Adventures in Religion

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 11]

     It is difficult for men to grasp the implications of the fatherhood of God. Even though Jesus came as a visible demonstration of the love of God for humanity we tend always to revert to legalistic ritual as a means of warding off divinely ordained calamity. Sinners as we are, we seek to expiate our transgressions by our own puny sacrifices and to atone for our guilt by our feeble offerings. We never seem to be able to remember that he offered himself once for all and that he made the only atonement in which there is any efficacy. We are living B.C. lives in an A.D. age. And because we are doing so we are never able to free ourselves from a consciousness of guilt. There is remembrance made of our sins every year, and in some cases, every day!

     Torn between realization of our own tendency to fall into temptation and the dread of impending doom for having done so, we struggle on enshrouded in remorse for the past and in abject fear of the future. Always under such conditions men seek to alleviate their mental torture by devising and imposing upon themselves new restraints and regulations in the mistaken belief that observance of these makes them better than other men, and that thus they come closer to the divine ideal. The most sacred ordinances become subject to meticulous scrutiny. Mote-seeking becomes the chief vocation of modern Pharisaical partisans.

     The whole problem, as Paul so well states it in Galatians 4, is that the fulness of time has come and God wants to treat us as sons but in our spiritual immaturity we continue to demand that we be regarded as slaves. And because the Father has removed us from law and placed us under grace we strive to convert grace into a law. We have a greater feeling of security when we are behind a fence and if God will not provide us with a fence we will construct one of our own. We are careful to make it portable so we can take in more ground or give up some, as the mood strikes us or as we listen to the spellbinding persuasiveness of a modern lawyer or scribe.

     Even when man was under a divine law which was "holy, just and good," he constantly sought to weave more strands into the rope with which he was bound. Never quite sure that he was pleasing God he attempted to ingratiate himself in the divine favor by adding more legalistic details. The Mishnah is full of trivialities which were discussed in all seriousness as if the hope of humanity was dependent upon their proper disposal. The Sabbath was to be a day of rest, free from all servile work. It was agreed that bearing a burden was work, but what constituted a burden? If a burden was something which one lifted or carried on his person, what about a cripple who buckled on a wooden leg, or a man who wore a false tooth? If one could not carry a stone, could he still lift up one large enough to toss at a bird or throw at his cattle?

     We have gone one step further. Having been freed from the bondage of law we have converted "the new spiritual principle of life in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 8:2 --J. B. Phillips) into a law and then proceeded to do as all legalists inevitably do. We have adopted our interpretations as law and bound them upon others as the divine intent. The most solemn and sacred ordinances, intended to convey a blessing and strengthen our sense of oneness, have become the battlefields of partisan hatred. In their emphasis upon de-

[Page 12]

tails men have forsaken the very spirit and purpose of the observance and are left holding an empty shell from which life has fled. This is clearly seen in the contentions relative to the Lord's Supper which was given as a visible symbol to the world that we are one body (1 Cor.10:17).

     We believe it is time for a thorough examination of "the pattern concept" which has long been the basis of orthodoxy in "Church of Christ" circles. Why was it that when God gave Moses the pattern for the tabernacle, only one building was constructed around which all of the tribes encamped? Now each tribe takes "the pattern" and builds its own tabernacle and all of the other tribes are excluded from any participation in its sacred service. Yet each tribe proclaims that the tabernacle it has constructed is the one "according to the pattern" and all of the others are a sham and pretence, with only hypocrites and apostates ministering therein. We have built more than two dozen different and diverse "Churches of Christ" which have little to do with each other while each proclaims to a startled world that it alone is "according to the pattern."

     It is my intention, God willing, during the next year, to pursue a kindly, but relentless investigation of "the blue print theory" which has been sanctified by sermonizers and used to rend the people of God into warring and feuding construction engineers! Why do brethren contend so vehemently for certain details while at the same time waving others aside as of no consequence? Why do we, of all people, fail to see the difference between preaching and teaching or gospel and doctrine?

     Why do we plod along demanding unity upon the basis of doctrinal conformity when we do not agree upon its implications among ourselves? Why do we make the word "gospel" cover every word of the new covenant scriptures and conclude that a man who does not share our explanation of Revelation 20 has not "obeyed the gospel." Why do we brand and stigmatize every opinion with reference to some point in the epistolary writings as "another gospel"? Our lack of real scholarship is astounding in view of the claim that we alone are right in our interpretation of the sacred writings. We can promise you that the months ahead will contain for you some interesting experiences in research. This is to be a real adventure in the realm of the Spirit. But it will provide no pleasure for the partisan and prejudiced!