The Class Controversy

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 3]

     I was born and reared in a Lutheran environment. At an early age I was immersed into the Christ. It was my good fortune to find my lot cast among those brethren who seek to further the restoration of the community of saints to its primitive faith and order, as set forth by the envoys of the Master. As an associate in a movement launched to bring about the unity of all believers in the Christ, I have long been disturbed by the fact that the effort has broken up into more than two dozen rabid, partisan factions, each with its own tests of fellowship and unwritten creeds.

     Because I am not of the temperament to sit idly by and raise no hand to alleviate a condition so harmful to the propagation of the Good News, and so foreign to the intent of the Messiah, I have dedicated my writings in this little journal to exploring avenues of peace and tranquillity. I have not sought to bind my views upon others, nor to offer them as a panacea which must be adopted. I have been ever aware of the frailties and weaknesses to which I am subject, and have sought to avoid a dogmatic and arbitrary approach to our existing problems. I do not feel toward those who disagree with me, that they are enemies. I know they must be judged upon the basis of their personal conviction before God.

     Recently I penned an article entitled "Class Controversy." It was devoted primarily to a discussion of the difference of opinion which has arisen among brethren in the United States, as to the obligation and method of teaching the word of the Lord, which difference has resulted in an actual severance of all fellowship, and the creation of two factions in some localities, each of which claims to be the body of the Christ, to the exclusion of the other. In all of my career, I have never before been bombarded with such a barrage of letters, as I have received from those who hold that it is a sin for a congregation of saints to dispense the bread of life simultaneously to a multitude sitting in different rooms. Every one of these letters is from the southland, and with few exceptions every one is from a preacher. That point may be significant!

     The tragic thing is, that even now as I write, there are four letters lying before me. No two of the writers will fellowship each other. Each is a member of a different segment of the disciple brotherhood. Each writes for a different paper. Neither would dare call upon the others to pray. I have been able to do for them what Jesus could not. I have succeeded in uniting thern in opposition to me, but they cannot unite in service to Him. It is enough to make angels weep and strong men bow themselves in sorrow.

     Every letter contains long lists of questions. These have been hammered out by years of frantic public debate, when the party spirit ran high, and the lust for party victory made men cruel and insensible to compassion for each other. It is easy to see from the questions that

[Page 4]

these brethren do not agree with each other on the subject of teaching. The tone of the letters, in some cases, is saddening. I am accused of trying to arouse prejudice and party feeling by my plea for unity. I am accused of being "bitterly opposed to the No Class method of teaching" despite the fact that I wrote, "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."

     I am challenged to debate in person or in writing, and if I will not, to get a man to represent my belief in the matter to debate it. Brethren, I do not propose to debate the matter with you. All that can be said by you on the subject is no doubt in print, and those who are interested can get it and read it. I doubt that such a debate as you suggest would advance the Cause of Him who did not strive nor cry, and the sound of whose voice was not heard in the streets. Modern debates are too often gladiatorial combats, in which each side chooses a champion to represent a party. Victory, and not truth, is too frequently the object. This is one time I am brave enough not to debate; you may goad a coward into doing so if you tantalize him long enough. But I just happen to love all of you enough that I do not care to be pitted in the arena as your foe. As to getting a man to represent my belief, I do not know who I would get. My views are my own. I do not know if any one else shares them. I'm not attached to a "class party" or "no class party." This is not my test of fellowship!

     What is this all about? Hundreds of our readers will be surprised to learn, but because these issues are so indicative of those things which have shattered the ideal of unity into fragments, it might be well to examine them, not so much for their own merits or demerits, but as a barometer of the false concepts held today on the subject of what constitutes fellowship and heresy. In my statement of the position I wish to be very careful and objective so as not to mislead you. There are few men on earth today who can be trusted to state the position of one with whom they differ. In this instance, the situation is somewhat complicated because the brethren are not fully joined together in the same mind on the issue.

     Basically, the contention is that it is sinful for a congregation of the saints to call the brethren together to study the word of the Lord, and to divide them into classes for such study.

     I think that we are agreed that the creation of any human organization to do the work of the community of saints is wrong, but there is a difference between organizing the work of the divine organism, and creating another organization through which to do it. The congregation is a social unit, and no such unit can function effectively without organizing or systematizing its work.

     In my previous treatise I did not once mention "Sunday School." I dealt solely with the right to teach the word of the Lord simultaneously to various groups. I said nothing about when it might be done. Without fail, those who have replied have injected "the Sunday School." I am not a defender of such an organization, nor am I concerned with it in these articles. However, it is due our readers to state that the use of the term by our brethren may be misleading. They are opposed to brethren coming together on Monday, Wednesday or Friday to study the word of God in classes. They are just as opposed to a "Monday School" as a "Sunday School."

     Here is the issue exactly as stated by one of the brethren: "The church cannot

[Page 5]

scripturally call a plurality of groups into separate rooms for simultaneous instruction under different teachers." I do not say the congregation must instruct in this fashion or by this method. I do believe that it is an infringement upon the freedom and liberty of God's people, for men, regardless of intention, to set up laws and issue dogmas, in realms where God has not legislated. What is the basic problem in the above statement? Is it not the right and prerogative of the body of saints to do a certain thing? Is this not a law curtailing that right? Where is that law found in the New Testament? The church cannot do a certain thing! Here is a negative law. Who is the lawgiver?

     Upon what reasoning do our brethren thus legislate? As I pointed out in my previous article, this negative law is based upon a conclusion drawn from 1 Corinthians 14:31, "For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged." Our brethren have been guilty of a fallacy here, the fallacy of generalization from a specific. The conclusion is, that since God legislated, that in the absence of new covenant scriptures, all members of the community of saints must assemble together to listen to the revelation of His will, once such revelation has been completed and committed to writing, and a copy placed in the hands of each member, the community may never henceforth separately and severally meet to discuss in various groups, the import of those writings possessed by each.

     Certainly there were no classes for the discussion of the various portions of the new covenant scriptures in the meeting considered in 1 Corinthians 14. What was there to study? The brethren had no new covenant scriptures at Corinth. They learned by impartation of God's will through men speaking directly under divine impulse. And when we meet around the table of the Lord today to perform a public and communal service, whatever we do should be done in harmony with the nature of that assembly as arranged by the Lord. But to conclude from this that the community of saints may not arrange other gatherings for its investigation, research and discussion of the sacred scriptures, in various groups, when the nature of the gathering is not such as the one ordained by the Lord, is a fallacy in reasoning. To base a law upon such a fallacy, and then to proscribe and drive out humble brethren who cannot recognize any other lawmaker than God's Messiah is a tragedy of deepest concern.

     If the body of our Lord is composed of five congregations in one city, and these may meet at their five places of assembly at the same hour to study the word of God, and still compose the one body; it would appear that each of them could meet in five classrooms to study and still not destroy the unity of the Spirit. The division condemned in the living oracles is not physical or geographical, but spiritual.

     Brethren, let us end this division, contention and controversy, over the method of studying the word of the Lord. Let each community of the saints study the word of the Lord diligently; let each determine the method it will pursue, and so long as that method does not violate the law of the King, let us, as His subjects labor together in peace. Let us not compose a "class faction" or a "no class faction." Let us be brethren! Surely the cementing power of the blood of the Lamb is greater than the divisive power of human opinion! Surely the cross is a better rallying place than our own shibboleths and creeds! Let us walk together in love! Let us seek peace and pursue it. Let us demonstrate to this generation that our faith in Jesus is greater than our opinions; that our love for each other is a greater force than partisan selfishness. We do not need a debate, we need a prayer meeting! We do not need to get in the stand to defend our views, but to get on our knees to confess to God! Time is running out! It is later than you think! Tomorrow may be too late!