A Letter from Elder Russel Key
Replied to by Elder Kenneth Clevenger
Letter from Elder Russel Key, Moberly, Missouri, September 30, 2003 (Elders Key and Surbaugh have become the primary promoters of liberalism in Missouri)
Dear Brother Kenneth and Sister Shirley:
Hoping this finds you both enjoying good health and the blessings of our Lord. We are very well considering our ages for which we try to be thankful.
What I am about to write is in love for you and the most important cause that is ever known. I plead with you to stand with us on the principles of the scriptures, let us use the example our Saviour set in dealing with the church people. Though some of us differ on the application of the Pitts Resolution, we do endorse the meaning of it. We must not put that resolution or any other resolution above the Holy Bible.
Though most of the churches of Missouri have not adopted the Pitts Resolution in their business meetings, we do stand together against the liberal movement. There is not a single church in either the Yellow Creek, Hazel Creek, or the Fishing River Associations, that supports the liberal movement. Neither is there any minister in either of these Associations that favor that unscriptural movement. While some of us do preach with some of the ministers that either lean in that direction, we are not liberal nor are we fence riders. There is one thing for sure we will not use the preachers who are advocating that unscriptural movement. I do not need to name them as we all know who they are.
As most of us have felt our Articles of Faith and Rules of Decorum are sufficient we have not adopted the Pitts Resolution, it would only be a repetition of these articles and completely unnecessary, to do so in our business meetings. That is the way most of the Missouri churches feel and stand for, ministers included.
When the Georgia ministers met and wrote the Pitts Resolution, they did that for the Georgia churches. According to Elder Bob Dickerson, they did not intend for it to be adopted by any others. As I said before we do stand with the principles of this Resolution we see no need to have it recorded in our Record Books.
Brother Kenneth; I am writing this with a prayer that you will receive it in the Christian Love it is intended. Though I have not talked with you on this matter, personaly; I feel you are doing yourself and our Missouri Churches, harm by trying to force these things on us who try to hold and maintain peace.
Hoping you will pray over these words, and receive them in the same spirit they are sent.
In Christian Love to you both and the Household Of Faith.
Signed:
Elder Russel Key
Reply by Elder Kenneth Clevenger, Carl Junction, Missouri, October 27, 2003
Dear Brother Russel,
Please forgive me for being so long in responding to your letter dated September 30, 2003 (copy enclosed).
You wrote: Hoping this finds you both enjoying good health and the blessings of our Lord. We are very well considering our ages for which we try to be thankful.
My reply: We are thankful to hear of the special blessing of your good health, as you said: "considering our ages." Shirley and I are doing very well considering our age and we thank God continually for this and the many other blessings we receive. Although you are older, I will soon be seventy-four. We (you and I) are the oldest preachers (except two who are incapacitated) I believe, in the state of Missouri. We need to be cognizant of this fact and be sure that we have chosen the proper course and are setting forth a proper example for the younger ones (ministers included) to see. This is, in my opinion, a time when the Lord is purging His Church and we need to be careful that we will not be found among the dross: by allowing the errors of men to come into the churches we serve and lead others in paths of sure destruction.
You wrote: What I am about to write is in love for you and the most important cause that is ever known.
My reply: I appreciate that you wrote your letter in love for me and the cause of Christ and I am responding in the same manner.
You wrote: I plead with you to stand with us on the principles of the scriptures, let us use the example our Saviour set in dealing with the church people.
My reply: I am not sure who all may be included in the US, but I suppose that you are referring to all of those (elders especially) that are willing, like yourself, to accept many of those men who embrace Liberalism or those who openly fellowship known Liberals. Those who are willing to disregard discipline and order in the Lord's church and fellowship excluded members (including preachers); preachers who preach heresy (tithing, first fruits, a salaried ministry, a Calvinistic doctrine and more); who pastor churches constituted by Zack Guess and other disorderly preachers; who fellowship those involved in Foreign Missions; who fellowship those involved in Youth Camps and all the other items listed in the excerpt from the Pitts Resolution below. In my opinion those who fellowship such men as these are as guilty as they are.....So my answer is no: I will not stand with the US you referred to, because I do not believe that you are standing on the principles of the scriptures, neither do I believe that you are using the example our Saviour set in dealing with the church people. I have chosen (by the grace of God) to follow the Lord, as we are commanded, instead of following men (US).
Brother Key, I am not your problem: Liberalism is the enemy of the Lord's church and I admonish you to consider what the Lord has commanded: Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple: Romans 16: 17, 18; Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us: 2 Thessalonians 3: 6.
You wrote: Though some of us differ on the application of the Pitts Resolution, we do endorse the meaning of it. We must not put that resolution or any other resolution above the Holy Bible. Though most of the churches of Missouri have not adopted the Pitts Resolution; in their business meetings; we do stand together against the liberal movement.
My reply: Brother Russel, I'm not sure just what you are endeavoring to say concerning the Pitts Resolution, but it seems that you are saying that you are in agreement with all the articles contained in it and you are willing to recommend it but you are not willing to bring it before the churches you serve to give them the opportunity to endorse (or reject) it and send out a clear and distinct message that they will not support Liberalism or fellowship them (churches or elders) that do.
Brother Russel, if you are saying that we at Brush Creek are putting the Pitts Resolution above the Holy Bible, you are wrong. Brush Creek voted to ENDORSE (not adopt) the Resolution. We found it to be an instrument that was making a declaration against the Liberal movement that we could endorse and by doing so we were making it known to all where we stand and where we intend to continue to stand. What you, the churches you serve and other churches do is strictly your/their business. What we did at Brush Creek is our business and we intended to send a positive and profound statement: THAT WE ARE OPPOSED TO LIBERALISM AND INTEND TO STAND AGAINST LIBERALS AND LIBERALISM AS WELL AS THOSE WHO EMBRACE IT (IN ANY MANNER) OR FELLOWSHIP THOSE WHO DO!
You wrote: When the Georgia ministers met and wrote the Pitts Resolution; they did that for the Georgia churches, according to Elder Bob Dickerson, they did not intend for it to be adopted by any others.
My reply: Of course Elder Bob Dickerson and the other Brethren who met at Pitts, Georgia, would never take it upon themselves to write the Pitts Resolution for us at Brush Creek or any other church: it was written especially for consideration of the Georgia churches. It was Brush Creek's choice to endorse the Resolution. However, while the brethren who drew up and signed the Resolution made it clear that the document was not intended to force any one to adopt it, it was set forth as a guide line as to what the Liberals are and have been guilty of practicing: much like their predecessors, the Missionary Baptists, did many years ago......Although it has been said that the Resolution was just to the churches of Georgia, please notice to whom it was addressed:
January 29, 2000
Pitts, Georgia
To all who love the cause and kingdom of Christ here in the earth:
Many of us have been concerned for several years now about the unscriptural practices and doctrines which are being introduced among the Primitive Baptist churches in many places in Georgia and in other states. It is our hope and prayer that God may use this general letter to all of our churches as a means of awakening some to the seriousness of the situation that now exists among us. If we disregard the teachings of God's word and place the hope and future of the church in the inventions of men, we will soon lose our
identity as the church of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Specifically, the following false practices and doctrines (among others) have appeared among us in recent years:
1. Sunday Schools or organized Bible Study Classes.
2. Youth Camps.
3. Mission Programs.
4. Theological Seminaries (Preacher's Schools).
5. Dedication of Infants.
6. Salaried Ministry.
7. Tithing.
8. Teaching that the Great Commission was given to the church, rather than
to the Apostles.
9. Accepting and retaining unqualified members.
10. Misdirected Ministerial Authority.
11. Ordaining Novices.
12. Failure to recognize church authority.
My note: Brother Key, are there any of the above twelve practices and doctrines that you are not against? Note also that these are not specifically (I don't believe) named in the Articles of Faith in any of our churches.
You wrote: As I said before we do stand with the principles of this Resolution we see no need to have it recorded in our Record Books.
My reply: When the minutes of Brush Creek Church are read in the years to come, it will be found that we endorsed the Pitts Resolution. This will record for the generations to come, that we (at Brush Creek) resolved to continue standing (while some others didn't) in the old paths.....To pass the Resolution it was necessary to educate the church why it would be profitable to pass it. It was necessary to inform the church that the Lord's church was under attack by the Liberals and that they needed to meet the enemy head on. A majority of the members of Brush Creek voted (only one voted against) to endorse the Pitts Resolution. They are well informed concerning Liberalism. Are the brethren in the churches you serve well informed, Brother Key?
I have found that most of the churches in the area are not even familiar with (some have never heard of) the Pitts Resolution. So I'm persuaded to believe that when you said: we see no need to have it recorded in our Record Books, that the WE must refer to the pastors of the churches, who decided to not familiarize or bring the document before the churches they serve. It would appear that the churches were not educated concerning the inroads of Liberalism and never had the opportunity to make a decision concerning the articles in the Resolution. I'm persuaded to believe if they had there would be more of the churches rejecting the Liberals and tenaciously holding to the old paths. Elder Key, where will history record you and the churches that you pastor standing during this Liberal Movement in the early part of the twenty-first century?
You wrote: There is not a single church in either the Yellow Creek, Hazel Creek, or the Fishing River Associations, that supports the liberal movement. Neither is there any minister in either of these Associations that favor that unscriptural movement.
My reply: Brother Key, I feel sure that many of the members in the churches comprising the associations you have named would never support the Liberal movement, many of them are ignorant concerning the truth of Liberalism, however, there are some that favor the Liberals. It probably is not the churches that have chosen their course: It is likely, for the most part, that their pastor chose their course for them.
Brother Key, how can you make the statement: Neither is there any minister in either of these Associations that favor that unscriptural movement, and then say, "While some of us do preach with some of the ministers that either lean in that direction, we are not liberal nor are we fence riders. There is one thing for sure we will not use the preachers who are advocating that unscriptural movement. I do not need to name them as we all know who they are." If you really believe what you have just said, then you are the most deceived man I have ever known!
Brother Key I am familiar with some of the ministers you are referring to (US and WE) as well as most of those Liberals that you fellowship and use in your churches and associations. As I said before if you are going to use these Liberals then, as far as I am concerned, you are as guilty as they are. I don't understand how that you can justify using some of the Liberals and not the other Liberals. You seem to be saying: "We will preach with any of the heretics of the world, but we just won't invite them to preach for us. We will endorse their heresy by preaching with them, but we won't endorse their heresy by inviting them to preach with us."
I personally believe that you have chosen to follow the Liberals (men) rather than God. If I am wrong you can prove it by immediately severing all ties with the Liberals and those who fellowship them and return to your first Love and Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls.
There is much that I could write concerning you and those that are standing with you (US), fellowshiping the Liberals and their disorderly ways. For me to go along with you (as you have suggested) would put me among the same disorderly group and I want no part of it, God forbid.
You wrote: Brother Kenneth; I am writing this with a prayer that you will receive it in the Christian Love it is intended. Though I have not talked with you on this matter, personally; I feel you are doing yourself and our Missouri Churches, harm by trying to force these things on us who try to hold and maintain peace.
My reply: Brother Key you seem to be indicating that I am the sole source of all the problems in the churches in the state of Missouri. That, Dear Brother, is a serious charge. Has it ever occurred to you that possibly Liberalism may be your enemy, instead of me? If I remember correctly there were no problems in the churches in this area until Liberalism came along and I certainly didn't introduce it (Liberalism) into the churches and I haven't fellowshiped it! You seem to be saying, We are not liberal but nothing is wrong in preaching them...We must tolerate (Liberals) them to keep the peace. However, if we true Old Liners complain or make waves in any way, then we are the trouble makers, but the truth of the matter is you brethren are following the wrong path (men, Liberals, instead of God) and the end thereof is not peace but destruction. PLEASE show me one place where Jesus or His apostles compromised with the enemies of the church.
Brother Key, tell me, what are "these things" that you are charging me with? What can you find to actually charge me with that is contrary to the scriptures? I am standing where I have always stood for forty years. I haven't changed: I'm not fellowshiping the Liberals and their heresy in doctrine and practice (there is no difference).
I recognize that the Church of God is under attack and I (and hundreds of other Old Liners across America) have answered the call, as a soldier of the Lord, prepared to "endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ." We Old Liners have suffered considerable persecution for standing in the old paths, which has always been the case in history. This was the case in the Missionary Movement in 1832 and again in the Progressive Movement at the turn of the twentieth century. However, if those precious old saints had not stayed the course we would not have any Primitive Baptist churches today and I am persuaded that if the Lord does not bless us Old Liners to stand firmly at this present time against the wiles of Satan (Liberal Movement), there will not be any true Primitive Baptist churches for the future generations.
Brother Key, I can supply you with many scriptures to support my position and will if you desire. I don't believe you can find a single one to support your position of fellowshiping the Liberals (The enemy of God's church and His children). Myself and others have been knocked down over and over while endeavoring to stand and maintain the discipline and order commanded by the Lord in His church, and we have been given the grace of strength to get up each time and continue to "Stand in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths." "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." Elder Key we Old Liners invite you and all the US to come and go with us for "The Lord has spoken good concerning Israel," (His True Church).
This page maintained by: Robert Webb -
(bwebb9@juno.com)