A Dangerous Reply

W. Carl Ketcherside


[Page 13]
     Our brother in the Lord, Roy Loney, favors us with a seven-page mimeographed document of a purely doctrinal nature. It purports to be a reply to questions on the problem of fellowship "sent out by certain brethren out west." We have not seen their document, and do not know who mailed it out, but Brother Loney says he questions "the wisdom and spiritual understanding the document reveals." I feel the same way with regard to his lengthy reply. I have read it several times and am convinced it contains many dangerous implications. Despite the fact it contains several grave errors, I shall confine my remarks to but one. It seems the brethren "out west" listed 25 points, and according to Bro. Loney, "the brethren are asked to mark the paper to indicate whether they will or not endorse or fellowship certain practices." If the brethen "out west" said that, they ought to learn there is a difference between fellowship and endorsement. We do not fellowship practices or things, but persons.That's why the word "fellow" is a part of the term. We can fellowship "a fellow" without endorsing all he says or does. I'm in fellowship with Brother Loney.

     The first point concerned the use of tobacco. On this subject, Bro. Loney says, "The use of tobacco in any form is an individual matter that affects only the user and his influence." In the same paragraph, he says, "Many times I have Iwished with all my heart that the church of Christ would take the same stand with reference to tobacco as the Adventists and Mormans (sic). I understand that no one maintain membership with them and be a tobacco user." These statements in the same paragraph are absolutely contradictory. The latter one exhibits a type of loose and careless thinking which would destroy the church of God if carried to its culmination.

     I am opposed to the tobacco habit. I wish no one had ever contracted it. I wish all who are addicted to it would quit it. But I do not wish the church of Christ would take the same position regarding it as the Adventists and Mormons. Our brother wants the church to take "an individual matter that affects only the user" and create a test of fellowship out of it. Then it would be no longer an individual matter, but "a church matter." How would the church formulate such legislation?

     Should we call a national convention? If so, who will call it? Will each congregation send delegates to represent their viewpoint? Who will introduce the motion? Who will second it? Who will enforce the ruling? What will be done with our brethren now in fellowship who smoke? Will they be in today, and out tomorrow, after the church takes the stand on this new dogma? Or, will we set a deadline and demand that they quit sinning on or before midnight of that date under penalty of excommunication? Will we incorporate this unwritten creed in "the confession" and ask, "Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and promise not to use tobacco in any form"? Or, will we fool prospective candidates into believing that our only creed is Jesus, then disclose later that there is a "rider" attached in the form of an anti-tobacco clause of eligibility?

     These questions are not silly. They are important, not because they relate to tobacco using but because they reveal the dread fallacy of making the church of Christ a legislative institution. This is Romanism in its incipiency. It is exactly on this basis Rome forbids eating meat on Friday. The church of Christ has no right to create any test of fellowship. Only the Lord can do that! Even the Mormons know that he did not make tobacco a test of fellowship, and they do so on the basis of a "revelation" given through Joseph Smith, at Kirtland, Ohio, February 27, 1833. He alleged that God revealed to him the following: "Tobacco is not for the body, neither for the belly, and it is not good for man, but is an herb for bruises and all sick cattle, to be used with judgment and skill." He also said,

[Page 14]
"And again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly." (See Doctrines and Covenants 89:8, 9).

     The government and discipline of the church of God is congregational. Each congregation is autonomous. One congregation cannot decide a single thing for another. One congregation cannot punish, penalize or disfellowship another, for it has no jurisdiction over another. Suppose the church of Christ took the same stand with reference to tobacco as the Mormons, and some congregations refused to bow to this latest creed? Would there not be a division? Who would be responsible for it?

     The church of Christ has no way of activating a program of universal legislation. God has made no provision for any conclave, convention, synod or conference, to take a stand, and demand universal conformity under threat of expulsion. It is ridiculous to ask what the church teaches on any subject. The word of God is our teacher, not the church. We are the church. If the word of God makes a thing a test of fellowship, we have nothing to say about it; if it does not, we ought to have nothing to say about it as a test. Why does our brother not wish the church would take the same stand as the Bible? Are the Mormons and Adventists better patterns than the word of God? If that word makes tobacco a test of fellowship, why not just point to the scripture? Then, whether the Adventists and Mormons make it a test of their fellowship will make no difference. I am deeply concerned about any teaching which encourages the church to make laws where God made none, and debars men from sitting down at the Lord's table because of human dogmas.

     I am opposed to tyranny in any form or guise. I am opposed to any exercise of legislative functions by the church of God. Tobacco using is a bad habit, but it is not nearly so disastrous to the church as the spirit of factionalism which creates its own codes and regulations, then sets these arbitrary interpretations and opinions up on par with divinely ordained statutes as laws of admittance into or exclusion from the fellowship of the saints. I do not condone tobacco using. I am opposed to it. I teach against it, and that with vigor. I advise all who use it to abstain. But I will just as strenuously oppose every attempt of men to bind their opinions, interpretations, and views, as laws upon the kingdom of heaven. It is this attitude which has split, shivered, and splintered the church into fragments, and made its appeal for unity a laughingstock in the face of its practice.

     What will I do about brethren who use tobacco? I will feel a sense of compassion for them in their slavery to a habit that is "an individual matter that affects only the user." I will seek to educate them to its harmful effects. I will try to show them how they will be better off if they cease using it. I will do this in love and mercy. Suppose they do not quit using it? I shall make no laws which will drive them forth. I have received no new "revelation" on the matter, so I shall be patient, longsuffering and forbearing. God will adjust a lot of things in the last day which I cannot straighten out on earth. I will let them stand or fall to "their own master." We have no right to make anything a test of fellowship which God has not made a condition of salvation! I sympathize with our good Brother Loney in his desire to see brethren live better lives. But we will not accomplish the purpose of God upon this earth by creating a legislative body of the church and usurping the rights and privileges of our Lord Jesus Christ. We need to follow the word of God and not to be so concerned about taking a stand like Adventists and Mormons.


Next Article
Back to Number Index
Back to Volume Index
Main Index