

So what do these things have to do with the current climate in the brotherhood? The elders of the Highland Church in Dalton, Georgia, who are overseeing the Gospel Broadcasting Network (GBN), recently took it upon themselves to announce the withdrawal of that congregation from the elders of the Northside Church of Christ in Calhoun, Georgia, and now brethren are forced to make a choice as to whether the elders in Calhoun are guilty of sin—or whether the elders at Highland sinned when they made this decision resulting in this withdrawal. Brethren all over the country must realize that either one group of elders or the other is wrong and that we no longer have a choice as to fellowshipping both groups. One of these elderships is in sin and needs to repent. Some are standing by those in Dalton; others are standing by those in Calhoun. Disagreements over certain things that once were categorized as matters of judgment now have been made an issue of fellowship by the action of the Highland elders. Whether or not those elders intended it to be so, their withdrawal cannot be confined to northwest Georgia—it affects the entire brotherhood.

The Highland elders marked the elders of Northside in Calhoun because, in their judgment, they had "sown discord, promoted gossip, and caused an unnecessary breach in the unity of God’s people." The main focus of these complaints (although others are mentioned) is the opposition the North-side elders have to the endorsement and defense of Dave Miller at GBN, since he has never repented of two false doctrines that he has publicly taught. In fact, it has been incredible to observe how many brethren (who are otherwise sound)have begun defending brother Miller in recent months. (For the record, no personal problem whatsoever with Dave. I have had satisfactory personal contact with him and have enjoyed hearing him preach.) Unfortunately, Miller refuses to say that it is wrong for congregations to re-evaluate and re-affirm elders. He was a leader in the process once and worked behind the scenes in favor of it a second time in the Brown Trail Congregation in Bedford, Texas. His teachings on this topic and on another (his defense of one who married his cousin solely in order to enter this country and then immediately divorced her) are a matter of record. Although Miller issued a statement regarding these two things a few months ago, it was by no means a statement of repentance (see Michael Hatcher’s and Dub McClish’s articles in the October Defender and Dave Watson’s in this publication’s November-December issue).

At the time of Dalton’s withdrawal from the elders in Calhoun, no one was spreading gossip concerning Dave Miller, unless showing people well-documented facts constitutes gossip. The Highland elders are the ones who have "caused an unnecessary breach in the unity of God’s people" and have "sown discord" by counting well-documented facts about Miller as "gossip." Furthermore, Dave Miller has been slow in even addressing these matters. In 1997 brother Dub McClish exposed his leading part in the first elder re-evaluation and re-affirmation program at Brown Trail. This thoroughly documented material involving brother Miller was published in the 1997 Bellview Lectureship book (Leadership). Brother Miller has never made any response to this material. The church in Rowlett, Texas, (among others) protested Dave’s hiring by Apologetics Press in 2002. The Rowlett brethren had supported Apologetics Press very generously from its inception, yet when they voiced their concerns about Dave to brother Bert Thompson, Executive Director of Apologetics Press at the time, they were promptly—and rudely—rebuffed. Knowing that he has been under heavy criticism from faithful brethren for more than three years, Dave finally issued the previously-mentioned statement, which fell far short of repentance. How is it that, in the face of written, public evidence distributed widely and over such a long time-span, so many brethren are willing to overlook Dave’s errors? DOES FRIENDSHIP TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER TRUTH WITH SOME? DO BROTHERHOOD "POLITICS," RATHER THAN PRINCIPLE AND INTEGRITY, GOVERN THEIR HEARTS?

Seeing this incongruity, I penned an article titled "The Poisoners," which pointedly cautions brethren to avoid "taking sides" based on friendship; among other things I wrote: "Unfortunately, people take the word of a ‘friend,’ loved one, preacher, or other trusted individual all the time without checking the facts for themselves." I originally published it in the December 25^{th Spiritual Perspectives. It was also considered for publication in The Gospel Journal, so that it might have a broader circulation—but to date it has not been published. I believe that some brethren who have lined up behind brother Miller have done so without knowing or seeking to know all that they need to know. It is also evident, however, that some have lined up behind him in spite of the information they have—information that prevented their endorsement of him only a few months ago, which information has not changed. [I hoped that some of these brethren would read the article in The Gospel Journal and make application of its principles to themselves.]}

When it comes to disputes among brethren, we ought to ask, "Who has been open and above-board?"; "Who has been willing to discuss the situation?"; "Who has provided documented evidence, as opposed to promoting hearsay?" Some brethren do not fare well when these questions are asked. In fact, some likely know that they would fare so poorly if they answered that they simply refuse to answer. It is easier to manipulate people through innuendo and personal assurances than with a presentation of facts, which many have allowed brother Miller to do to them. Many know, for example, of an unrelated situation in which meetings were recorded so that anyone could have a copy and know the truth of what occurred. All of those who attended the meetings were promised copies of the tapes. Those in charge of the tapes, however, reneged in making them available. Incredibly, many brethren stood by those who made that decision to suppress the truth!

The evidence against Dave Miller is plain and open to all. When the elders at Highland in Dalton withdrew fellowship from the Northside elders in Calhoun, in effect they withdrew from all of us who stand with the Northside elders in opposing Dave Miller until he repents and repudiates the errors he has committed. Likewise, all of those who stand with the Highland elders in their unscriptural withdrawal and in their endorsement of Dave Miller, have implicitly withdrawn from the rest of us. Many of us cannot recognize the withdrawal of the Highland elders in Dalton, Georgia, against the Northside elders in Calhoun, Georgia, who are standing for the Truth. The Highland elders need to understand that their withdrawal is also against the many faithful brethren who stand with the Northside elders. And if the Highland elders, GBN, and all who support GBN and Dave Miller choose not to fellowship the rest of us, they will surely have to give an account for that decision before our Lord and Savior. By: Gary Summers

[Editor’s note, with which GWS agrees: But, let us take it one step further: Since the Highland elders oversee GBN, and since one of the Highland elders is the Director of GBN, those who have jumped on the GBN bandwagon with their endorsements, praise, financial contributions, and such like must also withdraw from the rest of us who still stand where we stood a year ago. Sadly, those riding this bandwagon include such notables as the Forest Hill Congregation in Memphis and the Memphis School of Preaching faculty, along with numerous others of "repute."

I greatly fear that GBN and the Highland Church in Dalton, Georgia, are quickly assuming in one respect the role the "Herald of Truth" program of the Highland Church in Abilene, Texas, assumed several years ago. (I am not accusing GBN of teaching error in its programming, as Herald of Truth eventually did, although it follows that by endorsing and defending a false teacher, it would not be inconsistent to allow error to be taught on the air.) The parallel I fear is that GBN is already becoming the next monolithic brotherhood Goliath that says, "If you don’t get behind us or at least stay out of our way, we will run over you." Have these brethren already, in their zeal to fund their immense program, assumed a position of being above question or criticism? None should mistake my concerns as some sort of "anti" position that opposes congregations cooperating to preach the Gospel.

My fear is that this program’s appetite for money has already become so large that its leaders have succumbed to the temptation to stop their ears and blind their eyes to a brother’s errors. In doing so, they have led many others to do the same. Where will this road, once started down, end? —Editor CFTF]