Problems in Attitude

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 7]

     The course pursued by any religious movement will depend upon the attitudes adopted by those who promote it. These attitudes, in turn, will be formulated and conditioned by traditional patterns and interpretations of scripture. We are all, to some extent, products of environment, training, and mitigating circumstances, to which we have been exposed. Our loyalties are often determined by inheritance and early association. All too often we equate these acquired dispositions with fidelity to God. The most intolerant and bitter sectarian is vocal in protesting that he is a true servant of the Master.

     The readers of this little journal are drawn primarily from the ranks of those who are heirs of the restoration movement which was launched early in the nineteenth century by those who had grown tired and weary of the bitter warrings and janglings of the party spirit. It was described by one of its more zealous proponents as " a project to unite the Christians in all of the sects." Its goal was to restore a proper sense of fellowship and communion in which all of God's children might work in harmony despite their varied opinions and divergent views. For several decades the movement made such tremendous strides that it appeared as if the domain of sectarianism would fall before its appeal. Then it disintegrated and lost much of its power.

     Today, the heirs of the restoration ideal constitute the most fragmented and divided religious movement on the contemporary American scene. The public entreaty for unity made by the preachers of the movement falls like a hollow echo on the ears of a jaded populace all too familiar with the bitter attacks and lawsuits in which many of these same preachers have participated. Many have stopped by to listen to debates kindled by partisan animosity and filled with invective, innuendo and crude wit, and they will no longer be influenced by an invitation to unity from those who have proven themselves to be masters of dissension. The empty shell of the restoration movement remains but the spirit which once animated it has fled. Men still parade the mummy openly, but a mummy belongs in a museum.

     What deadly philosophy has been adopted which would thus splinter and fragmentize a glorious movement to unite God's people? What metaphysical wolf in disguise has infiltrated the flock, to scatter the sheep and turn them against each other? We could hardly be more

[Page 8]

divided if Jesus had prayed for disunity and God had commanded it. We have split and shivered ourselves as if by so doing we were blessed of God and fulfilling the divine purpose among men. In some cities the startled inhabitants tune in their radios to hear the various parties sinking verbal tomahawks into each other as if tribal warfare constituted the beau ideal of spiritual attainment in Christ.

     In such a complex situation as now confronts us we need to be careful that we are not betrayed into thinking there is a simple solution. The tangled skein will not easily become untied; the matted roots below the surface will not readily yield to pressure upon the plant above. But the difficulties involved should not deter the zealous researchist in an attempt to recapture and restore the spirit of the restoration movement. In no sense of having found the whole answer, we very humbly submit that we believe there are two ideas we should re-examine as we attempt in our generation to thwart "the will to divide." Both of these have been sanctified by tradition received from our fathers and by their ingrained acceptance are actually hallowed in our thinking as though they originated with God. Let us look at them!

     (1) The philosophy that purity of doctrine must be maintained by separation from brethren.

     When our fathers were confronted with "innovations" they had to determine what course they would pursue in dealing with these matters. Their decision was to "no longer regard as brethren" those who practiced the things regarded as being unscriptural. Actually, as I shall show in a future issue, this committed the congregations to adoption of orthodoxy as a test of relationship. This has proven to be the rock upon which every vessel of reformation has eventually run aground. Orthodoxy is sired by fear and heresy is its stepchild.

     The outworking of this theory can now be clearly seen. It has resulted in another schism every time an honest person could no longer pay lip service to the party norm. The aim of orthodoxy is to preserve truth, I. e., the body of interpretations accepted by the group and regarded by them as constituting truth. It proposes to do this by the deep freeze method, which actually is dogmatism and creedalism. It sets up conformity, instead of community, as the basis of brotherhood, and the one who cannot conform in every particular is placed under ban and eventually driven forth.

     I have mentioned that orthodoxy is the offspring of fear and this is true. There is, first of all, the fear that in any encounter of truth with error, the latter must inevitably be the victor. In order to preserve truth, those who have it must retreat and withdraw, and build the necessary walls to protect themselves from further encroachment. Actually no such wall can ever be effective so long as those within continue to think and reason. It is because of this that none of the apostles ever encouraged the members of any congregation which they had planted to leave it and form "a faithful church." Every congregation they planted was a "faithful one" and if these could go so far astray, a new one planted on the same basis could do the same. The quickest way to fill the earth with "unfaithful churches" is to divide in order to plant "faithful churches." The "loyal church" fallacy is one of our gravest errors. But I have written so much about this divisive concept in previous issues that I shall not pursue it further just now. I want to come to another facet of our problem which I feel we should explore objectively.

     (2) The philosophy that brotherhood is secondary to personal conviction and in any conflict between the two, the latter must always be defended at the expense of the former.

     It is astonishing how lightly we regard the sacred relationship of brotherhood in Christ Jesus. We seem ready to dissolve it upon the slightest pretext. We constantly place strains and tensions upon it as though it were the most insignificant of all things within the spiritual framework. Yet there is every indication that God has always regarded brotherhood as of paramount importance. This is shown in his encounter with the first man ever

[Page 9]

born of woman. When this man showed utter disregard for the relationship, God three times used the expression "your brother" in such a manner as to demonstrate the divine concern for it. The allusion to this by John is very striking. "For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another, and not be like Cain.... (1 John 3:11, 12). Jude speaks of those who set up divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit" (verse 19) and declares, "For they walk in the way of Cain" (verse 11).

     Abraham, the father of the faithful, recognized that brotherhood should not be endangered by stress and strife. He seemed to sense that the relationship which was so sacred, could be eroded away by constant friction. Thus he was willing to make personal sacrifices and concessions in order to maintain it intact. Brotherhood meant more to him than those things which would destroy it. He said, "Let there be no strife between me and thee, for we be brethren." It is interesting to note that he recognized the difference between geographical proximity and unity of heart, so he suggested to Lot, "Separate yourself from me." In this instance the true relation could best be maintained by physical separation. Unity today does not mean we are all in the same place at the same time, but that we recognize that we are all in the same person at same time. "He is our peace."

     The fraternal relationship in Christ is always under attack. The sharpest darts of Satan are reserved for it. The Arch-foe knows that he is powerless before a united church. Nothing can hinder or impede the progress of God's people when they stand together and present an unbroken front. The only hope of the enemy is to get those who are children of God to turn the sword of the Spirit against each other. If they engage in fratricidal warfare and bathe their weapon in the blood of their brothers, the demons rejoice and hell has a holiday! The weakest spot in our armor is that of personal pride. It is here the conflict between maintenance of personal conviction and brotherhood relationship suffers its severest test.

     Fortunately for those of us who respect the authority of the new covenant scriptures, the conflict is resolved by the apostle Paul. In Romans, chapter 14, he deals directly with the problem. A thoroughgoing analysis of this chapter is long overdue.

     We must limit our remarks about it in this article to certain generalizations, but these may he used as foundational truths for more extensive study. Even a casual reading of the chapter will show that there is room in Christ for men to differ without destroying the relationship known as brotherhood. Verse 2 proves that those in the Lord need not all believe the same things to remain as brethren. Obviously this has nothing to do with what must be believed to enter the relationship for it is specifically said that life is conditioned upon believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (John 20:30,31). Should one cease to believe this he would cut himself off from the life of the Spirit and consequently from that fellowship which proceeds from the indwelling Spirit (Phil. 2:1).

     In the faith, that is, inside the domain of faith, there will always be those who are weak as well as those who are strong. God's family is composed of babies, children, young men, and adults--all of them brethren. He even has some retarded children, members of the body who are "more frail than others" (1 Cor. 12:22). No two of God's offspring are at exactly the same stage of spiritual and intellectual development at the same time. The Christian way was never intended to make mechanical robots but to develop thinking men and women. This means that doctrinal attainment can never provide a basis of unity. To predicate fellowship upon it is to destroy all hope of oneness. Love, which is the fulness of law, is the only bond which can actually unite God's children. So we read, "To crown all there must be love, to bind all together and complete the whole" (Col. 2:14).

     If nothing else had ever been written this would be sufficient, if grasped in its

[Page 10]

perfection, to prove that our unity as a family is more important than the personal viewpoint or conviction of any member of that family and no one can be a worse traitor to the Father than he who destroys the family relationship by trying to bind upon others such conviction. But more has been written and directly to the point. Repeatedly the term "your brother" occurs in Romans 14 and without exception it is used to show that brotherhood must be maintained at the cost of personal consideration. Brotherhood is the work of God and it must not be destroyed (verse 20). We must "not consider ourselves" (Rom. 15:1) but "each of us must consider his neighbor and think what is for his good" (verse 2), for "Christ did not consider himself" (verse 3).

     Jesus did not condition our fellowship with himself upon attainment to the same degree of spiritual knowledge which he possessed. Think of all those whom Jesus has received in spite of ignorance, weakness, human frailty, and error in reasoning. Jesus has never rejected any man on the basis of a wrong opinion honestly held. He does not bind upon us what we are unable as yet to receive. He conditions his acceptance, not upon our knowledge but upon our love for God. "If any one imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. But if one love God, one is known by him" (1 Cor. 8:2,3). It is on this basis we must receive one another. "In a word, accept one another as Christ accepted us, to the glory of God" (Rom. 15:7).

     All division among brethren is precluded by the law of love. This is the only law actually operable in the family of God today. Division is the fruit of certain prior attitudes. These are generally two in number--the tendency to become censorious and judge another for holding certain convictions, or to hold him in contempt because he holds such convictions. The first is the great temptation to those who cannot conscientiously do what others can; the second is the great temptation to those who can do what others cannot. If either of these attitudes is nurtured and allowed to thrive, bitterness and separation will eventually occur and the work of God will be ruined.

     How can this be avoided? The answer is really quite simple. Quit playing God! Our personal convictions and scruples are the result of environment, early training, temperament, inner nature, personality and motivation. Only God is capable of judging why we are like we are. Let us then accept one another in Christ as we are, and provide an environment in which all of us may grow up into him. "Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God" (Rom. 14:10). Our task is to preserve brotherhood and the best way in which to do so is to be careful not to place any obstacles in the way of a brother. One of the greatest stumbling-blocks is dogmatism. "Let us therefore cease judging one another, but rather make this simple judgment: that no obstacle or stumbling-block be placed in a brother's way" (verse 13).

     Does this mean that one must relinquish or abandon a personal conviction Out of deference to the scruples of another? Certainly not! How can one discard a conviction? If he can do so without compunction, it never was a conviction, but simply a prejudice. There is nothing wrong with having a footstool but one does not need to place it in front of the door so others will stumble over it. That upon which one rests his feet would then become an obstacle for the feet of another. The solution is not to smash the footstool, nor to berate the one who could not see it, but to keep the footstool in its place. When the other sees the comfort it provides he may be constrained to secure one like it. He will obviously be more kindly disposed toward it as he observes it holding you up than he would if you placed it so as to cause his downfall. The record says, "If you have a clear conviction, apply it to yourself in the sight of God" (verse 22). One does not need to start a footstool party simply because he has a footstool. Remember that tolerance is not endorsing things that are wrong but enduring those who think they are right!