The Conservative Party
W. Carl Ketcherside
[Page 1] |
I thought of that as I began this article in which I will deal with one segment of the Restoration movement. There are those who will criticize these articles as a waste of time. Many, wrapped up in their own partisan interests, and disowning relationship to all others, will censure the space devoted to analysis of the problems of the entire disciple brotherhood. But I am a part of that brotherhood. What affects any person in it, also affects me. I cannot be oblivious to any schism in the Christian fabric, remote though it may be from my personal sphere of life. My life, my soul, my very being, is related to every other who is in Christ Jesus. I am involved in mankind. I am an integral part of the totality of God's mercy.
It is not, then, in a spirit of carping criticism that I conduct these investigations. Rude and arrogant attack upon the members of any party or faction in the disciple brotherhood would, in its ultimate, reflect against me, and react against my hope and purpose. In our last issue we expressed our views of the Disciples of Christ; in this we shall concern ourselves with the conservative Christian Churches, a segment which resulted from a cleavage in the ranks of the churches endorsing instrumental music and societies. As usual, each faction blames the other for the schism, and each accuses the other of departing from the original spirit and purpose of the Restoration movement.
An editorial on page 346, of the June 3, 1950, issue of Christian Standard said:
"There is one serious indictment of the United Christian Missionary Society, the various state societies, the colleges, in fact, the whole coterie of institutions associated in and with the 'International Convention of Disciples of Christ.' They may have started out to implement the Restoration ideal, but the very nature of their claims forced them to forsake that ideal and settle down to wall-building. Now after many years, they are used, ironically, as instruments to oppose the restoration of New Testament Christianity, both in principle and in practice."
In replication to such charges, Stephen J. Corey writes in Fifty Years of Attack and Controversy, on page 242, as follows:
"The Standard has been instrumental in building up a group
of churches and affiliated institutions which has become as exclusive a denomination as could
be imagined and in which fellow Christians supporting our cooperative, organized work are
unwelcome. What a tragic departure from the days of Thomas Camp-
bell, Barton W. Stone, and the progressive founding editor of the Christian Standard,
Isaac Errett."
[Page
2]
Our intent is not to trace the history of the events which led to separation among these brethren. We shall only examine the claim of those who profess to be true to the original Restoration plea and who label themselves as "loyal" and "faithful." Are these brethren sincerely striving for a complete restoration of the primitive church? Are their preachers and congregations free from all institutional domination and pressure groups? Are they committed to a program of evangelism, from a scriptural standpoint? They seek to justify their separation upon these bases, as well as others.
Within the past several years it has been my privilege to examine at close range the position and practices of these brethren. I have read their papers, attended their preaching conventions, visited their schools, discussed with scores of their teachers and preachers, and listened to hours of tape recordings of meetings I could not attend personally. I have a very deep love for all whom I have met; I respect and honor them greatly. But I am convinced that, as a group, they pay lip service to a restoration which they do not propose to implement, and that they generally constitute only an anti-UCMS party in which "loyalty" is measured by adherence to the party line, and a "faithful church" is one that conforms to the one test, regardless of failures and shortcomings in all other respects.
It grieves me to record these things, and in so doing, I do not mean to imply that all of the brethren in the movement are satisfied or content with the situation. Many of them are sick at heart, they are inwardly distressed and disturbed, but they are powerless to correct conditions. They realize that they have escapcd the despotism of a universal society, only to be subjected, in many cases, to the tyranny of smaller units or district organizations which exercise compulsory power over those who do not conform. Unless there is a drastic change of perspective these brethren are destined to drift farther from primitive moorings all of the time. I will be thankful to God if I am proven wrong in such predictions, for I am not disposed to rejoice over such a prospect.
I shall very humbly and carefully set forth my views, recognizing that I must give account for every hurtful word, and remembering that all who are involved are my brethren in the Lord Jesus Christ. There are three areas to which I will confine my present explorations. All of these are vital because they represent grounds of objection to the Disciples of Christ. All of them contributed to the resultant division.
It is my conviction that the average member of the conservative Christian Churches, thinks of evangelism only in terms of a revival meeting, generally conducted by a preacher imported for the occasion. Exhorted by the local pastor, and aroused from a state of lethargy, the congregation puts on a special drive for the length of time allotted, before lapsing once again into routine ways. Such meetings are frequently accompanied by widely advertised entertainment features in the hope of enticing the people in the community to attend. Each service is preceded by a "warm up session" in which the local minister tells a string of jokes, often at the expense of the evangelist, and the audience is encouraged to respond with gales of laughter. This provides a proper introduction so the visiting speaker can retaliate with a recounting of some of the escapades of the local pastor, perhaps while in the seminary which both attended, and the flock howls with glee to learn how human their pastor is.
The simple, unadorned message of the cross, seems no longer to be sufficient to melt the hearts of sinners and reform the lives of the ungodly. It must now be embellished by resorting to all of the gimmicks, gewgaws, and gimcracks, of modern showmanship and hucksterism. I recently attended a meeting in which the preacher had a bunch of inflated balloons of various colors suspended by strings from the ceiling behind him. Each balloon had in it a piece of folded paper
[Page 3] |
There are "clinics" held in which those in attendance are briefed in all of the latest schemes to attract and hold audiences. During one convention I took occasion to sit in on a class conducted by a member of a successful evangelistic team, who was illustrating the tactics employed. To say the least, his suggestions would have astounded the apostle who wrote to Corinth, "For Christ did not send me out to immerse but to proclaim the News, and not with clever words either, in case Christ's cross should lose all its potency."
The emphasis upon sensationalism, the pandering to popular feeling, the excitation of emotionalism, these are filling the congregations with people, many of whom have no real consciousness of personal covenant relationship to God, and thus, no recognition of personal responsibility. Many remain spiritually helpless and uninformed of the word of God. They were "converted" in a time of feverish enthusiasm, and they feel bored and "let down" by the unemotional atmosphere of the regular service. The local minister must "ride herd" to keep the sheep in the corral, and is confronted with petty trivialities which demand his constant attention. There seems to be no knowledge of the primitive pattern in which every member of the body, even when driven from home, went everywhere preaching the word, or "evangelizing." "Evangelism" is now limited to sporadic efforts of professionals whose greatest task is to arouse the membership for a brief period of time.
On July 26, 1919, the Christian Standard published announcement of a Restoration Congress, dedicated to "the rescue of the Restoration Movement." An invitation was issued to "all who are resolved to maintain the Restoration plea intact." One of the objectives as stated, was "to take such action as may be found necessary to reassert the New Testament plea with clearness and increased vigor, and to insure its perpetuation unimpaired." In the same paper, July 17, 1943, P. H. Welshimer wrote:
"While unity is desirable, restoration of the church of the New Testament is more desirable, and in place of spending so much time in talking about unity we had better be about the business of having in every community, the restored church of the New Testament, and when we have that we will have unity, and we will never have without it."
I do not question that many sincere brethren actually long for restoration, but suffer from frustration because it can never be achieved under existing policy and conditions. Actually, after separating from The Disciples to rescue the Restoration, the movement has bogged down and is content to defend what it has. Too much money is invested in institutions unknown to the new covenant scriptures, too much prestige is involved in official positions in various other organizations, for the brethren to be satisfied with the role of the simple ekklesia of apostolic days. Like most of the non-instrument factions, the last thing really desired is real restoration in the spirit of early Christianity.
It has long been our belief that the acid test of desire to restore the church of God will be found in an attitude toward ministry among the saints. It was at this juncture the deviations first began which culminated in the great apostasy. To the original concept we must return before we can be called restorationists. This does not mean we can immediately slough off all the accumulated debris of the centuries. The work of restoring may be a lengthy and laborious task. It is a slow and painful process to remove the rubbish from the walls, but we must know where the walls were located, and we must be able to distinguish between walls and rubbish. We must have a correct view of the prototype.
[Page 4] |
The hired minister to act for the saints in things pertaining to God, is no part of God's arrangement in this dispensation. In that arrangement every child of God is minister and priest. One "enters the ministry" by being immersed into the Lord Jesus. He does not study to become a minister, but because he is one. Such expressions as "hiring a minister," "firing a minister," "trial sermons," "minister's home," etc., are as foreign to the sacred scriptures as the idea they connote. Our brethren under review must admit that this is the case. In an article in Christian Standard, July 18, 1959, on page 397, Elbert T. Moreland writes:
"The modern minister is not found in exact replica in the Bible. Because of changes in our way of life, because of development in church and society, and partly because elders and deacons have not functioned as they ought, we have developed a professional ministry." This brother further says, "The modern ministry combines functions of the New Testament evangelist and elder." These are grave admissions. Separation from The Disciples of Christ was justified on the ground that they had scrapped the plea for restoration of the pattern of doctrine and polity of the church of the New Testament. Now, those who claimed to be loyal to the Restoration plea, have not only created an officer for whom there is no exact replica in the Bible, but have vested in him the functions of two offices created as separate and distinct by the Holy Spirit.
Moreover, justification is sought on exactly the same grounds as employed by The Disciples of Christ to defend their deviations. The professional ministry has been developed: (1) because of changes in our way of life; (2) because of development in church and society; (3) because of malfunctioning of the scriptural offices of elder and deacon. The Disciples group has stated its view thus: "Believing that since the New Testament does not provide a completed, hard and fast structural organization, in all of its details, this group asserts that the church is left free to adapt forms of organization and cooperation necessary for the realistic needs and conditions of these times." Again, "The early church was a spiritual movement, this group contends, hardly affording an absolute blueprint in details of church polity." The same principle which will justify the addition of a new function for which there is no replica in the Bible, will justify departures in other areas than that of polity or congregational structure. The "conservative brethren" should abandon the "professional ministry" or apologize to the Disciples of Christ. Certainly, if they retain that for which there is no exact replica in the Bible, they can never restore the New Testament Church, for you cannot restore a thing by adding something that was never in it!
We do not believe these brethren can abandon the "professional ministry" for several reasons, a few of which we enu-
[Page 5] |
The situation will grow worse, drifting always farther from "the replica in the Bible." In the July 18, 1959 issue of Christian Standard, page 399, Bro. Marvin E. Brewer writes: "There is definitely a need for more ministers to make themselves available for the pastoral needs of their congregations, and it is equally important that the constituents avail themselves of their minister's services." (Emphasis by editor). He repeatedly refers to the minister as "the pastor."
I am sorry for many of the preaching brethren involved in this system. Some of them were pressed to "enter the ministry" as a vocation. They have spent several years in an attempt to prepare themselves to serve God by the study of homiletics, hermeneutics, exegetics, and pastoral psychology. They are hired by a congregation upon recommendation of the school, and frequently their dreams are shattered and their ideals deflated. They soon learn there are truths they dare not teach, for those who control the purse strings regulate the pulpit. In some instances they become virtual flunkies, subject to call at the whim of every eccentric; errand boys who must attend to trivial details lest someone get offended and complain. They are exposed to the ruthlessness of congregational politics and petticoat government. The "parsonage" becomes a virtual charitable motel, because an unconverted congregation having no sense of hospitality, directs all visitors to "our minister" who must arrange lodging and entertainment. After all, he is their servitor and retainer, they own the house in which he resides, they pay him to be their servant, so why not get value received out of the house and preacher both?
The idea of reforming such congregations is soon relinquished, and the preacher, trained only for this task and with a family to support, stays on to walk the weary treadmill for the check he is handed each week. His suggestions for betterment and spiritual growth go unheeded by the ruling clique. Soon his sermons degenerate into ineffective moralizing on generalities, and he is reduced from a crusader for Christ Jesus to a mercenary whose concern is to appease and conform.
This is not true of all, but it is true of many. They break their hearts and dash their hopes in a vain attempt to change the traditional patterns of congregations which have become set in their ways, and are no longer interested in the way of the Lord. And if the preacher demonstrates unconventional adherence to the word of God, or shows signs of singular non-conformity, pressure is brought to bear by his spiritual alma mater, as well as by the Men's Fellowship of the district or county. All must be "kept in line" for the sake of the party. And that brings us to our third point.
[Page 6] |
Are the churches and preachers in the conservative party among our instrumental brethren, really free? They broke with The Disciples of Christ to gain independence and liberty, but are they truly independent? Is congregational autonomy a reality? I grant they are free from the domination of the UCMS, but I believe that there are other forces of control at work which differ only in the degree of the usurpation. In many instances congregations are unduly influenced by seminaries and schools, especially when in proximity to these human institutions. I do not believe that it is possible for such church-supported and church-related institutions to exist long without exerting tremendous power over congregations in the area. They supply the preacher who fills the pulpit, and he is indoctrinated with the idea of "loyalty" to the school. If he does not conform to school policy the heads of the human organization can bring pressure to bear upon the church and fire him.
Alumni groups of some schools often lay down the law, and play first fiddle in some churches or districts. As a result some areas have been disturbed when preachers from other schools are brought in. The cause of Christ has been seriously injured by the "wars and fightings" to gain and maintain the lead. Freqently, this is encouraged by teachers jealous of the fortunes of other schools, and seeking to advance their own. It is generally but a short step from the school spirit to the party spirit. Many brethren have learned through sad experience that when they enrolled in a seminary, some of the professors considered it as a complete surrender to their power, so that they not only had a right to mould, channel and direct, but also to preside over the thinking of the enrollee.
"The Men's Fellowship" exists as a pressure group in many sections. It is generally composed of a number of men from each congregation in the district, and exerts greater power than any single congregation with its elders. Local congregations must conform or boycott will ensue. The "Fellowship" works hand in hand with the extra organizations in the district, and throws its weight and power behind financial drives and institutional schemes. Often these are decided upon and then announced to the respective congregations who have no actual voice in the decision, but must simply go along, or be counted out. These groups, larger in scope than the local church, and smaller than the church universal, provide effective means of keeping dissidents in line. The preachers and congregations are not as free and independent as they would like to have The Disciples of Christ think they are. We have personally seen and experienced too much of the machinations of partisan politics by pressure groups to be mistaken on these matters. We know whereof we speak.
I have been frank and candid in this presentation. It is not a calculated assault upon any brother or group of brethren. It represents only one man's view of a faction that has grown out of the Restoration movement of the preceding century. I do not believe that faction is the primitive church of God restored to earth. I do not believe that as a unit, it can ever, with its present viewpoint, be transmuted into that body, or restore it. I am not motivated in this feeling by my personal views on the oft-disputed question of the use of instruments of music in the public praise service of the church. I am not a member of, nor a champion for a non-instrument party. I am not an apologist for any party or faction. This I will demonstrate when I write about the factions among us which oppose use of the instrument.
When I conclude that the Conservative Christian Church, as now constituted, is not, in a corporate sense, the one body of Christ, I do not imply that there are no members of the one body in it. They are all my brethren. Many of them are sincere, humble children of God. They, like the rest of us in the disciple brotherhood. have been made victims of the party spirit. Many are restoration-minded. They
[Page 7] |
I rejoice in every attempt at restoration and in every spiritual gain achieved by those who attempt it. I recognize the difference between restoration and revolution, yet I wonder if there must not be a revolution before we can seriously work at restoration. Certainly there must first come a reformation, whether it precedes along revolutionary lines, or otherwise. As of the present, our brethren under consideration in these articles are only defending what they have, and are often resentful of criticism and change. Yet these two elements are vital to restoration which in its finality will only be achieved by those who rise above all party considerations, and who dare to examine their own cherished practices and positions in the light of God's revelation, free from all restraints, restrictions, and compulsions of traditional and institutional ties.
Any attempt at restoration is hindered, hampered and postponed, in exact proportion to the extraneous and auxiliary human organizations that are created. The amount of time, money and effort expended in building up any organization except the simple ekklesia of God, is wasted insofar as true restoration of primitive Christianity is concerned. Such things may contribute to party growth, and be the means of gratifying party pride, but regardless of the ideals or motives of those who begin them, they will always stand athwart our real purpose. They will hinder, rather than help. It cannot be denied that when the apostle Paul left any community there was but one thing there which was not present when he came--a simple congregation of humble saints. He made no appeals for money and inaugurated no financial drives, except for the relief of the needs of suffering saints, and for administration of such funds, no board, charter, or special body was created. The money was laid at the feet of the elders of the congregations.
The simple, unadorned worship is no longer appealing. The ministry of all the saints, dedicated to relieving the burdens of a troubled world, simply because each has entered into a personal covenant relationship with God through Christ will not now suffice. But if we are to be no longer restorationists in tongue and word, and become such in deed and in truth, we will have to completely revise our thinking and renew our faith in God's way and purpose. It will accomplish little for us to defend the revelation of God against "modernists" and then disregard it, and do as we please. We earnestly pray that the things said herein will not be dismissed as the ranting or raving of an intemperate fanatic, but will be examined as the conclusions of a humble brother whose love for all of the brethren is unabated. Your own comments, views and expressions are eagerly solicited, and regardless of how much you may differ with us, your letters will be read and given serious consideration. It is not necessary that you agree with all of our conclusions to be respected and regarded as brethren beloved in the Master.
The accusation has long been made that the religious world can hardly conceive of a person being a Christian and Christian only. They must try and categorize him with some sectarian body. On the same basis, the disciple brotherhood has arrived at the place where it cannot conceive of one being a child of God without being a defender of some party growing out of the Restoration movement. The idea is that he must belong to some faction. But this paper is not the organ of any faction, and its editor refuses to be partisan, to the extent God gives him to see the truth. Truth gains nothing by being made the football of a party to be kicked about on the field of life. It is our intention, God willing, to remain free of partisan alliance.