A rebuttal to the Haver Journal article by:

Richard George  5/2/01

I don't want a war with Mr. Havir, whom I've never met; but his opinion
piece on closed door services is way off base with respect to new prospects.
Perhaps he only intended it apply to people already converted?  Saying so
would've made a big difference in overall accuracy.

True, a fellowship which bars sincere, already-converted brethren from
visiting without making a total commitment to that group -- so long as those
brethren are not there to recruit for other groups or to cause a scene -- is
in unsupportable violation of Paul's plain command in  Romans 14:1 to
"receive those weak in the faith" (what they'd consider me), but "not to
doubtful disputations."  Personally, I only know of one group doing this,
but perhaps there are more.

However, delaying new prospect attendance is certainly Biblical from the
standpoint of I Cor 3:2 and Heb 5:12-13.  There, the beginning and more
advanced concepts of God, so different from what the prospect has been used
to in the world, are compared to milk and meat.  Church services serve up
spiritual meat.  Far from showing balanced love, admitting just anyone who
wants to attend for any reason is "setting up" the unprepared newbie to
choke painfully on this meat and possibly be turned away from their calling!
For this reason, traditional CoG pre-screening of brand-new prospects seems
deeply wise, concernedly loving, and fully in accord with Biblical
principles.  Only Satan's churches, where there's nearly nothing to change
or unlearn, can absorb newbies instantly, right off the street.

Blanket criticism of all pre-screening -- without the crucial distinction
above --  trashes a valid and Godly tradition by an incomplete presentation.
I am not accusing Mr. Havir of bad motives; but he did call this worthy
tradition "ridiculous."  Lately, God's people have gotten so sure they "know
better than God's church ever did" that they are vulnerable to spreading bad
ideas without recognizing whose agenda they may be furthering.

Was the analogy valid for new prospects?  What group advertises its service
locations to the general public and then turns people away?  Not a single
one I know of.  The Emergency Room comparison is forced, too.  At a hospital
emergency room, delay may mean death.  However, when the true God is calling
someone, and they are responding favorably, God will keep them coming.
People seek emergency rooms on their own; God shows plainly it's He, only
He, (Jn. 6:44) who determines whether -- and when -- we "get the call."
Most significantly, anyone who dies who has not rejected God is not lost.
Church is a healing place, but it's more of a school and gymnasium, even a
physical therapy center, than a surgery.  Church is more active than
passive.  That opinion piece attributed brutally dark member and leader
motives and attitudes to any group with this tradition.  Nobody defends
self-righteousness or "sheepsploitation," but I seriously doubt that's what
motivates every incidence of prospect screening.  Finally, when did a new
prospect get to be "Joe Saint??"  Joe Carnal only becomes Joe Saint after
considerable ministerial interaction and service attendance.  The story may
have some relevance for hurt, confused churchmembers.  It is bogus with
respect to prospective members.
==================================================

And a Second Response as a P.S.  5/3/01

One area I did not get into was the future:  Open services should make the
martyrs much easier to find and slaughter.