Queries to the Editor

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 1]

     I have found it practical and helpful at periodic intervals to present an issue of the paper in which I answer questions gleaned from several sources. Some of these queries are propounded in the forums I conduct, others are asked by visitors in our home, while most of them are taken from letters. I personally reply to more than five hundred letters each month. A few of these are bitterly critical and censorious, but the great majority are written by earnest, consecrated seekers after truth. I read them all carefully, regardless of the tone of the writer. I am particularly interested in those which disagree, because they aid me to properly evaluate my thinking and to sift out the flaws in my reasoning.

     One of the rewarding experiences of maturation is the realization that one does not have all of the answers, and that the knowledge of the best of us is still very limited in scope. The term "expert" is a relative one in any field. When one arrives at the place where he can say "I do not know," and where he will admit, "I have always been wrong about that," he is in a position where his real knowledge will rapidly increase. If, at the same time, he makes discovery of truth his prime quest in life, so that he can look at truth objectively and admit it wherever he finds it irrespective of who holds it, his sphere of usefulness to God and man will be greatly enlarged. God sends none away empty except those who are full of themselves.

     This attitude will enable us to use even our avowed enemies for spiritual enrichment. By forgetting the man and his bitter spirit, one can salvage nuggets of truth which can be added to his storehouse of knowledge, and by thanking God for such gain and asking Him to bless the giver regardless of his attitude, he may even save his former foe. Love is a powerful force. It works effectively, although unseen. If one refuses to allow hate to exist for those who would destroy him, but actively sends out love from the dynamo of his heart, amazing things can happen. "Love has good manners and does not pursue selfish advantage. It is not touchy. It does not keep account of evil or gloat over the wickedness of other people. On the contrary, it is glad with all good men when truth prevails" (1 Cor. 13:5, 6).

     It is in that spirit I reply to the questions which follow. The answers are not given dogmatically or arbitrarily. They simply represent my present views. I express them quite humbly, realizing my shortcomings and frailties: They are not intended to be accepted as authority. Those who cannot conscientiously concur with the views expressed will be loved and respected every whit as much as those who agree. I have neither time nor inclination to indulge in the luxury of hate or contempt. I refuse to allow the cancer of animosity to consume my own

[Page 2]

soul. My interpretation of the sacred scripture is my own, therefore, is human and fallible. No one else on earth will give account for my answers. No one else should be held responsible for them.

1. Can you state briefly your real purpose in publishing and sending forth Mission Messenger?
        Our major purpose at present is to plead for the unity of all believers in our Lord Jesus Christ, thus working toward an answer to the touching prayer which he offered on the night of his betrayal into the hands of his enemies (John 17:20, 21). We seek to be truly identified with that prayer and its purpose. We believe that by actively cooperating with the Holy Spirit in this great endeavor, we can help bring about that state in which the will of God may be done on earth as it is in heaven. It is our conviction that God works through human agency as well as divine. Before the believers can be united, someone must be so wholly and unreservedly committed to this task that God can use him as an instrument or tool to effect the divine purpose. In our weak way and with the limited facilities at our disposal, we hope to arouse men to think, so they can become such instruments of peace. Peace is not an accident. It must be waged, like others wage war. "And the wise are peacemakers who go on quietly sowing the seed for a harvest of righteousness, in other people and themselves" (James 3:18). It is our aim to present a strategy of peace!
2. Would you say then that your ultimate aim is to achieve peace among God's children?
        No, for peace and unity must never be our goal. They are not the end we seek. They are means to an end. Jesus expresses the ultimate aim, "that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." God's children are agents of reconciliation. God loved the world. He sent His Son to die for it. He wants the world to believe, for "whosoever believeth in the Son hath everlasting life." But the world can only be won to belief in Christ, when those who believe in Christ are one. This is the essence of his prayer. The one thing essential to the universal belief in Jesus is the unity of all who believe in him. lt is just that simple. But those who do believe are torn asunder by strife and division. Therefore, our major task at present is to repair the breaches and bind up the wounds. This is presently essential that our ultimate goal, if it is the same as that of heaven, may be reached. We are engaged in our current task, not because it is our final aim, but because it must come first.
3. Has this always been the plea made in Mission Messenger?
        Not at all! A paper merely reflects the thinking of an editor. If he grows and matures in thought, his writings will manifest that growth. I have been editing this little paper for more than twenty years. By dint of hard study and years of research, I have learned a great deal I did not know when I began. My hardest task has been to "unlearn" some of what I thought I knew. I have discovered that I was wrong upon many interpretations, and I have had to alter many of my views in the light of growing knowledge.
        I grew up in one segment of the disciple brotherhood and was quite convinced that it was "the loyal church" to the exclusion of all who were members of other splinters, factions, and parties. Imbued with such a spirit, the paper was originally quite a partisan journal, designed to be the mouthpiece of "the brotherhood," which, in my unwarranted arrogance and self-righteous assumption, was limited only to those who agreed with us on the party tests which formed our criteria. I was reared in an atmosphere where the editor of a partisan journal could control thought and wield power even at great distance. Those who did not conform were excommunicated. Such a condition is sinful and wicked. I am sincerely ashamed of my littleness and factional spirit. I give thanks to God for having opened my eyes to a vision, dim though it may

   [Page 3]

   yet be, of his majestic purpose for mankind. No faction, as such, will ever accomplish that purpose. It can only be furthered by the united effort of all believers in the fact that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself."
4. What are some of the things you have learned which have helped to formulate your present convictions?
        Of course, in two decades, one learns a great many things which have a profound influence on his thinking, but I will cite only three at this juncture, which have meant a great deal to me.
        A. The consciousness that the restoration movement, inaugurated by the Campbells and others, who were tired of sectarian feuds, is not identical with the church of God. The church has always existed since the advent of the Spirit on Pentecost. God's sheep were scattered among the sectarian hills. Many of them still are. The rallying of them in an attempt to restore the ancient order to the church, did not thereby automatically remove all of the others from God's covenantal grace.
        B. A realization that fellowship is not to be equated with endorsement, nor is it contingent upon another's views, interpretations, or opinions. The koinonia is a state or condition. We are called into it by the Good News concerning Jesus Christ our Lord. Every sincere person who believes that Jesus is the Messiah and God's Son, who is immersed in water in the implementation of that faith, is God's child. He is my brother. He is in the fellowship, the same fellowship into which I have been called. Brotherhood, in the spiritual as in the natural realm, is not based upon common views, but upon a common Fatherhood. Men may conceive ideas but they are not conceived by them. Fellowship is conditioned upon sonship. We are not in fellowship because we agree upon everything, but being in fellowship we strive toward agreement upon things. Agreement is the goal of those in fellowship.
        C. A recognition that the party spirit is a sin, just as is fornication, adultery, idolatry and drunkenness ( Gal. 5:19-21). One who is guilty of it cannot enter heaven. A factual and unbiased study of most of the divisions which have occurred will reveal that the party spirit has been prevalent in the cleavages, frequently augmented and intensified by debates engaged in by partisan champions. The truth is that God has not granted us division among brethren as a possible solution to our problems at all. God is not the author of confusion, but of peace. We are to love the brethren, not leave them; edify them, not divide from them. It is contrary to the doctrine we have learned of the apostles to divide. He who causes divisions should not be followed but marked and avoided. God never once commanded brethren to divide, he repeatedly condemns division, and commands them to unite.
   
5. You frequently speak about "restoration movement." What do you mean by that expression?
        In the beginning of the previous century a movement began almost simultaneously among sincere students of the word of God in various sectarian groups, but especially among those of the Presbyterian, Methodist and Baptist parties, to unite believers in our Lord by a restoration of the primitive order as taught by the apostles. This great reformation eventually lost its impetus. Its adherents degenerated into a state of war among themselves. At present, the heirs of the restoration movement constitute one of the most divided segments of Christendom. There are two great bodies resulting from a rent over the use of instrumental music in the public praise service (coupled with other matters); and these in turn are fractured among themselves into some twenty-five parties or factions, which have little to do with each other. It is my conviction that, if a restoration movement was the only answer to the divided condition of the religious world in the beginning of the nineteenth century, it should be the answer to our own sectarian divisions in the middle of the twentieth century. The conditions which existed to call forth the original

   [Page 4]

   restoration are now duplicated among us. These cry out for the original remedy. More than anything else we need now to recapture that spirit which motivated the Campbells, Stone, Scott, and others of their contemporaries, and which prompted them to labor unceasingly for unity among the Christians in all sects. That spirit is needed to produce unity among the sects which have grown up around the restoration movement.
   
6. What is your personal approach to the problems created by divisions in the restoration movement?
        I simply refuse to recognize the validity of those things which have been allowed to divide us. I will not let things invalidate brotherhood. It would be foolish to deny that walls have been erected, but I look through them and see my brethren on both sides of them. Love makes walls transparent which seem opaque when viewed through eyes of hatred. No wall means as much to me as a brother. Walls are products of men; my brethren are a creation of God. My attitude toward our walls is that of Jesus toward the wall which separated Jew and Gentile. His love was great enough to reach beyond the wall and encompass those on both sides of it. By the love exemplified in the cross he battered down the partition. "He has made a unity of the conflicting elements of Jew and Gentile, by breaking down the barrier which lay between us." Only love for those on both sides could do that. The Jews and Gentiles had tried every other means prescribed by human wisdom. They merely pushed the wall of hostility to greater heights. I refuse to allow the barricades men have erected to become a spite wall in my heart.
        Men are not my brethren because they have Bible classes or oppose them; because they use individual cups or oppose them; because they believe in Bible colleges or oppose them; because they endorse orphan homes or oppose them; or defend and use instrumental music in worship or oppose it. They are my brothers because they have the same Father as myself. They were not born of endorsement or opposition to the great host of things which now divide us, but of the water and of the Spirit. I do not love them because of their position on these matters, but because I love the Father. "Every one who believes that Jesus is the Christ is a child of God, and every one who loves the parent loves the child" (1 John 5:1).
7. Is this not a kind of weak, compromising position which leads to endorsement of just about any thing?
        Indeed not! He who so assumes is ignorant of that for which we contend. The position we occupy does not necessitate one compromising his conviction on anything. It only places persons and things in proper relation to each other. It creates a proper sense of values, and allows you to view brotherhood in a right perspective. One must have a frame of reference in which to visualize fellowship in its varied aspects, else he will be at sea without a compass, when winds of doubt and waves of division arise. It is our contention that Jesus provides the answer. During his entire earthly sojourn he was confronted with those who attached greater value to things than they did to persons. In Matthew 10:31 he taught that a man is of more value than many sparrows; in Matthew 6:26 that he was much better than the fowls of the air; in Matthew 12:12 that he was much better than a sheep; and in Luke 13:15 that he was better than an ox or an ass. He also taught that the life is greater than food, and the body than raiment. The reason

   [Page 5]

   for such instruction was its need among those who were unable to view man in proper relation to things.
        Jesus taught that due regard for a brother was of greater value than a public act of religious service. "So that if, while you are offering your gift at the altar, you should remember that your brother has something against you, you must leave your gift there before the altar and go away. Make your peace with your brother first, then come and offer your gift" (Matt. 5:23, 24). Our Lord did not compromise his views on the service of God, the altar, or gifts, but he did show that proper relationship with a brother is of prime importance. We need to think a long time on the phrase "your brother first."
        We have inherited a sad state of affairs from our fathers. The family of God is divided over missionary' societies, instrumental music, orphans homes, cups, colleges, and a host of other things. All of these may be important, for the significance of anything which divides God's people must never be overlooked. But not one of these, nor all of them together, is equal to the value of a brother. If I allow my position on any of them to blot out, erase, and nullify my relationship with my brothers, I endanger my soul. It is the spirit of evil which separates and segregates the children of the Father into warring camps. It was acceptance of Jesus as God's Son which brought us into relationship and I refuse to allow anything short of irreverence for His majesty and rule, to separate me from my brethren in Him. It is the weak man who seeks to solve the problem by dividing and running away. The strong one remains, faces up to the issue, and continues to labor and to wait for the Spirit operating through love, to bring things into focus.
8. How can you retain your convictions on these issues that divide, and fraternize with those of the opposition?
        That is easy when one gets through "playing God" and holding every one else accountable to himself. When I am with brethren who differ with me on some thing (and that is the only kind I am ever with), I set forth my views, and listen to theirs. If given an opportunity, I reason with them in a spirit of meekness and love, but I do not seek to bind my views on them as a requisite to fellowship or brotherhood. My brethren do not belong to me. They are servants of another. If they can justify their conduct with their Master, it is not necessary for them to clear it with me. "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth."
        I do not have to give account for the views of any person on earth except my own. I cannot force others to see everything as I do. "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." If a brother cannot agree with my views on cups, classes, or colleges, I shall not allow that to cancel my love for him, nor destroy my relationship as a brother. If I thought all who differed with my views were as "sick" as some seem to think they are, and if I felt that I had the remedy I would be where the sick are. Most of the "physicians" who have all the answers are around collecting money off those whom they flatter as being "well." What would the world think if all the physicians got a monopoly on healing drugs and shut themselves up in a club house, and threatened to throw one out of the "charmed circle" who visited the sick. Must we conclude that a physician endorses illness because he visits among and seeks to help the sick? And must a physician always be talking about the patient's illness while with him, or might he not occasionally discuss other and more agreeable things? The problem of many of my brethren is the same as that of the scribes and Pharisees who could not understand how Jesus could fraternize with publicans and sinners and yet not endorse sin.
9. If you oppose the use of instrumental music in the public praise service how can you recognize those who use it as brethren?
        It is good to deal frankly with this question. I hear it over and over. It

   [Page 6]

   seems to be the acid test. I think it has been elevated to a position hardly commensurate with its real value. As a result it has been made a criterion by both sides to the controversy. I have found many who use the instrument and who defend it with such blind fury that they look upon any relaxation in its use as a compromise with the "antis" and this they regard almost an unpardonable sin. I have been in meetings where members arose and stalked from the house when it was announced that in deference to my conviction, the instrument would not be played.
        On the other hand, many of those who use the instrument, but who adopt the title "Church of Christ," have experienced the embarrassing act of visitors arising and stamping out of the building, when the piano or organ begins to play. Such protests do little good except to show the rudeness and intemperance of those who engage in them, and to demonstrate that the use of the instrument has now created an emotional problem, the most difficult type with which to deal. The instrument has become a symbol of intangibles. To one group it is an emblem of freedom and independency; to the other, a sign of degeneration and apostasy. Those who use it would as soon see "Old Glory" stripped from the mast and trampled underfoot as to give it up; those who oppose it would as soon see Satan declaiming from the pulpit as to see the piano on it.
        The folly of elevating such a visible thing as a criterion for measurement of invisible things is realized when you stop to consider that many who use the instrument are not free, but enslaved; and many who oppose it lead immoral lives. But in such an atmosphere it is difficult to examine a matter objectively, and both sides fear and question the motives of the other. However, the very emphasis upon this subject provides a real test of our thesis on brotherhood and fellowship. If it will bridge so great a chasm we need not be concerned about lesser gaps.
        But why has this issue assumed such importance? A number of factors, no doubt, contribute to it. One is the violence with which it was introduced, frequently with utter disregard for the feelings of brethren. I have known congregations in which the instrument was spirited in at night and the lock changed on the door. I have also known places where some who opposed it, also went at night, climbed in through a window, took a pole-ax and smashed the offending organ to smithereens. In northern Missouri there is a community where the church split, and the non-instrument forces were driven out in the dead of winter. They forthwith built a meeting-house with a door so narrow that no organ could ever be brought in. One rather portly brother had a time even getting in to the worship service.
        Too, the congregations frequently resorted to the civil law to resolve their suits for the buildings. These court tests with their resultant bad feelings crystallized the party spirit for several generations. Regardless of who won, the winning party always acclaimed it as a victory for truth, and hailed the judge as a wise brilliant jurist. The other side generally appealed to a higher court, in the mistaken view that truth would fare better in a more elevated judiciary. Frequently one side won the meetinghouse and lost the respect of their neighbors.
        Another reason for the intensity of feeling on this matter is the tangible nature of the instrument. It is visible to the eye, and is not, therefore, like the reasoning on some abstract theory or point of doctrine. A man who knew little or no scripture, and who was unlearned in the Bible, knew an organ when he saw one and could be lined up on one side or the other, and thus made to join in a dispute where he frequently made up in noise what he lacked in knowledge and judgment. And his vote counted as much as that of a gifted saint. Because of all these things and the reams of paper that have been written on the subject pro and con, and because of the prejudice and party spirit which has

   [Page 7]

   grown out of the controversy, it is a real test.
        However, and this is very important to remember, it does not actually affect the subject of fellowship when that word is used in its scriptural connotation. Unfortunately the term has acquired in "Church of Christ" circles a meaning which the Spirit never gave it. I note that those who oppose me so vigorously do not even know what I mean when I talk about fellowship. In spite of all my writing on the subject they have not yet grasped the import of what I am saying. They are thinking of a wholly different thing when they ask if I fellowship those who use instrumental music, than I am when I reply that I am in fellowship with many who use it. They have been conditioned to think in a certain channel when "fellowship" and "instrumental music" are mentioned in conjunction with each other.
        I am in the fellowship with those who use instrumental music in exactly the same way I am in the fellowship with those who do not. My being in the fellowship with the former is not because they use it; my being in fellowship with the latter is not because they oppose it. We do not come into fellowship because of either position on the subject, but because we are born again. One is not born of a position of endorsement or opposition to instrumental music, but of the water and the Spirit.
        Before the instrument was introduced it is admitted by both groups that we were all God's children and brethren. Putting in the instrument did not change our family relationship. Suppose that one Lord's Day a congregation gathered and sat down as brethren at the Lord's table in spite of tension over the music question. During the week an instrument is brought in, and the brethren who oppose it feel obligated to worship where the offending instrument is absent. Does this fact alter the family status? It is my contention that it does not, but in such a community we will have some brethren who insist on having the instrument regardless of the feeling of others of the brethren. But they are still brethren, and for me that simplifies the matter. I am told to love the brethren, and to let brotherly love continue. I propose to love all of my brethren, for I must do so to have eternal life. "We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love remains in death."
        I am not obligated to love instrumental music, missionary societies, institutional homes, one container, individual cups, leavened bread, unleavened bread, fermented wine, unfermented grape juice, etc. I violate no requirement of God when I do not. But I am obligated to love the brethren, and with me that is all of them. I have no half-brothers or step-brothers in the Lord. "And this commandment we have from him, that he who loves God should love his brother also." I am, therefore, forced to conclude either that endorsement of instrumental music cancels out the relationship created by the new birth, or I am obligated to love, respect and exhibit brotherly kindness to those of my brethren who use it. As ridiculous as the first alternative appears, it is the very position adopted by our ancestors a century ago, and which has now led to such extremes on both sides.
        I simply refuse to allow one camp of brethren to capture me and place me in their corral where I must deny brotherhood to others who have been born into God's family. I have no right to choose who my brethren shall be. God determines that. It is out of my hands. But I must love my brethren or I will be damned. Admittedly, it is more difficult to love some than others, but I have resolved that difficulty. I love them through Jesus. The tie that binds me to them does not run directly from my heart to theirs, so their views and opinions do not create a short circuit and are no impediment. It runs to Jesus, and because I am bound to him, I am bound through him to all whom he has received. If I can just love Jesus enough to encompass all whom he loves, then my

   [Page 8]

   love flowing through him will embrace my brethren--all of them!
        It is absurd to talk about fellowshipping cups, classes, leavened bread, orphan homes, instrumental music and such things, simply because they are things! We are not in fellowship with things, but with people. The word "fellow" shows that. I do not endorse instrumental music, or a host of other things which divide the brethren, but I am in fellowship with all of my brethren, for fellowship, as the Spirit regards it, is brotherhood. Now, in answer to my querist, it is no real problem for me to recognize as brethren those who use instrumental music, even though I am opposed to it. The truth is that the only kind of persons with whom I am in fellowship, are those with whom I disagree. There are no other kind as far as I am concerned.
10. Was not the question of how to regard members of the Christian Church settled seventy years ago? Why resurrect it and disturb us?
         My concern is not about how to treat members of "The Christian Church" or any other party among us. I am concerned with how to treat God's children, and my brothers, regardless of where they may be. There is only one church now. There never was but one, and never can be another. If the word "church" is to be retained as a translation of ekklesia, it must refer to the whole assembly of the saved throughout this earth. If there is one body, there must be one church, and only one. "He is the head of the body, the church." The church embraces every saved person on this earth. Every child of God is a member of it; every member of it is a child of God. But no faction can be that one body, and the one body is no faction!
         No question is ever settled, so far as God is concerned, until it is settled properly. If our fathers, in the midst of the feud occasioned by instrumental music and societies, decided not to regard members of "The Christian Church" as brethren, then their decision was wrong. The prerogative of deciding who are children of the Father, belongs unto Him, not to the other children, and those who arrogate to themselves such a right are presumptuous. Their decision constitutes a human creed, and they are guilty of the sectarian attitude. Such decisions need to reversed. A thousand years of maintaining the status quo will not sanctify evil. The tradition of our elders should not be allowed to make void the law of God.
         But where does this leave questions such as that pertaining to the use of instrumental music? It leaves them where they should always have been, matters of discussion among brethren--not questions of strife between enemies and aliens! What about those who, because of conscience and conviction, cannot worship where the instruments are used? Let them worship elsewhere, but not in an aura of hate and animosity toward those who disagree with them. Not all members of the same family can live amicably under the same roof, but they need not deny or renounce the family relationship because they occupy separate quarters. They can constantly seek through love to improve the situation. It is not so much geographical, as spiritual, affinity for which we labor.
         As to disturbing the brethren over these matters which they have put to sleep, and about which they have gone to sleep, perhaps nothing is more essential to our future wellbeing. The stagnant pools covered with the green scum of partisan security need to he agitated. The freshets of God's love need to purge and purify our relationships. Too long have we perpetuated the spiritual feuds of yesterday. It is time to re-think our position as to relationship in Jesus, to rise above the altercations and embroilments which have made a laughing-stock out of our plea to the dissident religious syndicates about us. There is nothing sacred about the mere human judgments of seventy years ago. There are now no laws made by men which are as unalterable as those of the Medes and Persians.
         Let us discuss the issues which divide

    [Page 9]

    us, with a view to lessening, and not increasing the distance between us. When we rise from the common council table, if we are no closer to each other, let us not have worsened our state. If we continue as we are, we will embalm our divergencies and bequeath to our own posterity a condition much worse than that which was passed on to us. Let me make it clear that my interest is not in how to regard a faction, sect or party, but in what attitude I should manifest toward my brethren who are scattered among the various sects men have created. God does not love sects, but he does love men.
11. Does not the fad that you oppose instrumental music make you a member of an anti-instrument party?
         Not at all. It would if I allowed that to become a test of fellowship. If one declares that he does not consider as being in his fellowship any person who believes in the use of instrumental music in public worship, he then separates and segregates himself from such brethren, and is a member of an anti-instrument party, or faction. I strive to make nothing a test of fellowship which God has not made a condition of salvation. I am not a spokesman for, nor a champion of, a non-instrument party or faction. I do not propose to be factional about the host of other things which separate my brethren.
         Holding the personal convictions which are mine, I think the brethren who introduced the instrument into the corporate worship were mistaken, and in error. But they are my brethren. If I equated fellowship with perfection in knowledge, and waited until I could be in fellowship only with those who were right on everything I would wait a long time. Come to think of it, I could not qualify for such fellowship myself!

     With the kind indulgence of our readers, we shall continue to reply to questions we have received, in our next issue also. Please remember that you need not agree with our answers for us to love and respect you as brethren in the Lord. We do not commend you to our views and opinions as your hope of life, but to the word of God. We humbly seek to follow it, and recognize your divine right to go to it for yourself. Unity is not conformity. In truth, there can be no unity among men, except the unity of diversity. This is no new thought. Lord Bacon, who was born on January 22, 1561, four hundred years ago, declared, "They be two things, unity and conformity." Most of our difficulties have arisen because we thought they were the same. Until our next issue, we commend you unto God and the word of His grace, which is able to build you up. "Little children, let us not love in word or speech, but in deed and in truth."