The Basis of Authority

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 1]

     It was on July 4, 1823, that Alexander Campbell wrote the preface to the first edition of "The Christian Baptist." In it he said,

"It is a rarity seldom to be witnessed, to see a person boldly opposing either the doctrinal errors or the unscriptural measures of a people with whom he has identified himself, and to whom he looks for approbation and support. If such a person appears in any party, he soon falls under the frowns of those who either think themselves wiser than the reprover, or would wish so to appear. Hence it usually happens that such a character must lay his hand upon his mouth, or embrace the privilege of walking out of doors. Although this has usually been the case, we would hope that it would not always continue so to be."

     It appears that Campbell's hope has not yet been realized. The quickest road to unpopularity is the criticism of the religious segment or party with which one is identified. In spite of this reforms have to be wrought by such critics and the purity of the church generally is attributable to their efforts. It is in a spirit of humility I pen this article. I have no wish to be censorious. I do feel it is time that we face up realistically to our true status. At the risk of incurring partisan wrath I propose to examine the claims of "The Church of Christ" at its most vital point.

     In every controversy between members of its own factions, or between the members of one such faction and those of another religious group, the first court of appeal is to the proper basis of authority in the Christian religion. It is generally affirmed that the one and only all-sufficient rule of faith and practice is the revelation of God in the sacred scriptures. So classic has this statement become that many members of "The Church of Christ" labor under the impression that they are the only ones who make the claim and that all other religionists have no particular regard for the authority of the scriptures. Strangely enough almost every sect in Protestantism makes the same claim. Let us mention a few of them by way of documentation.

     The Methodist Church in its fifth of the "Articles of Religion" says, "The Holy Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation."

     The United Brethren in Christ in their "Discipline" state, "We believe that the Holy Bible, Old and New Testaments, is the word of God; that it contains the only true way to salvation; that every true Christian is bound to acknowledge and receive it with the influence of the Spirit of God, as the only rule and guide."

     The Presbyterian Church in the United States has in its "Confession of Faith" these words, "Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the word of God written, are

[Page 2]

now contained all of the books of the Old and New Testament...All of which are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life."

     The "Discipline" of the Friends' Church contains the statement, "It has ever been, and still is, the belief of the Friends' Church that the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament were given by inspiration of God; that, therefore, there can be no appeal from them to any other authority whatsoever."

     Confronted with such statements many members of "The Church of Christ" laugh in sheer derision. They brand all of the adherents of these other religious parties as insincere and false to their alleged standard. It is commonly believed that only members of "The Church of Christ" are truly honest in stating that they regard the scriptures as "the only rule of faith and practice." All others who say this are either deceived or deceivers. Now we have no desire to become a professional "debunker" nor operate as an "idol-smasher" but we think it is quite apparent that most members of "The Church of Christ" are laboring under a strong delusion when they express the view that they always "speak where the Bible speaks and remain silent where it is silent."

     Like so many other cliches this one is more easily quoted than practiced. The truth is that the brethren play down a good many things on which the Bible speaks and are quite adept at reading into its silence what they want it to say. They bind upon men the things which appeal to them or which they have learned by tradition from factional fathers, while other things are glossed over as of no importance. To one who really knows "the inside" of the movement, a plea for unity made to the sectarian world by the average preacher in "The Church of Christ" is somewhat ridiculous. It is astonishing how our brethren can make a glowing appeal "to the sects" to acknowledge the truth and become one in Christ, and then engage in a warm debate with a preacher from another faction bearing the same name on the following day.

     "The Church of Christ" represents the most divided religious movement in America in our age. It is split into warring factions over instrumental music, missionary societies, orphan homes, colleges, the pastor system, brotherhood television programs, classes, individual cups, fermented wine, uninspired literature, marriage of divorced persons, and a host of other things. In some southern cities there are as many as fifteen different kinds of "The Church of Christ" and in all there are at least two dozen separate and distinct factions. Each of these regards its adherents as "the loyal brethren" and considers itself as constituting "the faithful church." We have a right to ask "Which Church of Christ is it that speaks where the Bible speaks and remains silent where it is silent?" Every member knows the correct answer but when you tally them up you will find there are some two dozen "correct answers" and all of them different!

     Our brethren are good people. They want to please God and reach heaven. Most of them are neither mean nor malicious but they are victims of their own propaganda. They have told others so often that they have no other creed than the Bible they have come to believe it. They must face up to the fact that although they have no written creed formulated by chosen delegates, they do have as many unwritten creeds as there are parties among them. Whatever a faction makes a "test of fellowship" or demands that one believe to be recognized as "loyal"--that is its creed. We are among the most creed-ridden people in existence today. And if one is to have another creed it would be better to have a written one. The conditions could then be stipulated in writing. As it is, a faction under the spell of a strong leader may change its creed over night and those who were "faithful" yesterday will be disfellowshipped tomorrow. One "stands in jeopardy every hour" under our present factional regime.

     I do not think that God's word is the basis of authority in "The Church of Christ" at all. If it were there would be no schism or factionalism, for this is contrary to the authority of that word which

[Page 3]

brands it as a work of the flesh. I am going to put my finger on some of the sources of authority in "The Church of Christ" because I feel the time has arrived that someone must be quite frank and open. Mind you, I know the penalty for doing this, but I cannot expect others to do what I am too cowardly to do myself.

     I shall be accused of opposing "the Lord's church" but I have no intention of doing this at all. I do not equate "The Church of Christ" with the church of God in an exclusive sense. I am sure that merely being an adherent of "The Church of Christ" does not guarantee that one is thereby a member of the one body. I suspect there are those in "The Church of Christ" who are not members of the one body at all and there may be members of the one body who have not so much as heard of "The Church of Christ." The one body is certainly the church of Christ but it is not necessarily "The Church of Christ."

     I apologize for such apparent bluntness of speech. I know how it sounds to the ears of those of us who have always thought of ourselves as "the elect of God." I could wish that I knew of some gentler manner in which to convey the sad news but I must proceed in my own manner, asking you to forgive any crudity of language. I will be tagged as a "sectarian" for writing this way but I take comfort in the fact that I am less a sectarian now than I have ever been in the past. Certainly I am less a sectarian now than when I thought our faction was "the loyal church" and everyone else was damned and doomed. That spirit of bigotry was the very essence of sectarianism.

     It is a common thing for the brethren to tell other religionists that if they were willing to do what the Lord said there would be no division. On this basis it would appear that those who came nearest to doing what the Lord said would be the least divided. Since we currently represent the most divided movement this is quite a reflection against us. Of course none of our divisions were ever created by anyone doing something the Lord had not authorized. When we have a split both sides insist they have done "what the Lord said." I never knew of a division in "The Church of Christ" in which either side was not "the faithful group."

     Either the word of God is not adequate authority to hold us together or we have unwittingly and inadvertently created other authority which we respect and follow in preference to the word of God. That this last is the case must be admitted, I think, by every truly serious thinker among us. In my discussion of this premise I will not be dogmatic or arbitrary. If you cannot concur in my thinking I shall still love you as a brother. However, I feel we should get these things out in the open and measure up to them. We should not hoodwink or brainwash ourselves into thinking that God will make an exception for us. He will judge us on the same basis as we judge others.

     We need to recapture some very vital distinctions. One relates to the difference between revelation, inspiration, and interpretation. These three are not one. All scripture is given by inspiration. It was not all given by revelation. Revelation is from apokalupsis, "to lay bare, uncover, make naked." Revelation is the method employed by God to uncover for man what he could not discover for himself. Revelation is the transmission of divine thought to the human mind. Interpretation is the application of the human mind to that divine thought in an attempt to grasp its meaning and significance for our life. Revelation from God is infallible but no man's interpretation is infallible. God's thought is absolute but our thought about it cannot be.

     It is a common statement, "We are not divided over what God said, we are divided over what he did not say." In a sense this is correct, in another it is not. Most of our little mottoes and slogans are the creation of immature minds. It is easier to over-simplify than to think through complex issues. Quoting little proverbs of our own construction satisfies us even though they may be contradictory. Actually, most of our divisions have occurred over opinions as to what God meant by what He said. Such opinions

[Page 4]

are accepted as "the will of God" and bound upon others who rebel at being compelled to acknowledge what they cannot personally see in a passage.

     Another distinction which needs to be again established is that relating to gospel and doctrine. The gospel is the Good News concerning Jesus. It is to be proclaimed to aliens to enroll them as citizens. It must be believed to come into relationship with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is that by which we are saved if we keep it in memory. Upon it there can be no difference. It consists of facts to which credible witnesses give testimony. One either believes their testimony or he does not. But the doctrine is the course of instruction for students in the school of Christ. There will be varied degrees of advancement and proficiency in it as in every curriculum demanding acquisition of knowledge. Much of our present difficulty lies in a confusion of these two terms.

     The real authority in many instances is partisan traditionalism. All of us were either born in a factional background or grew up and came into one. So long as there are two dozen parties in "The Church of Christ" no one of these can be the "Lord's church" to the exclusion of those in all others. Each of these factions has its own traditional pattern, each has its "fathers in the faith." The words of these men in debate are quoted as "an end to all controversy." Members of one faction know but vaguely, if at all, about the chief men of another. They are frequently astounded to learn that there are others who claim to be Christians and have heard only remotely of their prominent authorities.

     In reality, it is not the revelation of God at all which is the authority, but undue emphasis of some specific phase of it. Thus, those who argue "learnedly" about either side of the issues concerning cups, classes and colleges, may be shamefully ignorant of the scriptures as a whole, and almost wholly devoid of real scholarship. The word of God becomes merely a repository for argumentative material to sustain a narrow and biased viewpoint. It is searched and scrapped to find justification for a position which never once entered the minds of the holy apostles. The actual malady lies much deeper and factionalism is just a symptom of it. The real basis of our trouble is a form of legalism which perverts and subverts the very purpose of the sacred scriptures.

     The tendency of legalism and factionalism is toward dishonesty. The faction exerts a tremendous influence over one who is within its clutches. All sorts of pressures are brought to bear in order to keep him from defecting. There is always the threat of excommunication with its subsequent boycott. There is the fear and dread of being branded a heretic or apostate if one no longer subscribes to the party test and regards the church as being greater than the faction. Many men "go along" keeping their inmost thoughts to themselves, not even able to discuss them with wife and children lest they discourage their spiritual growth which is always frail and precarious under a factional regime. It is obvious that the factional pattern, not the word of God, is the basis of authority in the various factions which bear the title, "The Church of Christ."

     "The Church of Christ" suffers from spiritual schizophrenia. It has a dual personality, one side of which it exhibits to the rest of the religious world, the other of which is known only to those inside the circle. A front is put on to project an image to the sectarian world of a great organization of more than two million members in the United States, all of whom

[Page 5]

bask in the sunlight of perfect harmony, held together by the indissoluble tie of mutual respect for the authority of the new covenant scriptures. Nothing is said about the thousands who have become disillusioned by petty clerical politics but who are afraid to leave for fear that in so doing they will be "deserting the Lord's church."

     A careful study will show that "The Church of Christ" as it exists in the United States is not at all a united monarchy under the authority of one supreme sovereign. Instead it is a conglomeration of factions, many of which are ruled by "editorcracy." This word, which I have personally coined to define our state, means government by editors. It will be found by objective survey that most of the factions center around a periodical. The place where it is published virtually constitutes the party headquarters. The editor often exercises a sway over both congregations and individuals which can extend to spiritual life or death in so far as the faction is concerned. His expressed disapproval of any man, his refusal to recognize or publish his reports, may constitute "the kiss of death." The long arm of journalistic discipline and censure can reach across the continent and override an eldership.

     This provides an unhealthful state of affairs which belies the claim of congregational autonomy. Each editor has a clique composed of those in his favor. Others out in the field must walk circumspectly lest they offend this coterie of court favorites and a whispering campaign be started with the words, "You'd better keep an eye on Brother A. He is not as sound as he once was." When this begins the unfortunate victim must take steps to ingratiate himself with "our main preachers" at once or he will pay the price of rejection. Men who seek to work into partisan graces publish their confessions or acknowledgments in the journal, whereupon the editor affixes his stamp of approval and the penitent can once more secure a lucrative position and avoid starvation for himself and family. The basis of authority for each faction is not the revealed scriptures but the official interpretation sanctioned by the editor. He determines what is to be made a test of fellowship, what is optional, and what is of no consequence. The list differs in each faction, the degree of emphasis determining the category.

     Regional supervision is frequently exercised through what is called "the preachers' luncheon group." This is a select dining club composed of the preachers in an area who subscribe to a factional viewpoint. Occasionally they allow their wives to attend. At such gatherings local policies and procedures come under review and tentative agreements are reached which are then "sold" to the elders and congregations by various pressure methods. The standard is not the word of God but orthodoxy. If someone in the area dares to think for himself and becomes "a fly in the party ointment" discussions are held as to how to best "handle him." If the preachers feel they can insulate the congregations against his thinking by subtle warnings and veiled threats it will be decided to "let him die on the vine."

     If the non-conformist is persistent and will not "play dead," and if there is danger that the boycott will not hold, a motion is made and seconded to invite the offender to appear before the preachers to be questioned. If he consents to this he will find a tape recorder all set up and he will be grilled by a chosen spokesman with previously devised questions. His answers can then be lifted and edited in such a manner as to prove him to be a "heretic." The best way in which to meet the demand of a "preacher's luncheon group" for a conference is to insist that an open invitation be given to all of the preachers, elders and members, male and female, in the area. Let all of the brethren attend and participate in the questioning. One who refuses to recognize the jurisdiction over his faith of the self-appointed tribal council and tribunal, and who insists upon the liberty of the entire priesthood of all believers is a real problem. Orthodoxy always thrives on "a closed door policy."

     Individual congregations are "held in

[Page 6]

line" not by a free approach or appeal to the sacred scriptures as authority but by a false impression which has been created relative to the function of elders. Despite the positive statement that in their oversight they are not to tyrannize over those allotted to their care, they often exercise a dogmatic and arbitrary sway which must be accepted in abject and servile obedience. We have no intention of reflecting against the hundreds of godly and consecrated men who have been invested with the office and certainly no desire to encourage disobedience or revolt against any God-given authority they may possess. But "The System" which operates under the title "The Church of Christ" has perverted the functions of the presbytery and reduced the congregations in some cases to a state of spiritual serfdom. The elders decide upon policy and this must be accepted without recourse or protest. "The voice of the presbytery is the voice of God."

     A little reflection will show that this differs from the papal system only in degree. The elders are not infallible by right of office. Theirs is not at all the task of interpreting the sacred scriptures for any persons other than themselves. In fact there is no "official interpretation" authorized by God and one man's view or opinion is not necessarily any more authoritative than that of any other man. When one develops strong personal convictions about the meaning of a passage, to encourage him to drop or sublimate his view, and accept that of the elders, right or wrong, may make an obedient hypocrite out of him but it can never make a devoted and free servant of Jesus Christ. It is amazing how often we reproduce on a local scale with minor characters the case of Galileo. If the elders are infallible in interpretation, which ones of them are? That they are not infallible arbiters is proven by the fact that they frequently disagree and often divide the flock over "what the Bible teaches" as it is so quaintly phrased.

     Our real hope lies in the fact that so many are being challenged to think for themselves in this generation. Consecrated young men and women, trained to reason, and with a firm regard for the authority of the sacred word, are no longer content to accept orthodoxy as a substitute for that word and its authority. They are questioning the right of tradition, of a clerical caste, or of a closed-door group, to impose arbitrarily upon their thinking processes, when in the final judgment they shall be answerable to none of these, but only to the Lord Jesus Christ. Obviously this will create a ferment and state of temporary unrest. In our humble judgment this may be a good thing. Nothing is more needful than to jolt us out of our crystallized sectarianism and start us once again on the road to healthful spiritual growth.

     We have no bitterness toward any of our brethren. All of us have been victims of "The System" which always results when a movement toward restoration ceases to move and bogs down in an entrenched effort to protect its gains. I was reared in one of the factions calling itself "The Church of Christ" and I have neither intention nor desire to leave where I am and go somewhere else. If one is looking for the sectarian spirit he can find enough of it to satisfy him in the attitudes of many of his brethren; if he is opposed to it this provides as good a vantage point as any from which to direct his opposition. There would be no gain accruing from transferring to another faction or in uniting with a sect of another name. My only aim is to be loyal to the Lord Jesus Christ wherever I am.

     I give it as my opinion, with which you will probably strongly disagree, that orthodox "Church-of-Christ-ism" has seen its best days. I doubt there will be any very real or significant gains made in the future, for a number of good reasons which I will not now mention. Numerically it may increase in comparison with past figures because of the population explosion and other twentieth century trends. There will always be some attracted by a legalistic dogmatism for many shun the responsibilities which go with freedom. These seek a religion with the details "all spelled out" and are perfectly willing to equate human interpretation with divine revelation. There is a sense of security

[Page 7]

and comfortable well-being provided by the limited factional atmosphere in which one is convinced that he has "fulfilled the law of God" by observing the rituals prescribed by the local minister. But many of the members are becoming jaded and tired of "taxation without representation." The world around has caught on that we are as short on performance as we are strong on preaching. Our tragic and trivial divisions effectively demonstrate that the word of God is not our rule of faith and practice.

     Our appeal is not to any fragment, splinter, or segment of the disciple brotherhood, but to the fellowship of the concerned ones in all of these. Let us realize that the work of restoration has never been completed. In our trek from Babylon to Jerusalem we have been betrayed into thinking we had arrived when we pitched camp by the roadside. Too long have we like wine undisturbed in the cup "rested on our lees." It is time to resume the journey. Let us strengthen our hands for the task as we cast off the chains and shackles of the party spirit Let us march onward in the light of the word of God for that word must be our source of authority, our final court of appeal on earth. Let us rescue it from partisan bands and re-establish it as the real foundation of faith and practice. Then we shall have much to share with all of the eager searchers after truth in our distorted and divided religious world.