Class Controversy
W. Carl Ketcherside
[Page 3] |
Every factionist proclaims his faction to be the one holy, apostolic and catholic church of God, the body of Christ, and the Kingdom of heaven. He regards it as "the faithful church" but judges its fidelity upon its adherence to the party line rather than upon its espousal to Christ, so that it is not unusual to find as many as five "faithful" churches in the same town, no two of which will regard each other with charity, and with all the partisans of each, regarding the members of the other congregations as pagans, unbelievers or heathen. One group is "the faithful church" because it does not have Bible classes for study; another because it does not have individual containers for the fruit of the vine; another because it does not use unfermented grape juice in the Lord's Supper; another because the members always kneel in prayer. In every one of these a man may be guilty of moral dereliction, suffer from gross ignorance of the nature of God's revelation, and present an example of worldly conformity indicative of an unregenerate heart, but he is a welcome member of the fraternity, if he can pluck the one string on the party harp, and repeat the sacred password.
If a godly, consecrated saint from another group comes into a meeting, he is shunned as a leper. The leader will call upon some person to lead in prayer whose reputation for morality is questionable, but he dare not step across the legal unwritten creedal barrier and recognize one who is "not our kind." Thus, the closeness of the personal walk with Jesus is esteemed as nothing compared to goose-stepping to the party tune. And much of the division exists over matters of opinion and indifference. The opinion crystallizes into law, the law is enforced against unwilling subjects, a rent is made in the body, and two groups are formed of those who sat at the same table of fellowship for years. Prominent men stir up emo-
[Page 4] |
Of all the multitude of divisions among God's people, none seems to me to be more useless or senseless than the schism over teaching the word of the Lord in classes. I do not wish to impugn the motives nor impeach the sincerity of all who have made this a test of fellowship, but I feel that the cleavage into partisan factions over this issue will certainly spell the doom of some in the day of final accounting. I have examined every point made by those who oppose teaching God's word by this method, and to this present moment I have not found a single sound or rational argument which will assay as genuine when tested in the crucible of logical interpretation. I have seen more scriptures taken out of context, and wrested, twisted and distorted on this issue, than on any other. I cannot see one semblance of excuse for two conflicting parties, one a "class party" and the other a "no class party." Such factionalism is caused by unscriptural agitation and injudicious attitudes.
It is too much to expect that one who has created any human test of loyalty to God will so far forget his idol as to sit down and study the issue objectively. Most factional leaders who rate high with frenzied supporters would go unrecognized in the great stream of Christian thought. Deficient in real scholarship, lacking in constructive ability, their only hope is to remain in the limelight by controlling an exclusive segment of the brotherhood of disciples. But in every sect there are those who are bigger than sectarian surroundings, those who possess good and honest hearts. All such will sigh for unity of the Spirit and for healing the breaches in the walls of Zion. It is only with such persons that this appeal will register, and they must be prepared for vicious attacks from their former associates who will loose against them the venom and pent up hate which lie at the core of every factional movement. No one who lacks courage should enter the arena to contend for unity of God's scattered sheep unless he is prepared to pay the price of crucifixion by the party with which he has been affiliated. Yet we know there are those in every party who have courage unmarred by pride and false bravado.
It is time to cease agitation on this question and to close our ranks. This division ought never to have occurred and should not be perpetuated. Those responsible for driving the knife into the body of God's Son must answer to Him for that; those who cling to the hilt and continue twisting it cannot escape responsibility. There are scores of congregations of humble saints where the Bible is taught in classes, and where the brethren are definitely opposed to a separate organization to carry on this function. To accuse them of creating another body when they merely function systematically as the one body of Christ, is indicative of an unfair approach to the issue.
The community of saints should miss no opportunity of teaching the word of the Lord. The method of doing so can well be left to the discretion of the community, seeing that God has not legislated on this feature. There is a difference between an organization and a method. If an organization is created, it must still employ a method. It is sinful to divide God's people into warring factions over the method of doing a thing, unless that method is in contravention to God's holy revelation, properly understood and correctly interpreted. Of course, it is here that the point of controversy lies, and it can never be resolved until
[Page 5] |
The first appeal generally made by our brethren who oppose the class method of study is to 1 Corinthians 14:31, "For you can all prophesy, one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted." It is affirmed that this is a sacred dogma regulating the teaching program of the community of the saints. But this is a fallacy in inductive reasoning, the fallacy of generalization from a specific. In the first place, the gathering of saints in this chapter, was not for the purpose of a systematic study of the new covenant scriptures and an attempt to arrive at knowledge of the truth by an exchange of ideas as to what is meant by such scriptures. The congregation at Corinth had no such scriptures at this time, and the verse cited has to do with revelation of the divine will and not with investigation of it at all. To infer that because only one person at a time was allowed to orally reveal God's word to an assembly, that the members of such an assembly could never from henceforth, separately and severally, discuss the import and application of the revelation, when committed to writing, is a species of logic of which a student ought not to be guilty.
Is 1 Corinthians 14 not a pattern for procedure today? Certainly it is! Beginning with chapter 11:1 the apostle regulates the public gathering of saints for commemoration of the royal feast and the mutual edification attendant upon that meeting. And, say what you will, this is the only assembly which the Lord has made incumbent upon the community. He has arranged it, and in correcting the abuses of it by the Corinthians, he has legislated as to its conduct and procedure. Other meetings can be arranged by the community of saints at their discretion, to take care of emergencies, transact business, investigate the sacred scriptures, and do any other thing that is legitimate in itself and falls within the domain of community activity. Such gatherings are subject only to principles of decorum which should govern our social intercourse with each other.
It would be sinful for the saints assembled about the table for the corporate worship regulated in chapters 11-14 of 1 Corinthians to divide into groups or segments, for such would be contrary to the purpose of the gathering, but to conclude that the community may not, of its own volition, arrange other meetings for the study of the scriptures, and do so in smaller groups, where such is not contrary to the purpose, is illogical indeed. God has not designated the method or course to be pursued and we are, therefore, at liberty to employ any method not in violation of the tenor and principles of the Christian profession.
The context shows that the expression, "You can all prophesy one by one" was to avoid disorder in the assembly, which would be created by two or more persons speaking simultaneously to the same group. Yet, our brethren who oppose the class method of conveying instruction, are not consistent in their practice, for in their "song service" they urge all to speak at the same time, and at the top of their voices. And they, of all people, seem in many places, to favor part songs of the after-beat, rock and roll variety, so that a visitor may be treated to the sight of a whole congregation standing up, all teaching and admonishing one another at the same time, with the tenor and soprano shouting one thing, the alto and bass shouting something else, and all exhorted by a leader frantically waving his arms to beat out the catchy melody. They, like the rest of us, are a long way from the primitive pattern of solemn corporate worship.
Many of the arguments made by our brethren who oppose the class method have to do with abuses that have crept in. There is nothing good that a man cannot corrupt. But the abuse of a thing does not constitute a legitimate objection to its right to exist. We should be forever aware of the frailty of man and his tendency to
[Page 6] |
Those who preserve inviolate the regulations of God for the assembly He has ordained, and who summon all and sundry for periods of study, investigation and exchange of views, should not seek to bind their method of procedure upon other communities of the saints. If I am privileged to worship with a congregation of the saints where the members have agreed not to have classes, I will not be guilty of disrupting their peace and harmony. In such a congregation I will hold my opinion and not thrust it upon others as a dogmatic rule. I will love and respect those who are my brothers and sisters even though they entertain opinions diverse from mine, as to the advisability of certain methods. Instead of pitting them in conflict against each other, I will "follow after things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another."
I do not propose to allow anyone to make me a leader of a "no class party" or of a "multiple class party." I want nothing to do with the party spirit. I do not intend to allow this little paper, which is my individual method of reaching my brethren, to degenerate into a recognized mouthpiece or journalistic oracle for any faction. I serve notice that I will not be a party lackey or stooge, nor will I clear what I believe and think with some headquarters on earth. I do not think the test of allegiance to my absent King is an attitude toward Bible classes. I have never believed that, and my conviction upon this matter is stronger than ever.
I believe a congregation can be faithful to the Christ and teach the word in Bible classes; I believe a congregation can be without classes and be unfaithful to the Lord. The first is not faithful because it has classes; the second is not unfaithful because it does not have them. This is not the divine test of approbation, and should not become our test. Let each community of saints determine the method it will employ in those realms where God has not legislated, and when its means do not contravene the word of God let us walk together in love, joy and peace in the Holy Spirit. There are enough real giants in the land, and it is foolish to act like a modern Don Quixote and joust at windmills.