Grilling the Editor
W. Carl Ketcherside
[Page 1] |
1. I have noted the repeated usage of the term "restoration" in your
writings. What do you mean by this expression?
By the term "restoration" I mean the full and complete return to the
ancient order as established by our Lord through his holy apostles; that is, the reinstatement upon
this earth of the community of saints as originally planted in conformity with the purpose of
heaven.
2. Does this mean that you consider that no existing religious
organization has yet achieved that goal?
Exactly! We have not yet arrived at the place where any congregation or
group of congregations can assert that they represent the primitive order in its fulness. There
remains yet much land to be conquered.
3. Why is a restoration necessary in the first place?
The ancient order began to be corrupted even during the days of the
apostles. Paul declared while he was yet alive that "the mystery of iniquity" was already
working. The plan of God was obscured, the sun was eclipsed, and the congregation forced to
"flee into the wilderness." The actual bondage in spiritual Babylon lasted for 1260 years, before
the first rays of light began once more to penetrate the darkness. We are not yet completely free
from the influence of Babylon.
4. Is this attempt at restoration a new thing?
Not at all. It began in England with such men as John Wycliffe in the
fifteenth century, and was carried forward by Martin Luther in Germany in the sixteenth century.
While these and their contemporaries were actually reformers of the existing order, they laid the
ground-work for such men as Thomas Campbell, Alexander Campbell, Walter Scott, Barton W.
Stone, et al., who actually sought to go back beyond the Roman and Protestant schisms, and
restore the original order as ordained by God. Our efforts are enriched by their discoveries of the
last century.
5. Has progress in restoration been as rapid in the last fifty years as
before?
Not at all! Those who were the spiritual descendants of the men
mentioned made the mistake of thinking that they had taken them all the way back to the
original, and thus they have rested on the oars, and spent most of the last half century trying to
defend what they already have and wrangling with each other over what it is.
[Page 2] |
7. Do you see any tendencies to indicate that the movement for
restoration which was launched a century ago may suffer the same fate?
Indeed, the most casual observer can detect such portents upon every
side. The aim of Campbell and his fellows was to unite all true believers in Christ in one body.
Their descendants are themselves fractured into some twenty-five factions, each one of which
proclaims it is the only faithful body on earth today, and designates all of the others as sects.
8. What real contributions to restoration were made by the
Campbells?
They contributed much by their discovery that the blessings of God were
contingent upon His ordinances. Thus they recaptured from error the place, nature, purpose and
design of baptism, as well as the relationship of the Lord's Supper to the community of the
saints. They also began a work of rescue for some of the terms used by the Holy Spirit which had
been much abused in the sectarian jargon of the day. We can never be too grateful to these
pioneers who blazed the trail across the untrammeled wilderness of sectism.
9. Do you have any well defined ideas as to what realms need further
examination to effectuate the restoration?
Yes, I do. Of course, I hold that every generation of men is obligated to
make a complete and thorough investigation of God's entire system of revelation, so that the
faith of each generation will not stand in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. It is too
easy to become traditionalists, and most people become such for two reasons -- they are by
nature hero worshippers and they are mentally lazy. As a stimulation of my personal study I have
listed ten categories in which we are yet influenced by sectarianism, and where considerable
research will be required before we approach the walls of Jerusalem.
10. It would probably take too long to enumerate all of these, but I
wonder if you might mention a few which you deem of greater importance?
They are all important, for all have to do with our approach to God, and
nothing is unimportant in that area. But I will mention a few: (1) A candid study of the
vocabulary of the Holy Spirit. We need to recapture the original distinctions between such terms
as gospel and doctrine, preaching and teaching. We need to batter down unscriptural distinctions
in such terms as minister and communion. We need to study diligently such words as fellowship
and heresy. I am doing extensive research on these last two now, and hope to publish something
regarding them soon. (2) The means of induction into Christ. We have reduced this to a sort of
five step, kitchen stepladder method, by which men have become convinced that they can pull
themselves up into God's grace and put Him under obligation to save them. The idea of a
personal covenant with the Lord, based upon conviction, conversion and consecration, is almost
foreign to our thinking. Thus the congregations are filled with many who were converted to
water baptism but were never converted to the Lord Jesus Christ. Immersion in water of a
penitent believer is essential. But we should be immersed not because we believe in baptism but
because we believe in the Christ. (3) The subject of worship and what constitutes it. There is a
general and widespread ignorance on this matter at present and the idea of "five items of
worship" is no more in the Bible than the expression itself. (4) The subject of the official name
of the ecclesia of God. In this matter we are following the lead of the world of sectism about us,
without due regard to God's revelation. We are defending our traditional pattern simply because
we have always done it that way. These are a few of the ten areas of scriptural thought in
[Page 3] |
11. What do you consider the greater hindrances to resumption of the
restoration movement?
There are a number of hindrances. One is prejudice. We are generally
opposed to anything which cuts across our thinking, and we condemn it without investigation. It
seems ridiculous that anything could possibly be right if we haven't known it. Then there is
traditionalism. Most of us, like the Chinese, are ancestor worshippers. We want to do things like
they do them "down home," although they may be wrong "down home." I suspect pride is our
worst foe. We have berated and ridiculed other religionists so long, it goes against the grain to
have to break down and admit that we have been wrong on some things. One of the greatest
hindrances is the divisive state of those who claim to be "The Church of Christ." In some
localities there are as many as five congregations, all claiming to be the one, holy, apostolic, and
catholic Church of Christ, not one of which will even be civil to the other, many of the members
living in such mortal fear of the "powers that be" they will not even speak to each other on the
street. It is difficult for the remainder of the religious world to see how a family can pull the
drawstring of unity with one hand while slashing at each other with a meat cleaver in the other
hand.
12. Do you think that what is generally referred to as "The Church of
Christ" today is co-extensive with the scriptural expression "the body of Christ"?
Of course, I might ask which "Church of Christ"? But I think I know
what you mean. The congregation of God spoken of in the new covenant scriptures is identical
with the one body mentioned in the same scriptures. It is composed of all the children of God.
Not one saved person on earth is outside of it. God adds to it every person who surrenders to the
sovereignty of His Son and enters into covenant relationship with Him on the basis of the
terms laid down by heaven. Every person on this earth, motivated by faith in Jesus as the
Messiah, the Son of God, who has turned away from sin, and submitted to immersion of his body
in water on the basis of that belief, is a member of God's family, and is my brother. I'm not sure
that when we use the expression "The Church of Christ" that we use it in that sense. It is possible
that we use it as a designation for a small and exclusive segment of believers who agree with our
position on various points of teaching. Thus, we would imply that thousands of immersed
believers in the Christ were not added to the family of God. This is, of course, a sectarian usage
of the term.
13. Do you believe that some of God's children may be in sectarian
bodies?
There are many people who belong to sects and yet are not sectarian.
When fleshly Israel started out of Babylon they did not all leave at once. A contingent went out
under leadership of Zerubbabel, later another went out with Ezra, and still later another under
Nehemiah. Those who were in Babylon until the last were as much God's children as those who
had already arrived in Jerusalem. They were just in Babylon for a longer period. Thus it is with
spiritual Israel in "Mystery, Babylon the Great." They may not all go out of Babylon at once, but
as they become aware of their state, learn that they are in a foreign place, and have the glory of
the city of Jerusalem pictured to them, they are led to evacuate the city of exile and start the trek
toward Beulah land.
14. Does this mean that it is possible to be saved in
sectarianism?
Let us put it this way! No sectarian can be saved, regardless of where he
is. Sectarianism is a personal attitude toward truth. It is the "party spirit" and is condemned just
as adultery, fornication, murder, lying, theft and drunkenness. When a man becomes convinced
that the party spirit is sinful, he ought to leave it, just as he abandons adultery or lying when he
sees the guilt attached to them. You might as well ask if one can be saved if he continues in
adultery as to ask if he can be
[Page 4] |
15. Would this not imply that some might have to get out of "The
Church of Christ" in some places?
Certainly, it might be necessary in some areas to leave "The Church of
Christ" in order to remain in the church of Christ. If one is a member of a group that is sectarian
in its attitudes and practices, he would either have to reform them in harmony with God's
revelation, or leave them, regardless of what name they wear. "Passions, intrigues, dissensions
and factions" are called works of the flesh and it is said "that those who act this way will not
inherit the Kingdom of God."
16. Do you not oppose theological seminaries and the one-man
minister system as well as other things which some baptized believers endorse, and if so, does
this not make you sectarian according to your definition?
Yes, I oppose both of the things which you mention. I oppose the first
because I believe it sets up a plurality of bodies where God has set up only one; and I oppose the
second because it sets up one minister where the Lord has set up many. But I am not creating an
"anti-college party" or an "anti-ministerial party." I have convictions, very deep ones, upon both
of these matters. But I do not deny that those who differ with me on these issues are my brethren.
I think they are in grave error upon these matters and I recognize a responsibility to try and teach
them out of that error, but they are still my brethren, and I love them, not because of these errors,
but in spite of them. I go among them, I talk with them, and although many of them hate me,
speak evil of me, and misrepresent my position, I feel no rancor towards any of them. I recognize
that God will avenge anything that is out of harmony with His will, and I am too busy to engage
in hate.
17. Are there not some who believe that you are allied with a sect
because you use more than one container for the fruit of the vine in the Lord's Supper and
worship with congregations which have classes for Bible study?
That is true, and we should not forget that there is not a single group on
earth that is not branded as a sect by some other group. We should rejoice that we will be judged
by the Lord rather than by men, for then no one would ever be saved. Many earnest,
conscientious persons believe that for the Lord's Supper to be acceptable, the fruit of the vine
must be dispensed in one container. While I do not have that view, and think it is unduly
exclusive, I do not disfellowship those who hold it. I am not a leader of a "multiple cup party."
Those who hold to the one container are my brethren, and I love them. We have the same
spiritual father and mother. I think it is sinful to call them "one-cuppers" and to divide the family
of God into "cups groups" and "one-cup groups." Such language is the terminology of narrow
sectism, and reflects the party spirit. I am trying to purge myself of it, although it is difficult to
do so, because we have always used it as a reflection on those who differ from us. But a
realization that they are really my brethren, and the cultivation of a sincere love for them, which
rises above partisanship, helps me to eliminate hurtful and hateful phraseology. I trust that some
day many of us will actually be able to work together as one in Christ, but I know that
[Page 5] |
18. How do you regard the Mission Messenger as relates to the thing
you are striving to achieve?
I am firmly resolved that it will not become an "official mouthpiece" for
any sect, clique, party or faction. The paper is my own individual enterprise. It is my means of
communicating my views to my brethren and friends throughout the world. It is just a
loudspeaker tuned in on a world frequency. Nell helps me to mail it out and is my constant stay
and strength, God bless her! I know that many papers are recognized as official organs of various
factions. The editors can often make or break a man. I feel sorry for brethren who are
subservient to such a party spirit, for they are not free men in Christ Jesus. Their lives are
miserable. I have asked several brethren to share regularly in this medium of expression and
have invited all to do so to the extent of limited space. But MISSION MESSENGER is purely a
personal, individual undertaking, and nothing more! Occasionally pressures are applied upon me
to eliminate someone from writing with whom some of the brethren disagree. There are many
who are anxious to use such a medium to get their views and opinions before the people, but
they want to deny other brethren the same privilege, and they become disgruntled if I publish
something with which they are out of harmony. But so long as I publish the paper, it will be a
free journal and not the organ of a sect or faction.
19. Do all of the regular contributors agree fully with your
views?
I have never asked them, but I am almost sure they do not. I am sure that
I do not fully agree with any of them upon every matter. It is not necessary that they agree with
me upon all things to get their material printed. I do not agree with everything they write for the
paper, nor demand that they agree with everything I write. But I do defend their right and
freedom to think, speak and act for themselves. If I disagree with something they write, and I
think it is important enough, I'll attach a dissenting note; they also have a right to reply to
anything I say, and so do any of our readers.
20. What are your personal primary aims for the future?
There are two of them which I think to be of vital importance. I want to
help in my weak way to restore the primitive pattern of the ecclesia of God, and also to lift up
my feeble voice in behalf of the unity of all believers. I hold that the sheep of God have been
neglected and driven out to wander among the hills of sectism. It is my fond hope, that if my life
is extended sufficiently, that I may help summon them to the high mountain where salvation and
safety await. I would like to put my shoulder to the wheel of the Restoration vehicle and push it
out of the mud and mire of neglect and indifference where it has been stalled so long.
21. How do you plan to accomplish these objectives?
I am hoping that lovers of truth everywhere, and in all segments of
Christendom can be aroused and enlisted to help. If there are enough people who want to engage
in a crusade to free their loved ones from the bondage of sectism, we may be able to use this
little paper effectively. At the present time, the future of this little journal is precarious. Nell and
I are operating at a loss each month, and we may be forced to discontinue. However, that will
neither deter nor discourage me.
I plan to go wherever the Lord opens up a door for me. I have spoken several times in Jewish synagogues. I have visited Roman Catholic classes and talked with the priest in the presence of the students. I have met in personal discussions members of the clergy of the Lutheran and other faiths. Several times recently I've been allowed to speak to groups of the Christian Church. In none of these conferences has anything but a spirit of humility and kindliness prevailed. No one became angry or heated, despite our great differences. I shall miss no opportunity to go where I can find a hearing. It is ridiculous to refuse to go to a place where
[Page 6] |
22. Are there any encouraging aspects to be observed at
present?
Yes, there are. I do not worry about such things, and the word
"discouragement" is not in my spiritual vocabulary. The One whom I serve opened up the Red
Sea for His people, and caused the walls of Jericho to fall down before them. He has not lost any
of His power. All I need to do is to get my bearings and march forward in faith. He will open up
ways before me. It is my task to sow and plant; it is His task to give the increase. All I need to do
is to fulfill my part. But there are some good omens. Many people are being shaken, jolted and
scared into studying more than ever before. I have spoken several times of late in
denominational meeting-houses and been well received. The question periods which always
follow my addresses have elicited many pointed and excellent questions. One encouraging
feature is the increasing interest among some of my good Jewish friends.
23. Have you always held your present views with reference to
restoration?
No, I have not! I came into this fellowship from a Lutheran background.
My people on the maternal side were Danes. At first, I labored under the misconception that
because we had discovered some truths which had long been hidden that we had found them all.
Thus there was a time in my life when no problem was too great for me. I had all of the answers.
I accepted without question the orthodox sermon outlines which had been handed down from
previous generations, but when I saw that they misapplied many scriptural texts, and violated
most of the laws of Biblical interpretation, I began to investigate for myself. I became convinced
that we were well on the road toward creation of another sect. I saw the pressure groups
manipulated by editors and preacher cliques, and beheld how the bulk of God's sheep were often
exploited for the fleece. I learned how little any of us really knew, and how much there was yet
to learn. Accordingly, I began to lift up my eyes to look upon the fields. I saw how white they
were unto the harvest. My love for truth grew and with it a burning desire to share truth with my
brethren and the world of mankind. I have made many mistakes which are saddening to reflect
upon. I have wasted much time. However, I trust in God to extend unto me His amazing grace,
and to save me through His mercy and love. Without that prospect I am sure that I would be of
all men most miserable, but with it, I am lifted up and walk on higher ground.
24. What do you feel is the first great need of the congregations
which are restoration minded?
Our greatest need is for godly, qualified men to serve as bishops of the
local flocks. This is God's own pastor system. There is a great dearth of qualified men to serve in
this office, and many who are called elders are wholly incapable of discharging the
[Page 7] |
25. Do you think that the holding of public debates will hasten the
restoration?
No, they may actually hinder it! I doubt that they will achieve any
substantial good, for the simple reason that in modern public debates, two factions each select a
champion and throw them into the arena in defense of partisan views. Debaters today are
actually representatives of party positions. I know that theoretically their purpose is to examine
the evidence, sift it, and determine what is true, but practically it does not work out that way.
Debates, as now conducted, do not lend themselves to calm, unbiased appraisal of issues. There
is the constant temptation to use any means at hand to gain personal victory. The lust for combat,
fires the brain and kindles the blood. I would not want to become a professional debater or a
recognized Goliath for any company of Philistines.
It is true that I have engaged in some public debates, but not often from choice, and it troubles me that I like debating! I may be forced to debate again rather than see truth stigmatized, but my honest opinion is that in the long run, the cause may suffer in a community where such forensic struggles are waged. A much better approach would be that of the forum. With an unprejudiced chairman, two speakers would sit down at the same table on a public platform. Each in turn would be allowed 15 minutes to state his personal conviction on the issue at stake. Then each would be allowed 15 minutes to question his respondent, and the audience would be permitted to question either or both for an hour. I am losing confidence in hit-and-run speakers who will not permit their position to be examined in free and open questioning. Why should I spend two hours of my precious time listening to a man air his views, when I am not given an opportunity to request clarification, or to examine those views? Since our time is growing short, I want to thank you for these questions, and assure you that even if you disagree with my answers, I still love and respect you very much indeed. I will pray for you and ask you to pray for me. When this report is published in MISSION MESSENGER, I trust the readers will see fit to question the replies, as I have tried to reply to your questions. Thank you!