Making Allowances
W. Carl Ketcherside
[Page 11] |
That is the rendering of the first few verses of Ephesians 4, in "Letters to Young Churches," by J. B. Phillips. I think that these paragraphs need to be in our hearts a great deal in these days when some few are laboring to "restore the restoration." I thought of them when I read a little paper It Is Written, edited by Brother J. W. Bedingfield, at Carlsbad, New Mexico. A couple of brethren, Spurlin and Weakley, had recently presented some views in opposition to the setting of the Lord's Table twice on the same day. A Brother J. S. Bedingfield felt called upon to reply, which caused the editor to state his policy with reference to the publication of articles so contradictory in nature. In summation he said:
"As in this case, I have spent many happy hours talking with both Bro. J. S. and Bro. Weakley, on the scriptures and I am sure both know that we do not agree 100% on all points, yet we continue to study and work and pray together."In the same issue, a Bro. W. E. Daniels asks and answers the question, "Is it all right to meet with Cups and Sunday School and Individual Bread Breakers, if there is no loyal church in reach?" He proceeds then to show that to do so would be the equivalent of accepting sprinkling for baptism if there was not enough water near in which to be buried. Several things are apparent in this. (1) Our brethren make a test of fellowship out of the manner of serving the Lord's Supper, the grouping of students for investigation of the sacred oracles, and whatever the last implies. I do not know if I am an "Individual Bread Breaker" or not, for I do not know what the brother is talking about. (2) The loyalty of a congregation is determined by its subscription to several items of an unwritten creed, and not by its relationship to God through the blood of His dear Son. Unless a congregation of saints would be willing to un-Christianize every group of saints on earth who did not agree with them 100% on these matters, regardless of the wide divergencies on a thousand other things, they would not even be recognized as children of God.
I have previously charged that the espousal of a factional and party spirit results in a twisting and wresting of the revealed will of God to sustain the partisan position, and in sorrow, I record that the same is true in this case. To prove that it is wrong to meet with brethren such as are designated, the writer cites 1 Cor. 2:12-13; 1 Cor. 3:3-5; and Galatians 2:11-14, which have no connection near or remote to the question of meeting with brethren who employ individual cups to distribute the drink element to the saints, classes in which to teach students, or some form of breaking the loaf. But the second one does condemn the brother who writes, in stirring words: "For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men." The holding of the views which are his, does not bring my brother under condemnation, but the creating of a party around those views does, and that is exactly what he has done, for his article is written to espouse the party spirit.
But the apparent thing about all of our modern factionism, and all of us have been tainted with it, is the fact that it creates inconsistency. Not a single one of the factions in the disciple brotherhood has perfect agreement among its constituents. The brethren in every one of them disagree about many things, but so long as they are agreed on the one thing which is the test of loyalty, that is all that is required. They can disagree about our relation to civil government, about going to war, about marriage and divorce--and a hundred other things--but if they adhere to the party line they will not be purged. Let one get weak on that and he is soon mustered out.
Bro. Bedingfield admits there is a three way division among three brethren as relates to the Lord's Supper. Bro. Weakley does not agree with Bro. J. S. and Bro. J. W. does not agree with either. "Yet we continue to study and work and pray together." Why can we not do the same on other phases of difference about the Supper? Which is greatest, the memorial of our Lord and the fellowship of his body and blood, or our own little cavillings about the manner of passing it? Is it not time that we measure up to the greatness, majesty, dignity and nobility which befits the citizens of the kingdom?