Getting Untangled

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 1]

     It was Rupertus Meldenius who coined the slogan, "In essentials unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity." Those who are heirs of the Restoration movement have generally altered this to read, "In matters of faith, unity; in matters of opinion, liberty; in all things, charity." Unquestionably, the formula was originally pronounced as a basis for encouraging unity through promotion of charity in all things. In application, however, it has produced division through argument over the first two points. It is not an exaggeration to say that we are a people splintered by a slogan.

     While our disunity is regrettable and disgraces our profession it is not wholly bad. It is apparent that it is an indirect result of a motivation that is commendable. There has been a constant attempt to preserve what men conceive to be "matters of faith" and a determined resistance against erosion of spiritual values by allowing "matters of faith" to be relegated to the realm of "matters of opinion." It is possible that, in an attempt to avoid the chaos of anarchy, we have adopted the coercion of dogmatism, but we have done so with a view of defending the faith.

     It is our personal view that our fathers when confronted with the problem of innovations were betrayed into adopting a philosophy of attempting to preserve doctrinal purity by separation from brethren. This was no doubt the result of fear prompted by a love for truth. We do not censure them for their decision. No doubt they did the best they could under the circumstances but they passed along to us not only a heritage of disunity but the thought-pattern which will continue to divide us every time someone is forced by conscience to dissent from the party norm. We have lived long enough to see what our fathers could not see--the fruit of the seed which they planted. If we expect to eliminate the fruit of strife we must stop planting the seed of division.

     It is apparent that our philosophy for settling problems is not of God, for He is "not the author of confusion but of peace." To continue blindly along the road to disunity under the mistaken idea that every time we create a new faction we please God and plant his church anew is to perpetuate a species of folly which does no honor to our mental processes. Nor can we retain the philosophy and half-heartedly settle our lesser difficulties on a different basis. We must reject and renounce the whole theory that brotherhood is based upon conformity and that we please the Father by treating some of his children like pagans and pariahs. We must go all the way back to the place where the philosophy was adopted and began to be applied and restore a sense of brotherhood and family relationship in which to approach our varied problems from a totally new perspective.

     In an honest attempt to do this very thing I propose an investigation of our ac-

[Page 2]

cepted slogan. I shall be quite candid and forthright for no other attitude will achieve what needs to be done in restoring the framework of peace. I am aware that what I am about to say will run counter to what most of us have always been taught but it is what we have always been taught that has created our partisan position and shivered us into splinters. We can never regain unity by merely promoting and parroting the party line which is responsible for our disunity.

     It would be easy and pleasant for me to deal only with the divisions that have occurred by opposition of brethren to those things approved by the segment with which I have been associated. We can brush aside their arguments as inconsequential and look upon them with a kind of tolerant compassion. For example, we have always had Bible classes on Lord's Day. By the same token, I think we have always regarded those who oppose such classes as being somewhat immature and childish. We knew that classes were in the realm of opinion and why any one should make a great ado about it was beyond us. The fact that the opposition regarded classes as in the realm of faith we discounted as being characteristic of "hobbyists."

     The same thing is true regarding individual containers for the fruit of the vine in the Lord's Supper. In our particular faction this was a mere matter of opinion. We were not seeking to bind the practice on anyone. We used individual cups but if others wanted to use one drinking glass that was their business. We would not disturb them and we didn't want them bothering us. We could smile benignly upon those who "ignorantly" regarded such things as matters of faith and patronizingly pray that the Lord would open their eyes so they could see as well as ourselves.

     I could ingratiate myself with the members of the party in which I grew up, some of whom think I have "gone liberal" as they quaintly express it, if I would confine this article to a defence of what we have. I could make it clear that we regard those who oppose cups and classes as brethren, that we do not propose to bind these things upon them, and we will tolerate them while they are "growing up" to our ideal stature. This would reassure my associates who have not known quite how to regard me or what to do with me. They would feel that I was "back in the fold" and that I was "safe" and "sound."

     But there is another side to the story. There are those who have adopted things we have always opposed, such as institutional homes, a professional pastor system, missionary societies and instrumental music. In these things the shoe is on the other foot and the same brethren who are so anxious for me to label cups and classes as matters of opinion now insist that I regard these other things as matters of faith. But the brethren who have them look upon them as matters of opinion and they are a little bit amused that we create such a furore over them and regard them as matters of faith. They are not generally seeking to bind them upon us and they are perfectly willing to tolerate us if we will "stay out of their hair" and not agitate them about matters they consider to be opinions.

     I confess I would feel a little forlorn about our faction if it were not for the fact that almost every other faction is in the same boat, or in another boat on the same pond. Each faction belongs both to "the haves" and "the have-nots" with the possible exception of the one on top and the one on the bottom of the party pile. To the one on top everything is a "matter of opinion" and they have no faith; to the one on the bottom everything is a "matter of faith" and they have no opinion, that is, they do not think. The first is pro-everything and the second is anti-everything! In between these two are all the rest of us striving to distinguish between what we call "faith" and "opinion." Is there any alleviation possible for our divided state or must we be doomed to constant dissension and strife? Perhaps we are too optimistic but we would like to suggest that a non-partisan evaluation of our state may provide a better framework for our future association. Be-

[Page 3]

fore we make any suggestions let us observe the following points which may serve as a foundation for our study.

     1. In our currently divided state anything which is possessed by one faction and opposed by the members of another is regarded as a "matter of opinion" by those possessing it and a "matter of faith" by those opposing it. Thus, everything which is credited with contributing to division is regarded by some brethren as in the realm of faith and by others as in the realm of opinion. Missionary societies, instrumental music, colleges, the one-man pastor system, orphan homes, classes, individual cups, fermented wine, and all the host of other troublesome issues are either "matters of faith" or "matters of opinion" depending upon the perspective from which they are viewed.

     2. In our naive vocabulary a sectarian is one who has what we oppose; a hobbyist is one who opposes what we have. In the faction in which I was reared those who endorsed instrumental music were sectarians; those who opposed classes and individual containers were hobbyists. In turn, we were categorized as sectarian by those who opposed cups and classes. All of the factions regard others as sectarian or hobbyistic except the farthest extreme groups. To one of these everyone else is a hobbyist and there are no sectarians; to the other everyone else is a sectarian and there are no hobbyists.

     3. The divine revelation affords no specific catalogue of what we term "matters of faith" and "matters of opinion" and does not use these terms to designate or define separate areas. Principles are laid down which are to be used as guide-posts of interpretation and warnings are issued against the dogmatic spirit. If you were to give one hundred men each a sheet of paper and ask them to list all matters of faith on one side and all matters of opinion on the other side, it is probable that no two lists would be the same, unless the authors indulged in partisan collusion and consultation.

     4. Every party is built around certain points of emphasis and these are made central in the thought and essential to the existence of that party. These points are always based upon interpretation of certain scriptures or upon inferences drawn from the scriptures. They are not matters of positive revelation and for this reason are not concurred in universally. Although agreement is demanded upon these matters in order to remain in the good graces of the party, wide divergencies of viewpoint are entertained and tolerated in other areas.

     Take the average non-instrument "Church of Christ" which has Bible classes, for example. When others oppose their classes the members insist upon acceptance of their decision that this is in the realm of opinion. But when opposing instrumental music they insist that those who have it also accept their decision that it is in the realm of faith. They are to be supreme judges in every case. On what ground can one party argue that it is the sole repository of truth and all others must kow-tow to its decisions and distinctions? If we demand that those who use the instrument, which they regard as a matter of opinion, give it up in behalf of unity, are we not by the same reasoning obligated to give up classes and individual cups, which we regard as matters of opinion, in order to have unity? Who determines which one of our more than two dozen parties is "the faithful church" to whose infallible pronouncements and irrevocable decisions all others must do obeisance?

[Page 4]

     It is this web of inconsistencies and maze of absurdities into which we have fallen that make so many despair of our ever attaining to any degree of workable unity. I do not agree with their pessimistic outlook. On the contrary I regard our divided state as one which clamors so loudly for correction that something will be done because something must be done. Something is being done! We will not alleviate the situation by trying to untangle each knot in the snarled up mess. We must go back and re-think our position on the basis of righteousness, truth and love, without reference to partisan prejudice. We cannot solve our problem, for instance, by attacking it as members of two warring clans- -"The Christian Church" and "The Church of Christ." We can only solve it by approaching it as brothers in the Lord and members of the one body. Let us study it in that light just once and see what a difference it makes.

     Simply because the problems involved in the use of the instrument have been so great I want to deal with it in this discussion. Perhaps no other question has troubled the heirs of the Restoration movement any more than this one. I have previously analyzed for our readers the historical, temperamental and psychological factors which elevated it to a status not commensurate with its value. I cannot now review those things, but it is generally recognizable that this is a major barrier in our relationship. If we can resolve it or even lessen the tensions it has created we will by that very achievement do much to adjust other and lesser problems. Regardless of other points of dissension we have two great segments of the Restoration movement today which are distinguished from each other by their respective attitudes toward instrumental music in the corporate worship. They are even frequently referred to as "instrumental" and "non-instrumental," thus demonstrating that this is a prime issue.

     Those who oppose instrumental music generally assert that it is in the realm of faith; those who endorse it affirm that it is a matter of opinion. Both sides agree that no opinion should be made a test of fellowship and that we should be tolerant with divergent opinions. However, so long as one side regards the use of the instrument as being in the realm of faith it appears there can be no fraternization until the other is willing to renounce the instrument. Accordingly, those who oppose the instrument refuse any brotherly recognition to those who employ it. Generally they will not even call on such a person to lead in prayer if he visits their meetings; frequently they refuse to acknowledge him as a child of God or a brother in the Lord Jesus Christ.

     Those who use instrumental music in corporate worship are convinced that their opposers are making laws which God did not make and are seeking to bind such laws upon them. They feel their Christian liberty is at stake and to relinquish the instrument at the demand of the opposing forces is to "surrender to the antis." They rebel against the very thought of acknowledging that to be a sin which their conscience leads them to believe is a matter of indifference. The two attitudes create a stalemate and make it appear there is no way by which a real sense of brotherhood can be restored until one side or the other "gives in." Neither side can conscientiously do so with their current views.

     Which viewpoint is correct? Is the use of the instrument in the realm of faith or is it in the realm of opinion? Because there are two answers given we may find a solution which will allow us to regard each other as Christians and make it pos-

[Page 5]

sible for us to work together in some areas although we may not eliminate all of the points of tension and friction. This will certainly be better than the present state of absolute isolation from each other. We must begin by a recognition of each other as brothers. This is easily done if we will visualize a congregation worshiping together as brethren in Christ. Certain ones begin to suggest that they would like to see an instrument used in the praise service. The controversy eventually waxes warm and they separate from each other. Those who desired to have the instrument now begin using one. So there are two groups of worshipers in the community; one with the instrument, the other without. But if they were brothers before, they are brothers still. Putting in an instrument did not negate the new birth by which they entered God's family.

     Each must admit the honesty of the other. Opposition to an instrument does not make one honest; endorsement of the instrument does not make one dishonest. So we have two groups of honest brethren differing as to the scriptural propriety of instrumental music. Since we are obligated to avoid "setting at nought a brother" each must treat the other with proper respect and regard for the divine relationship. It will help to remember that the new covenant scriptures nowhere specifically brand the use of instrumental music as a sin. Those who conclude it is a sin do so by deduction from certain scriptural principles. Those who endorse the instrument say that such deduction is not warranted by the facts in the case. Whether or not the use of the instrument is justified is a question of interpretation.

     It is the opinion of one group based upon study of God's revelation that the use of instrumental music is wrong; it is the opinion of the other group based upon their study of God's word that its use is justifiable. It is a matter of opinion then whether the use of the instrument is a "matter of faith" or a "matter of opinion." Since all are agreed that we dare not divide over opinions, we are obligated to respect the views of each other until such time as we can decide whether the question is in the realm of faith or opinion. When we can all agree upon whether it is one or the other the question will be settled, for all of us are anxious to have unity on matters of faith, and to avoid division over matters of opinion. Meanwhile, one side of the issue cannot dogmatically assert it is one or the other and force brethren into conformity contrary to conscience. All we can do is to avoid making it a test of fellowship until we arrive at the point where we can sincerely agree upon its status.

     But suppose we never reach such agreement? We must continue to love and respect each other as brethren until we stand before the judgment bar of God. He will adjust all of those matters in conformity with his own will and eternal purpose. "But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ" (Romans 14:10). All matters not clearly revealed will finally be adjudicated by Him to whom all of us, instrumental and non-instrumental alike, claim to direct our praise and homage. We are not commanded to love instrumental music but we are commanded to love our brethren and not to "set them at nought" over matters of opinion.

     Does this mean that in many communities the brethren will continue to meet in separate locations? Certainly so. In some areas, through love which transcends all else, there may be a gradual integration of forces which will enable all to maintain spiritual integrity of individual conscience. In most cases this will not soon occur, in many cases it will never do so. But there will be a recognition of brotherhood and a realistic application of the principle of local autonomy of the congregation which will enable both groups to respect the opinion of each other. The oneness for which we plead is not a geographical unity but a spiritual affinity. There are many areas besides singing in which we do agree and in these we may lift up a united witness and testimony. We should not allow our views about one facet of service in which we dis-

[Page 6]

agree to negate all of those areas in which we agree. Because one light is burnt out in a chandelier is no excuse for bursting all of the other bulbs and creating a total blackout. If someone throws a ball through the front window we will gain nothing by smashing all the others out!

     What can one do whose conscience forbids him to join in the praise service when an instrument is used? He can refrain from singing under such circumstances and should do so. He need not be impolite or boorish, but remember the injunction, "Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God" (Rom. 14:22). He can meditate in silence and be grateful to God that an increasing passion of love for the brotherhood makes it possible for him to respect those whose views and opinions are so divergent from his own. At the same time he can pray for the day when an even greater sense of fellowship and unity will dispel the clouds and clear the mists away.

     Would it not be better for such a person just to stay away from meetings where the instrument is used? This depends upon the person. Each must be allowed the liberty of private decision. As for myself, I cannot stay away from those whom I love and regard as brothers. I feel obligated on the basis of 2 Corinthians 2:8 to confirm my love to all of my brothers. I think this must be done through association and by overt acts. I want to learn from my brothers regardless of how much I differ with them on certain things. I do not want to impoverish my spirit by an attitude of exclusivism.

     I am sometimes asked how I am received by those among whom I go. I can truthfully state that a majority of the brethren in all of the various factions and segments are kind and considerate. There are always exceptions, of course. In one school where I spoke in the chapel service, one of the professors declared I was not in fellowship with them, contrary to my avowal, because I did not join in the singing when the instrument was played. Upon several other occasions the brethren have exhibited some resentment because I stood in respectful silence during the song service. I overlook these little childish demonstrations of the party spirit toward me because I realize there is a deeply ingrained fear of and animosity toward the "Antis" by every group. It is difficult for many to see how one can be opposed to the use of instrumental music and not be a part of an "Anti-instrument party." Actually, those who demand that one sing where the instrument is used are clearly making the instrument a test of fellowship. It will take a long time to outgrow our traditional feelings and we will need to make a good many allowances for each other.

     I cannot help but feel that it is best for us to face up frankly and openly to our differences. I do not mean that we should argue about them all of the time as if these were the only matters of value in the Christian life. Most of them are not central to the Christian concept at all. But we should not be wishy-washy and namby-pamby. When I call upon a brother from the "Christian Church" who attends my meetings I have no illusions about his views. I know he does not agree with my ideas about instrumental music. If I waited to call upon one who agreed with me on every interpretation I would never call upon anyone. When I move freely among those who use instrumental music they know my position. It is precisely because we differ and recognize the fact that makes our joint association so effective in dispelling the evil influence of the party spirit.

     Because I believe in congregational autonomy I do not demand when brethren invite me to address them that they silence the instrument. When they voluntarily do so out of deference to my feelings and the views of those who accompany me, I rejoice, not because the instrument is not used, but because of the manifestation of brotherly love and courtesy which are the ornaments of Christian humility. Ornaments may not make a person any better but they may make him more attractive.

     Instrumental music is not our only problem. It is just one of many. I have referred to it because, in the eyes of many,

[Page 7]

it is the gravest one. Indeed, there are those among the two dozen non-instrument factions who would gladly discuss settling the differences among themselves if we would exclude the brethren who use the instrument from consideration. This is a childish approach and will never really settle anything. We are divided because we have inherited a philosophy of maintaining doctrinal purity by division among brethren. This fallacious and unworkable system was devised by our fathers and first applied by them when instrumental music was introduced. It is useless to try and adjust our problems which have arisen since that time while retaining the false concept which gave them birth.

     The axe must be laid at the root of the tree. We must go back to the initial cleavage and restore the concept of brotherhood in spite of differences. There is little use to grub out the sprouts while the roots lie untouched for we will only provide for other divisions in the future. What I have said in this essay about instrumental music is applicable to charitable institutions, colleges, individual cups, Bible classes, uninspired literature, fermented wine, and all of the other troublesome issues. Many who are upon both sides of these questions are honest, sincere, humble saints of God. They want to serve Him acceptably. They do not want to be uncharitable and divisive. They realize the sad state in which Zion languishes.

     But they have grown up in parties, or grown up and come into parties, each of which thinks it is the church of God to the exclusion of all others. They cannot see how they can be true to God and love those who differ with them to the extent that they can cut across the party lines. The hope for the future lies in the fact that without a single exception everyone of these will affirm that we dare not divide over opinions. Now we do not ask those who use individual containers to regard this as a matter of faith and seek to bind their use upon others. We would oppose that. Neither do we ask those who oppose individual containers to regard it as a matter of opinion and begin to adopt them. We would oppose that as a flagrant violation of conscience.

     Here is our proposal. Since honest brethren sincerely disagree over whether the use of individual containers is a matter of faith or a matter of opinion, let us remember that it is a problem of interpretation. The big question now before us is an opinion as to whether the use of cups is a matter of faith or a matter of opinion. Since we cannot force another to see the things as we do let us respect each man's right of opinion as to which category is correct. In this fashion we can at least maintain a relationship which will allow us to work together in many areas as brethren with hope that time, love, and the Holy Spirit, may bring to pass a better day. No one need give up any truth he has ever learned, no one need sacrifice one item of conscience. Let congregations determine their own procedure with utmost love for others who differ. Let us visit each other and share with each other in such meetings as do not demand sacrifice of spiritual integrity.

     To those who put Christ first and exalt him above all else a sense of brotherhood is greater than any view about music or cups. As the divine magnet who draws all men unto himself, he should exert enough power to hold us close enough to him that we shall remain together. So long as Jesus is our only creed this will be true; when we allow other things to become a creed we will dissolve over differences. If Jesus is central in our concept of The Way, our agreement in him will be more powerful than our disagreement about things on the rim of Christianity. We will he transformed by him rather than conformed to each other.

     But we are asked if a man can reach heaven who is in error? Certainly so, else there would be no one in heaven. Freedom from error is not a condition of reaching heaven; it is attitude toward error which determines our worthiness or unworthiness. One cannot renounce a thing as error until he learns it is an error. There is a difference between being evil and being mistaken. No man is in-

[Page 8]

fallible so no one is free from error. We must not equate wrong notions with rebellion against God. One can misunderstand a parent without revolting against his authority. There are some in every party who are dishonest and unjust; there are many who are honestly doing the best they know how to do. None of us know all there is to know about everything; all of us have much to learn. We can learn more readily and help each other more fully, if we will treat one another with brotherly kindness and courtesy. This is the way of love!