Turning on the Light

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 1]

     In 1844, Alexander Campbell wrote: "Alas, for the times! when Methodism, and every form of Protestantism, of ancient Puritanism, have so soon run down to the dead level of all manner of conformity to the world. Splendid churches, rich saloons, well crimsoned pulpits, superb curtains, sublime organs, elegant preachers, well read sermons, well feasted hearers, and polite audiences, have gained the day, and triumphed over reason, conscience, the law, and the gospel." Have the churches of the restoration movement also soon run down to the same dead level? We propose to direct the searchlight in their direction and reveal what we find.

     For several months we have been dealing with the threat of alien ideologies in a world plot. We have pointed up the danger to western civilization of a diaholic attempt to seduce men's minds. We have stated our conviction that hope lies not in the use of raw, naked force, but in the adoption and implementation of the Christian philosophy. Our culture is built upon the ethical teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, and the source of the power of his doctrine lies in an acceptance of Him as the Son of God. In our search for the means by which the Christian way of life can be made universal in application, we have reached the conclusion that the answer lies not with Roman Catholicism or Protestantism.We have stated the reasons by which we reach that conclusion.

     We now examine the claims of a movement purporting to be neither Roman Catholic or Protestant, but a reproduction or re-institution in this age of the church as originally planted by the apostles of Jesus Christ. Our interest is heightened in this phase of our examination by virtue of personal alliance with one segment of this movement. It is difficult to maintain absolute objectivity under such circumstances, but we shall attempt to be fair and just in spite of human frailties and prejudices engendered by background and associations.

     The history of the restoration movement sparked by the genius of such noble worthies as Thomas Campbell, Alexander Campbell, Barton W. Stone, Walter Scott, and others, is of such engrossing interest as to render it almost impossible to forego the thrill of repeating it, but our present task is of another nature. Our problem is to determine if the heirs of that movement in this generation are adequate, under existing circumstances, to the preservation of our world by the universal dissemination of the principles of Jesus in the Christocracy of which they are partakers.

     In his prayer, as recorded in John 17, Jesus conditioned the acceptance of Himself by the world upon one factor--the oneness of those who believe in Him. The world can be won to Christ only when

[Page 2]

those who believe in Him are one in Christ. The world must either be saved through faith in Jesus and acceptance of His way of life, or without it. If it can be saved without it, God made a tragic error in sending His Son. But the entire Christian concept is based upon the philosophy, that, "Without me you can do nothing." To those of us who accept as factual that He is "the way, the truth, and the life," there can be no such thing as life outside of its source. "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life."

     If the world can only be saved through belief in Jesus, and if the thing required to produce that belief is the oneness of those who believe, it stands to reason that the most important responsibility in a world of divided believers is to labor to bring about the unity for which Jesus prayed. It was a recognition of this which gave impetus to the restoration movement. Alexander Campbell wrote:

     "No mortal need fancy that he shall have the honor of devising either the plan of uniting christians in one holy band of zealous co-operation, or of converting Jews and Gentiles to the faith, that Jesus is that seed, in whom all families of the earth are yet to be blessed. The plan is divine. It is ordained by God; and better still, it is already revealed. Is any one impatient to hear it? Let him again read the intercessions of the Lord Messiah, which we have chosen for our motto. Let him then examine the two following propositions, and say whether these do not express Heaven's own scheme of augmenting and conservating the body of Christ.

     First. Nothing is essential to the conversion of the world, but the union and co-operation of christians.

     Second. Nothing is essential to the union of christians, but the Apostles' teaching or testimony."

     Again, he writes that it is a general concession of all who accept the idea of a universal gospel, that the union of all Christians is essential to producing the effect desired and purposed by God.

     "These two propositions have been stated, illustrated, developed,-- and shall I say proved, in the Christian Baptist, and Millennial Harbinger, to the conviction of thousands. Indeed, one of them is as universally conceded, as it has been proposed, viz., That the union of christians is essential to the conversion of the world: and though, perhaps, some might be found who would question, whether, if all christians were united, the whole world could be converted to God; there is no person, of whom we have heard, who admits a general or universal prevalence of the gospel--in what is usually called the millennial age of the world--and who admits that moral means will have any thing to do with its introduction, who does not admit that the union of christians is essential to that state of things. Indeed, to suppose that all christians will form one communion in that happy age of the world, and not before it; is to suppose a moral effect without a cause."

     But what is the present status of the spiritual descendants of this great effort to achieve the Master's purpose? Candor forces us to admit they are torn by strife, rent by schisms, and even more divided than many of those whom they seek to unite. We believe there are some twenty-five splinter parties existing today among the ranks of "the disciple brotherhood," and we propose in a subsequent article to identify them. Which one of these parties is the ekklesia of God, capable of carrying the banner of Jesus to certain victory over all the forces of evil? With few exceptions each party regards itself as the one holy, apostolic, catholic church of God upon earth. Members of all the others are regarded as apostates and here-ties. Which one of these parties is correct in its claim? To which one shall we rally all the forces of righteousness, and to which leaders must we look for safe conduct out of the wilderness and into the promised land?

     Since a majority of the readers of this little journal are identified with one or another of these factions, we propose a careful analysis of the claims of many of them. In subsequent issues we shall seek to determine if either of the present parties bearing the title "Christian Church" or "Church of Christ" is, by divine right,

[Page 3]

the exclusive company of saints on earth, the elect of God, or the company of the redeemed. We are not unaware of the price we shall pay for such relentless research, of the friendships that will be forfeited, and the boycotts which must be suffered. Yet, it is not until we can see our present condition in its true light, that we can properly diagnose it, and then prescribe a wholesome remedy. At the conclusion of this current series we shall offer such a remedy, and, in the meantime, we can only humbly pray that, in spite of personal feelings toward us, most of our readers will continue with us unto the end.

     How did we get this way? That we are divided, no one can deny. The divisions are so many and produced by such complex factors, it is hard to make a proper classification for their consideration. Many, as a matter of convenience, refer to those opposing sides of one major schism as "instrumental" and "non-instrumental" because of the use, or non-use of instruments of music in the corporate public worship. Yet, instrumental music was not originally the cause of divergence. On August 17, 1889, a convention was held at Sand Creek Church, Shelby County, Illinois, for the purpose of signing a statement, "with the view, if posssible, of counteracting the usages and practices that have crept into the churches." The document, signed by delegates formally selected and sent by a number of congregations, was written and publicly read by Daniel Sommer.

     It closed with the words, "We state that we are impelled from a sense of duty to say, that all such that are guilty of teaching, or allowing and practicing the many innovations and corruptions to which we have referred, that after being admonished, and having had sufficient time for reflection, if they do not turn away from such abominations, that we cannot and will not regard them as brethren." The innovations, corruptions, and abominations, are thus described: "The unlawful methods resorted to in order to raise or get money for religious purposes...the select choir to the virtual, if not the real abandorunent of congregational singing; likewise the manmade society for missionary work, and the one-man imported preacher-pastor to take the oversight of the church." Instrumental music was not even mentioned.

     There are some things of significance in this document. It was called by its author "An Address and Declaration" in a word switch on the "Declaration and Address" written by Thomas Campbell at the outset of the restoration movement. But the document written by Campbell was to secure unity among all believers; the Sand Creek Declaration was written to "draw a line of demarkation between the churches of Christ and our innovating brethren," in the words of its author. Campbell proposed, "All that are enabled to make profession, and to manifest it in their conduct, should consider others in the church of God, and should live together as the children of the heavenly Father." Sommer proposed with reference to those being admonished who did not renounce the things specified, that "we can not and will not regard them as brethren." This placed "brotherhood" upon a basis of conformity to certain practices, rather than upon a relationship to each other through acceptance of the blood of Jesus, and this attitude has generally prevailed to the present.

     The author has seen documentary evidence in numerous places indicating that local cleavage was not produced by introduction of the instrument. A case in point is Valdosta, Georgia. The congregation now known as "Central Church of Christ" was begun by a group of dissenters who separated from the group now known as "First Christian Church" because of the insistence of some in hiring a regular preacher at a stipulated salary. Since Central Church of Christ now has a preacher hired at a stipulated salary, but does not have the instrument, it is a matter of policy to lead the membership to believe that instrumental music was the cause of the original schism.

     In spite of tendencies toward division,

[Page 4]

and intense feeling, the open break was not manifest to the world until 1906. In that year the "Churches of Christ" were separately listed in the U. S. Religious Census. The Director of the Census in Washington, wrote to David Lipscomb about the matter, and Lipscomb replied:

     "There is a distinct people taking the word of God as their only and sufficient rule of faith, calling their churches, 'churches of Christ,' or 'churches of God,' distinct and separate in name, work, and rule of faith from all other bodies or people.... These disciples have separated from the 'Christian Church' that grew out of the effort to restore primitive Christianity, by remaining true to the original purpose and the principles needful to develop it, while these churches have departed from this end and have set aside the principles of fidelity to the word of God as the only and sufficient rule of faith and practice for Christians."

     The instrumental music question has been given the forefront in the division for several reasons. The instrument was something concrete, tangible, and visible. Its voice, like that of the turtledove (Can. 2:12) was "heard in our land." It presented a local problem calling for definite decision of acceptance or rejection, which was not true of a society with headquarters in a distant city, represented only by an occasional itinerant visitor raising funds. The circumstances of introduction of the instrument aroused passions and intensified feelings. Often an organ was spirited into the meetinghouse by night, locks on the doors were altered, suits for the property were entered in civil courts, and the consequent trials with their aftermath of broken families and communutes left indelible scars and marks. The instrument thus became, and still remains, a symbol of an intangible something, to both groups. To one it is a visible token of freedom, and they would as soon see the flag trampled underfoot as to surrender it; to the other it is a mark of apostasy and corruption, the very presence of which so defiles a meetingplace, they could not even sit in it to listen to a man speak under any circumstance. Thus, it appears there are two groups which claim a common heritage, the instrumental and non-instrumental churches. Which of these, as now existent, is the ekklesia of God, capable of leading the army of heaven to conquest of the world for the King Messiah?

     Our examination of their credentials would be simplified greatly, if there were no complications caused by divisions within the two, but unfortunately, such is not the case. We will deal first with those categorized as "instrument churches." These are in turn divided into two major groups, which for lack of better terms, we will designate "The Disciples Church" and "The Conservative Christian Churches." Although, not always known by those outside the party, these last are, to all intents and purposes, divided along other lines. A case in point is the Colorado Springs, Colorado, area, where there are at least four distinctive groups of those who use the instrument, among whom there is little, if any, real working harmony.

     It is evident that there is widespread uneasiness and unrest over the teaching and attitude of some of the schools, as well as friction between them, and it is held by many, for example, that schcols such as Midwest School of Evangelism, in Ottumwa, Iowa, are actually factional in their approach and outlook. It is significant that the non-instrument factions are generally designated by papers, and one may be identified as a member of the Gospel Advocate faction, Gospel Guardian

[Page 5]

faction, or Old Paths Advocate faction. Among the instrumental brethren the designation is by schools, and one may be judged by the institution he attends. A few weeks ago, a brother seeking to describe the status of a church, wrote me: "I suppose you'd say the congregation was midway between the Ottumwa group and Ozark Bible College." He was not talking about location. Knowing both schools, I knew what he meant. The instrumental churches do not have as many divisions and parties as the non-instrumental churches, not having majored in that field, as have the latter, many of them being specialists.

     What about the Disciples of Christ? Some of my gcod personal friends are affiliated with this denomination. I doubt not that there are many children of God in the number, and despite pronouncements such as the Sand Creek Declaration, I regard them as brethren, although I do not endorse their ideas on many things, and deplore some of their religious practices. But, as a body, this group has abandoned the idea of the restoration of the ancient order of things. This was not accomplished in "one fell swcop" but came as the result of many contributing causes. Originally, the congregations growing out of the restoration emphasis were chiefly rural. Churches in urban centers were small. With the changing economic pattern produced by the Industrial Revolution, and the consequent exodus from country to city, churches in metropolitan areas became large and powerful. It might be a fruitful source of investigation to determine the effect of the Machine Age upon the restoration movement. Georges Bernanos, the French philosopher, in his "Tradition of Freedom" says, "One cannot understand the least thing about modern civilization if one does not first and foremost realize that it is a universal conspiracy to destroy the inner life.... None of the defenders of the Machine, howsoever brazen he may be, has as yet dared to make out that machinery has a good moral effect." The changing pattern of life corresponded with the stress placed upon "the social gospel" which supplanted the idea of evangelism and the planting of new congregations. The Disciples Church was caught up in this new program of transforming the world by the good deeds of men, rather than by the regenerating message proclaimed to men from heaven.

     This environment provided the setting for the inroads of so-called "Higher Criticism" and many of the younger preachers, supplementing their ministerial courses" in an undergraduate school, with additional work in theological seminaries connected with great universities, returned home thoroughly saturated with the notion that the Bible was not what it claimed to be, and ready to label many of its narratives as fiction, and to discount the miracles as legendary stories. This is not to imply that all of the preachers connected with the movement were ready to discard the Bible as God's revelation, but the more prominent ones in large cities frequently cast doubt upon it. The author personally heard one such preacher deny the resurrection of Jesus, and seek to account for the presentation by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, as a vision conjured up in the minds of the disciples as the result of intense longing, coupled with deep grief and sorrow. The official Sunday School literature disseminated the idea that some things related in the Old Testament and acknowledged as factual by Jesus, were incredible, and the damage was done.

     The practice of open membership, which is the acceptance of those into fellowship, who have not been immersed into the Lord Jesus Christ, was introduced in many places, and the significance of baptism was thus destroyed. It is not our intention to misrepresent the condition, for which reason we reproduce here the statement of membership policy drawn up for the Christian Church at Florissant, Missouri, the last one of the Disciples of Christ congregations to be planted in the Saint Louis area.

     In order that there may be a clear understanding of the method of receiving members into the Christian Church

[Page 6]

now being formed in Florissant, the Steering Committee of the Disciples of Christ in the Florissant area recommends that the following become the membership policy of this new congregation:

     For one who presents himself for membership by confession of faith in Jesus Christ, it shall be the policy of this congregation to follow the practice of the New Testament church of baptizing by immersion, symbolizing the burial and resurceetion of our Lord.

     For one who desires to transfer his membership from another congregation, he may do so by bringing a letter from the church of which he has been a memher, or by stating where his previous membership has been.

     Should any person come by transfer, not having been previously baptized by immersion, he shall he offered an explanation of the meaning of the practice of this congregation to baptize by immersion and shall be requested to be so baptized. However, if he does not find it in his heart to be immersed, membership shall not be denied him.

     The congregation shall include him because it recognizes him as a Christian whom it welcomes to its worship, to its communion table, to its fellowship meetings, and, from whom it is willing to receive the benefit of his talents and his treasure. Since this congregation recognizes other churches in addition to itself as being Christian and expects to work interdenominationally with other communions, it believes that it should welcome every Christian who requests the privilege of transferring his membership into this congregation. This church considers itself to be part of the church universal. Consequently, it opens its door to all who desire membership in it as stated above.

     At the time this was circulated among the membership, I drew up certain objections to the statement of policy, and these were read publicly, and later printed in Bible Talk. We offer them here as expressive of our thinking.

1. It substitutes a Steering Committee composed of uninspired men for the inspired ambassadors of our Lord, who were empowered by Him to reveal the will of the King relative to citizenship in His kingdom.
2. It substitutes a "membership policy" for the new covenant scriptures as a basis for determination of admission to the table of the Lord.
3. It affirms that the practice of the New Testament church was to immerse those who confessed faith in the Lord, and then proposes to accept those who repudiate the practice of the New Testament church, thus forfeiting any right to a claim of seeking to restore said church in faith and practice.
4. It employs misleading and ambiguous language, such as "It shall be the policy of this congregation to follow the practice of the New Testament church of baptizing by immersion" which is equivalent to saying "baptizing by baptizing" or immersing by immersion"; and by use of such language implies that there are other means of baptizing.
5. It leaves the terms of admission to fellowship to the will of the individual and not to the will of God, and makes what one finds in his heart the law of obedience, rather than what he finds in the revealed will of God.
6. It recognizes as Christian those who are not in Christ Jesus in the fair import of that term in the revealed oracles of God.
7. It reverses the divine order by expressing willingness to receive talent and treasure from one who has not first given himself to God (2 Cor. 8:5).
8. It confesses that the Florissant Christian Church is merely another denomination, on which basis it forfeits all hope of uniting all believers in our Lord Jesus Christ in a non-sectarian and non-denominational sense, insofar as the Florissant Christian Church is concerned.
9. By confessing that it is a part of the church universal, it commits itself to the admission that it is a party or sect, and thus exists in contravention to the will of God, and not in conformity thereto.
10. In opening its doors on the basis of the membership policy as drawn up by the Steering Committee it has created a human creed, and will only serve to divide believers, rather than to answer the prayer of our Lord.

[Page 7]

CONCLUSION

     As I view the situation, the Disciples Church is merely another sect among sects. I say this charitably, with no intention of conveying hate or animosity, for I feel neither. This condition might not be so bad, if it were not by choice. A body of believers, like an individual, might be "overtaken in a fault." Under such circumstances restoration might be effected by spiritual men working in a spirit of meekness. All of us have manifested some sectarian tendencies in these latter days, but the condition is not irremediable, if, like Nehemiah, we weep, mourn, fast, pray before the God of heaven, and confess, "Both I and my father's house have sinned." But these brethren have followed a calculated course, and a deliberate policy, which has led them to deny the restoration principles which called them into being, and the sufficiency of the revelation of God which alone can act as compass and pole star in the turbulent, storm-swept ocean of life.

     I do not charge them with insincerity or hypocrisy. I do not question their honesty nor challenge their integrity. I doubt not that many of them feel they are rendering God service in their present course. Nor does my evaluation of the movement cause me to repudiate any truth that is held, or derogate any good work that is accomplished. I simply feel that these brethren have fallen victims to the spirit of this age, unwittingly perhaps, but nonetheless surely and truly so. And for that reason, I do not feel that we can rely upon the philosophy in which they trust as providing hope in these troublous times. I am sorry this is so.

     What I have written has not been intended as an attack, but as an examination and expression of my personal convictions relative to a regrettable situation. If I have forgotten my purpose, or have misrepresented, I beg forgiveness, for it has not been intentional. No member of the Disciples of Christ should regard my observations herein as a personal thrust. I love and respect every member among them regardless of the terms upon which they received him. My relationship with all of them, even those in positions of prominence, has always been upon a very high plane. I have never been treated discourteously by any of them. (Our next treatise will express our views of the conservative groups among the instrumental churches).