Is It New Doctrine?

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 12]

     It is a matter of concern to every sincere thinker to know that the spirit of restoration has for a good many years become congealed and stagnated, with the result that little has been done to continue the noble efforts launched by such worthy men as Thomas and Alexander Campbell, Barton W. Stone, Walter Scott, and others. In truth, much of the real gains made by them in their attacks upon the citadels of sectism, has been lost, and as it has always happened in previous reformations, the sons of the pioneers have allowed themselves to grow into an exclusive and bigoted party, which has, in turn, fractured into numerous splinters over the opinions of leaders. We need to restore the restoration. To do that, means that someone, rising above the narrow partisan confines, must catch a vision of the land yet to be captured, and inspire and encourage brethren to begin anew the task which has been forsaken.

     Any one who furnishes such leadership must be thoroughly immune to discouragement, and able to withstand the maligning of friends and brethren, for no one is more despised by sectaries than a man who refuses to be one. His very plea is a condemnation of their practice, and their minds will turn to means of ridding themselves of him rather than of their unchristian and uncharitable attitudes. No reformer ever attempted to call any people back to the old paths who was not charged with advocating new doctrines. Truth long hidden always appears new to those who see it exposed for the first time.

     As an illustration of what we mean, we mention our personal conviction that there may be children of God scattered among the various sects today. Since all children of God are born of the same Father whom we claim, we recognize them as our brethren, regardless of the mistakes in reasoning of which they are now guilty. We conceive that our task is to point out to them the fatal danger of continuing in human parties. We do not paganize them, nor do we seek to re-immerse those who have been immersed as a result of their faith in the Christ. By some partisan souls this is designated "a new doctrine." In thus branding it they manifest an ignorance of the Bible and of the history of the restoration movement.

     We recognize no uninspired man as our authority in matters of religion. But we can certainly refer to the position of those gone before to refute the charge that what we advocate is something new, and I unhesitatingly affirm that in the matter under discussion I stand with such worthies as Alexander Campbell, Barton W. Stone, Moses E. Lard, Benjamin Franklin, David Lipscomb, Daniel Sommer, et al. If my position is "new" it is not nearly so "new"as it was when they advanced it. If holding such a position is "modernism" then these men were all modernists. It might do the brethren good to read what some of them thought and said.

     Concerning the projection of the restoration movement, Alexander Campbell wrote:

     "A deep and abiding impression that the power, the consolations and joys -- the holiness and happiness -- of Christ's religion were lost in the forms and ceremonies, in the speculations and conjectures, in the feuds and bickerings of sects and schisms, originated a project many years ago for uniting the sects, or rather the Christians in all the sects, upon a clear and scriptural bond of union -- upon having a 'thus saith the Lord,' either in express terms or approved precedent 'for every article of faith, and item of religious practice.'"

     Moses E. Lard, writing in his quarterly for March 1864, and dealing with the subject "Have We Become a Sect?" has this to say about those in sects:

     "Against the individual members of these parties we cannot have even one unkind feeling. Many of them we regard as true Christians, and love them sincerely. But as long as they occupy a place in bodies holding traditional and other unsanctioned tenets, holding practices unknown to the Bible, and supporting humanly imposed names, we must tell them plainly that they stand on apostate ground."

     Most of our readers will have learned

[Page 13]

that it was Thomas Campbell who wrote the Declaration and Address, which helped to launch the restoration movement. This was addressed to the Christians in all of the existing sects. That our interpretation of the document is correct, we will prove by a statement of its author, who wrote 35 years later in these words:

     "We speak to all our Christian brethren, however diversified by professional epithets, those accidental distinctions which have unhappily and unscripturally diversified the professing world. By our Christian brethren, then, we mean the very same description of character addressed in our Declaration published at Washington, Pa., in the year 1809 -- namely, 'All that love our Lord Jesus Christ, in sincerity, throughout the churches.' If there were none such at that time throughout the churches, then Christianity was dead and gone. And if there be none such at present within the same limits, it still continues extinct."

     Among the outstanding writers in the Millenial Harbinger in 1862, none was more illustrious than George W. Elley, who wrote:

     "That there are many Christians among the sects, I have never doubted; and that there are also many thousands among them who are pious, but not Christians, in Bible teaching, I do not deny. The brethren have uniformly said, that we receive from among the sects all the immersed who have piety, and that to such we give the bread and wine, and this not upon the score of our will, but that of our Lord. We urge fellowship, or communion, with all such as are entitled to membership in the house of God, and to none others."

     In the same year, Benjamin Franklin wrote in the American Christian Review of which he was the editor:

     "There are individuals among the sects who are not sectarians, or who are more than sectarians -- they are Christians; or persons who have believed the gospel, submitted to it, and, in spite of the leaders, been constituted Christians according to the Scriptures."

     This position was not limited to the brethren in this country, but was also representative of the stand of the brethren in Great Britain. David King, wrote in the British Milenial Harbinger, Feb. 1, 1862, as follows:

     "We also recognize as in the kingdom many who are still in error upon baptism. All baptized believers who walk in love we regard as Christian brethren, though many of them hold to much error in regard to the design of baptism. Many of this class stand 'among the sects,' and the voice of God cries, 'Come out of her my people.' "

     David Lipscomb, writing in the book Questions Answered, page 582, expresses his view in this fashion:

     "There are some in nonsectarian churches who are sectarians, who violate the laws of God in order to oppose sectarians. They are sectarians in their opposition to sectarians. There are some in sectarian churches who will obey God and follow him in spite of the churches in which they find themselves. As examples, there are persons in the Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches who are baptized to obey God rather than to please the sects. In this they rise above the sectarian spirit, despite the parties in which they find themselves. They ought to get out of the sectarian churches, but they see so much sectarianism in the nonsectarian churches that they think they are all alike."

     Daniel Sommer, in his booklet entitled Religious Sectism Defined, Analyzed and Exposed, wrote thus:

     "What shall we say of those preachers who denounce all persons who happen to hold membership in a sectarian denomination with a sentence of sweeping impeachment, as though they were all under the influence of sectism? We should say that they are probably more sectarian than some whom they denounce. Their manner shows that they are unscripturally exclusive, and this is one of the elements of sectarianism. Should we acknowledge any of those to be Christians who are identified with sectarian churches and wear sectarian names? No, not in the full and scripture sense of the word Christians. In mind and heart some of them are doubtless converted to Christ, but they cannot keep the ordinances fully, nor be altogether in harmony with the gospel while they hold membership among sectarians and wear sectarian names. None of the denominations are wholly right and none of them are wholly wrong. We should admit the truth and condemn the error in each, and should admit that many among the denominations are better than their sectarian creeds. Sectarianism is bad enough, and preachers of Christ should not stain their spirits with sin by misrepresenting what is found in sectarian systems."

[Page 14]

     Our brethren have made the mistake of concluding that the restoration was finished and that we have gathered all of the sheep of God from the scattered hills into one flock on the high mountain. As a result they have become sectarian in their attitude. They have no doubt driven away as many as they have saved. The self-righteous spirit, aided by legalism and dogmatism, has kept our plea from being heeded by real students and thinkers. It is time that we take stock of ourselves. The position occupied by many today would make them renounce as modernists brethren who lived, fought and died for the very faith we now hold.