Fear and Suspicion

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 26]

     One of the more apparent fruits of the party spirit is the suspicion with which we regard our brethren in other factions and often within the one with which we are allied. We are quick to impugn motives and impute evil designs. We always imagine the worst and surmise the sinister. It is difficult to see anything creditable or meritorious in those who are not in our segment of the disciple brotherhood. There is something about partisanship which breeds doubt and begets detraction. Most of us are victims of that type of false pride which covers with a mantle of charity the delinquency of those within our group while we vigorously oppose the derelictions of those who are not.

     A short time ago I received a letter from a brother who is beloved in the Lord, although he grew up in a different faction of the disciple brotherhood than that in which I was nourished. He expressed regret that he could not attend a series of forums I was conducting not too far removed from where he preaches. He would have come if other arrangements had not rendered it impossible. He wrote, "I take it, since I received my invitation from a Christian Church that you will be speaking at a Christian Church. I think the Christian Churches throughout the country are trying to use your influence among churches of Christ to woo the churches of Christ into the Christian Church fold. I would not be completely honest with you were I not to tell you that I am sorry to see you permit yourself and your influence to be so used."

     Because this frank expression may be quite typical of the reaction of many of my brethren in the several factions among us it affords an opportunity to make a declaration of my own views about the matter. I do this very humbly and with no intention of binding those views upon any other person on earth. The attitude expressed by my brother is not limited to those affiliated with the non-instrument subdivision of the brotherhood. Those "Christian Churches" which invite me to speak on fellowship and unity are also besieged by warnings of dire consequences which will result. By many of their adherents I am regarded as the advance guard of a fifth-column movement intended to infiltrate and capture them "lock, stock and barrel" and deliver them bound to the Jerusalem of the "Antis." No one of our parties has an exclusive claim upon rank suspicion.

     If the "Christian Churches" are plotting to use my influence in their wooing program they will suffer grave disappointment. In the first place, my influence is quite negligible and it is unlikely that I will make any great impact upon any specific group among us. I can make no justifiable claim to the kind of scholarship or ability requisite to those who would aspire to such leadership. I am not a Pied Piper and my brethren are not rats. There are so many different "Churches of Christ" that if someone set out to woo them it would be like a young man courting a different girl each night of the month. Each in turn would jilt him as it learned of his other amours.

     Moreover, it is very basic to the approach I am making that each one remain where he is and share his newly-discovered truth with those whom he knows best and who do not have that truth as yet. I am not troubled by the "loyal church fallacy" which has plagued us with division in the past. In order to avoid creation of a new party among heirs of the restoration movement, let us face up realistically to the fact that this movement has been fractured and fragmented, and no splinter is the whole log. In the final analysis, all fellowship must be upon an individual basis and it will not be produced by someone like myself acting from without on the various factions but by the Holy Spirit acting from within the hearts of all the concerned ones in every faction.

     I have no desire or intention to try and unite "The Christian Church" and "The Church of Christ." I doubt that it could be done and I am not sure it would avail anything if it could. If it were accomplished it would probably create another

[Page 27]

narrowly exclusive sect in Christendom and we have a fair share of those already. I am somewhat dubious of anything which men can create or coalesce in the spiritual realm. I would not even attend a meeting in a central location called by a group of "top men" for the purpose of devising ways and means of uniting two parties. I just have no confidence in such devices for they are always divisive. The unity of the Spirit does not work in any such fashion.

     "I do not intend to be wooed into the "Christian Church fold" and by the same token, I do not intend to woo anyone into the "Church of Christ fold." I would not know which "Christian Church fold" to enter if I succumbed to the solicitation, nor would I know which "Church of Christ fold" to woo them into. We have about two dozen of the latter scattered around the country, each of which is "the loyal church" as you can readily determine by questioning their respective adherents. I do not believe there is any such thing as either "The Christian Church" or "The Church of Christ." There are religious parties designated by these titles, but there is only one church. There never was but one. There will never be another. "The Christian Church" does not have all of the Christians in it, and "The Church of Christ" is not the church of Christ. Both of these are parties which have been allowed to grow out of an American restoration movement launched by some Presbyterian ministers in the early part of the nineteenth century.

     The church is the body of Christ. It is a divine organism. Man can no more make another church than he can create another God. The church of God is simply the people of God. It is composed of the family of God. The family of God is made up of those who have been born again of water and the Spirit. The church for which Jesus died embraces many more than those involved in any human party or movement. Wherever God has a child I have a brother, and wherever I have a brother I will go and share with him what I have for his welfare. I will not woo my brother into anything else than the one body to which God adds him nor will I allow him to woo me into anything which men can create or devise.

     I am frequently asked if I do not consider those in the "Christian Church fold" as "brethren in error"? Certainly I so consider them for I do not place them one whit above my brethren in the non-instrument segment The only brethren I have on this earth are "brethren in error." They are not all in the same error. Some are in one error, some in another, but all are in some error. For years I looked for a faction composed of those who were not in error. That was before I realized that our existing factions are proof that all of us are in error. I now realize that if I found a brother who was free of all error he would be very uncomfortable around me. We'd probably get in an argument about what constitutes error.

     Now that I no longer equate fellowship with endorsement and recognize that one does not have to conform to my views on everything to be in Christ, I am free to love all of the brethren. It is amazing how the scales fall from your eyes the very moment you realize that while all of God's children are in the church of Christ for which he died, they are not necessarily all in "The Church of Christ" in which you have always lived. At first this freedom is a little frightening as freedom always is to one who is exposed to it for the first time. One still retains his partisan suspicion and is inclined to shy away from actual contact with those of other factional backgrounds. As he gradually comes to mingle with them he learns that every party has the same problems of frustration, worldliness and sin with which to contend. He learns that there is a fellowship of the concerned ones in every faction and he actually has much more in common with these than with the cult of the indifferent within his own party.

     The real sense of freedom comes when one realizes that he can go anywhere that he is invited and speak to any group on earth without being afraid of what will happen to him when he gets back. He is free to communicate with any sincere seekers after truth simply because they are

[Page 28]

seeking truth. What is more important, perhaps, he can acknowledge his debt for truths discovered by those in another party than the one with which he is identified. It is characteristic of the party spirit that it does not admit the achievements or accomplishments of those in another party. If grudgingly forced to do so there must always be the assignment of an ulterior motive. This makes for a false sense of values and renders all who engage in it immature and childish. "No man is an island" as John Donne so aptly phrased it.

     It is very important that all of my brethren realize that I do not castigate those who do not see our current situation as I do. I no longer represent any faction or fragment among us and I am accountable to God and concerned with all of my brethren. This last is important, for so long as one feels a special tie to those in a certain faction he can "wash his hands" of responsibility for all others. The brotherhood of which I am now a part is not circumscribed by a specific view as to the millennium, cups, classes, colleges, orphan homes, instrumental music, etc. It is as wide as God's love for His children and embraces every member of his family.

     I do not agree in toto with any of the brethren so I am free to love all of them and to exhibit that love in deed and in truth as well as in word and in speech. When I speak "at a Christian Church" I am among brethren. They must receive me as I do them--in spite of our differences. This is the way God has received us all. But if brethren in our various groups feel that they cannot even associate with each other or discuss their problems as members of the same family, I do not intend to lash out at them. These are decisions which they must make and for which they must be answerable to the Father of us all. I am driven by an inner compulsion to try and alleviate the division which is the scandal of the movement with which we are affiliated. I do not say that everyone must visualize this as I do or pursue the course which I have chosen after days of prayerful entreaty.

     If I may charitably voice an opinion about my brother who wrote (and scores of others who share his views) I would suggest that he is the victim of a century of isolationism. It was a hundred years ago that the restoration movement began to disintegrate under the impact of innovations. The initial cleavage was attended by fiery debate, locked buildings, fist fights and lawsuits. The rancor and choler were so intense that earthly families were rent into warring clans and brethren would not speak to each other on the street.

     Now, more than ten decades have passed into history. A new generation has arisen to take the place of those on all sides who feuded until death. There is a tugging of the Spirit of God in the hearts of gentle men and women in all of our factions, leading us not to our undoing, but to the undoing of tragic errors which have resulted in divisions multiplied. Satan will seek to keep us apart. It is his purpose to widen chasms and strengthen walls. The Spirit is interested in building bridges and removing walls. The greatest bridge of all was our Lord who spanned the awesome gap between divinity and humanity. "For he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility."

     We have been conditioned by years of factional teaching and training. We have been shown how to hate instead of being taught how to love. It will be difficult for us to reverse our attitude. We do not want to compromise conviction nor undermine the structure of faith. But someone must dare to do something or the mistakes of the past will be permanently embalmed. It is obvious that we will make additional blunders and be guilty of many more mistakes. This means that we must be ever ready to acknowledge error as we become aware of it. We must cease to equate error with evil for it is not necessarily evil unless deliberate and voluntary.

     Let us not minimize our problems for they are great. They are wrapped up in our whole emotional makeup. Their magnitude is not lessened by years of traditional indoctrination. It is extremely difficult for most brethren to see how "fellowship" which was dissolved over introduc-

[Page 29]

tion of instrumental music can ever be restored so long as the musical instrument remains. As you know, I am personally opposed to the use of instrumental music in corporate worship. I do not even sing with it when it is so employed. This is a matter of personal conviction, if I know my heart, and is not sheer stubbornness. But I have come to see that "the fellowship" into which we are called of God is not conditioned upon an attitude toward instrumental music, either pro or con. If it were, of course there could be no fellowship until the instrument was removed.

     Fellowship is brotherhood and brotherhood is established by mutual parenthood. One is not my brother because he uses an instrument or because he opposes its use. If one who used an instrument ceased to do so it would not make him my brother; if one who opposed the instrument began to use it he would not cease to be my brother. I think that we must solve our problems inside of a recognized framework of brotherhood. This requires the exercise of a considerable degree of tolerance, which is not the endorsing of things that are wrong but the enduring of those who think they are right.

     I think it is time that the concerned ones in every community begin to face up to our problems in realistic fashion. Others are not divided from us; we are separated from each other. Why can we not meet together to pray about our state of disunity and to talk with each other about our hopes for peace? "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God." Let us remove the partisan fear of proselyting so that it is not a question of wooing others to "our fold." Let us all, upon our knees, pledge to God and each other that we shall constitute but one fold under one Shepherd. It may amaze us what areas of reconciliation will be opened to those whose gushing tears and contrite hearts show that their faces are turned toward Zion.

     We have come a long way from the original goal and spirit of the restoration movement. When the editor of the Baptist Register charged that the Reformers were schismatics, Alexander Campbell replied to him in the May, 1837, issue of Millennial Harbinger, page 199, as follows:

     That we are not on this topic, on which so much has been spoken, schismatical, is proved from the fact, that we never did refuse communion with any good man, nor with any church among the Baptists, because of their theories or preachings on this subject; nor do we now. Let the Baptists, if they doubt our sincerity on this subject, rescind their "Decrees and Orders in Council," and invite us into their pulpits and congregations, and thus test who is schismatical, and see whether we will not reciprocate the same Christian civilities throughout the whole length and breadth of the land. And whether they call me weak or strong in the faith, I care not: one thing I know--it will be as great a stretch for my individual charity or forbearance (if anyone prefer either of the misapplications of the sacred terms) as it possibly can be to any orderly and Christian man in all their ranks. Yet such is my love of union and cooperation amongst all creditable professors of Christ's gospel, that rather than make a party or a new sect (I speak for myself, but I doubt not that all my intelligent brethren would go as far as I)--I would gladly bear with many infirmities and errors in opinion rather than hazard the evils that must grow out of the rivalries, and jealousies, and bickerings of a party and schismatical spirit.

     No longer is our central problem one of association with those whom Campbell referred to as "our Baptist brethren" but it is now a question of association with the heirs of the Reformers. Perhaps his charge leveled against the evangelical sects of his day now applies to us. "Their error is, that they prefer the minor causes of division to the major causes of union, and give to their circumstantials or expediencies the weight, and reason, and authority due only to their own essentials. They would rather be sects because of the accidentals, than united in one great communion because of the essentials."