Reply to Brother Thomas
W. Carl Ketcherside
[Page 51] |
It is apparent that the editor of Gospel Advocate, our respected brother in Christ, B. C. Goodpasture, concurs with the author of the article that something must be done about my "enthusiasm for brotherhood unity" and my "disparagement of differences among us." We appreciate the intention to examine what we advocate and the spirit in which it is done. It augurs well for the future when brethren can maintain an irenic attitude while discussing their differences.
[Page 52] |
It is a pleasure to introduce to our readers one whom I have not met personally, but a brother in the Lord for whom I entertain tremendous respect. J. D. Thomas has for fourteen years been a professor of Bible at Abilene Christian College. He obtained his B.A. from the college where he now teaches, his M.A. from Southern Methodist, and his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago. Possessed of a brilliant and incisive mind, and wielding a facile pen, he is thoroughly capable of discovering any fallacy in reasoning, and of revealing it to others in unmistakable terms. Since I have no desire except to be right in the sight of God I count it a privilege to have this erudite brother review some of the things I have written.
It is my intention, if it does not prove unduly boresome to you, to share with you at some length, my impressions of the article by Brother Thomas. In doing so I can correct some of his mistaken impressions about my views and promote a better understanding. I must begin by pleading guilty to having been "the champion of a very legalistic attitude." I grew up in a different faction of the disciple brotherhood than the one with which Brother Thomas was affiliated and there was a time when, if he had been gracious enough to attend one of my meetings, I would have been so ungracious as not to accord him the courtesy of even asking him to lead in prayer. I am ashamed of that attitude and I sincerely apologize to all of the brethren in the various parties for the way I acted due to my ignorance and spiritual immaturity.
As I look back on that era of my life, it appears to me that my "legalism" consisted not so much in believing that certain things were right or wrong, but in trusting in these, rather than in the merit of our Lord Jesus Christ, as the basis of my hope. I have carefully catechised my own heart and I find that I have not changed my ideas on any of these things. Perhaps my traditional upbringing, environment, and early association enter into this. But in those days I was one of those "who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and despised others" (Luke 18:9). I judged the worthiness of men, not by their relationship to our blessed Lord, but by their position on cups, classes, colleges, the millennium, or instrumental music. While I have not altered my views about these things, I no longer trust in myself that I am righteous and I no longer despise others. It has meant much to me to know that "He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption" (1 Cor. 1:30).
I would be more perturbed about going "to the opposite extreme" if I did not know, from experience, that in our parlance every person is an extremist who does not conform in every particular to the party with which we chance to be affiliated. I get letters lamenting that once I was unduly exclusive and now I am unduly inclusive. The fact is that each party wants you to include all whom they do not exclude, and exclude all whom they do not include. Each group wants you to include only those up to themselves and exclude all above
[Page 53] |
I am pleased that Brother Thomas has defined "liberal" as applied to men like myself, as not related to modernism. The term "liberal" is flung about so loosely by adherents of our various factions that every one of us is "a liberal" to some of the brethren. I try to avoid the labels we banter about so glibly because it seems to me that these are symptoms of our partisan attitude. Few of us realize that our tagging of our brethren in such a partisan spirit, automatically places us in a party also. But our brother is in error, when he says I am "unduly liberal in the sense of sanctioning denominational doctrines and practices." I am opposed to all such. To "sanction" is to endorse. I have consistently refused to endorse in any fashion that which I believe to he contrary to the words of the Holy Spirit. The thing I sanction and recognize is brotherhood, the relationship of all of God's children, in spite of the fact that some of them (perhaps all of them) still engage in some "denominational doctrines and practices." Our brother uses the expression "full fellowship" at least six times. This common idiom in "Church of Christ speech" is not a part of the vocabulary of the Spirit. Its employment denotes, I think, a misconception of the term "fellowship" and so long as that mistaken idea exists we will maintain our divisions of the past and continue to create new factions in the future. Fellowship is brotherhood. The suffixes "ship" and "hood" indicate a state, condition, or relationship, in which we share or participate. Fellowship is that state or relationship with God and Christ into which we are called by the gospel, and in which all of us share as brothers. Fellowship in Christ is based on sonship, brotherhood on a common Fatherhood.
"God is faithful by whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord" (I Cor. 1:9). Fellowship is entered in response to the call of God. All who make the proper response are in the fellowship. The context shows that those in the fellowship are saints (1:2); brethren (1:10); babes in Christ (3:1); God's field (3:9); God's building (3:9); and God's temple (3:16). God's Spirit dwelled in them (3:16) and they were Christ's (3:23). I hardly think any one would conclude that Paul endorsed their "denominational practices" but they were in the fellowship. Any person who is in Christ Jesus is in the fellowship. He is not half in it but all in it. The fellowship is the creation of the Holy Spirit. It is called "the fellowship of the Spirit" (2 Cor. 13:14; Phil. 2:1). Any person on this earth in whom the Spirit abides is in the fellowship. I do not consider that the Spirit is half in and half out of some of God's children. "One who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him" (Rom. 8:9). Conversely, I conclude that every one who does have the Spirit does belong to him. This is the real criterion.
I have no half brothers or stepbrothers in the Lord. Every person in the world who has properly responded to the divine call is "a blood brother of the Lamb." "For thou wast slain and by thy blood didst ransom men for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation" (Rev. 5:9). There is no partial state of being in the Lord so there is no partial state of fellowship. The fellowship is full and complete since it is in Him who is "the fulness of God." Indeed I am in the fellowship with many of the saints despite doctrinal differences unless the doctrines are of such a nature as to separate the one who holds them from God. Any doctrine which severs one from "life in the Son," that is, eternal life, severs that person from me if I remain in the Son. There are many differences that are occasions for discussion among brethren which are not grounds for division from brethren. Brother Thomas holds many doctrinal views which I cannot espouse but these
[Page 54] |
Our good brother gives an example of what he thinks I advocate. "In other words, we should fellowship the instrumental music brethren and associate with them openly and freely, and if we try to teach them it should be in a way that would not interfere with full fellowship." Our brother clearly misunderstands all I have written about fellowship. We do not "fellowship brethren" any more than I "companionship my wife" or "partnership my business associates." Matthias was chosen to "the apostleship" (Acts 1:25), but he did not "apostleship the eleven." I am glad that our brother refers to "the instrumental music brethren." If they are brethren they are in the fellowship and there is nothing we can do about it. God has added them to the family and I must accept them. I do not need to accept all they do any more than I accept all Brother Thomas does, but they are in the fellowship. Any teaching I do should be in such a manner as not to interfere with the fellowship, for it is divinely created. I am earnestly praying as I write these words that nothing I say in this article will be disruptive of the fellowship with those whom I love in the Lord Jesus Christ.
I think I should make it clear that I do not say others should "associate with the instrumental brethren openly and freely." I simply say that I must do so. When I was factional some good brethren persuaded me that I should not associate openly and freely with men like Brother Thomas; now I do not intend for Brother Thomas to persuade me not to associate with other good brethren. To do that would be to return to the factional spirit and thus grieve the Holy Spirit. Any person who is a child of my Father is my brother and it is unthinkable to me that I should refuse to associate with other members of the family of God. I do not agree with any of them fully so I am free to love all of them fully.
It is not a choice between "the instrument party" in error, and "the non-instrument party" with no error. The fact that there are two dozen factions in the non-instrument segment proves that we are not free from error. It is a question as to which brothers in error I will associate with openly and freely. I do not endorse any of their errors, nor do I expect them to endorse any of mine. Therefore, it is really a choice of brethren, and not of errors. But I have no choice of brothers. I can no more choose my spiritual brothers than I could my fleshly brothers. Brotherhood is established by fatherhood; fraternity is the result of paternity. I shall love all of my brothers and move among them as they will allow, sharing in what they can convey, sharing with them what little I have learned. I shall receive them as God received me, not because of perfection, but in spite of imperfection.
Our brother is mistaken when he writes that I think "that all of us ought to ignore all doctrinal differences." That is the exact opposite of what I think. We could not ignore doctrinal differences if we tried to do it, and the harder we tried the less possibility there would be of doing it. What I think is that conformity in opinions and interpretations is not essential to the fellowship but fellowship is essential to arriving at harmony. Not one admonition to "live in harmony with one another" (e.g., Rom. 15:5) was ever written by an apostle to bring people into the fellowship. All such exhortations were addressed to those in fellowship and because they were in it. So long as we try to restore "fellowship" by arguing our differences we will only create more division. We need to restore a proper sense of fellowship first and discuss our differences within this frame of reference. Then fellowship will not be disrupted every time we differ. Our present course is suicidal!
Again our brother is mistaken about why I am "vocal about this problem" of instrumental music. It is not because it "divides the greater majority of immersed believers" for I am not sure this is the case. It does divide the greatest
[Page 55] |
It was this document which equated brotherhood with conformity that sowed the seed for all of the tragic divisions which followed. It is this philosophy of dissension and schism which plagues us to this day. My brethren in the non-instrument segment of the disciple brotherhood would welcome anything I might do to heal the breaches which have occurred since the initial disruption, but this would gain nothing of permanent value, for so long as we maintain the creedal inconsistency we will fracture and fragment ourselves every time a brother learns a truth which appears to be new. At present we have but one ultimate solution for differences-- division; and but one ultimate approach to division when it occurs--partisan debate. The reason I am "vocal about this problem" is because I realize that until we go back to the place where we adopted and first implemented this harmful philosophy, we will simply be nibbling around the edges of our difficulty and division. We must restore "brotherhood" to its proper status--all brotherhood--or we will eventually end up with no brotherhood at all. If we continue to ignore this truth we will imperil our whole future.
It is my personal opinion that the new covenant scriptures are not clear-cut in the matter of instrumental music and most other things which we make "tests of fellowship." We have been debating some of these things for almost a century. Both sides of the controversy have examined every angle as scrupulously and meticulously as the ancient Pharisees did their law. Surely, if the scriptures are so positive and plain someone would have come up with the specific scripture which would have settled the issue permanently for all honest men. We need to face up realistically to the fact that we have postulated a basis of interpretation in the light of which we regard the scriptures and that which does not conform to this basis is regarded by us as a sin. Other men, who are as humble and honest as ourselves, do not always see these things in the same light for they view them from a divergent angle or perspective.
It is certainly not my intention to "reduce all faith to being simply opinion." What I have suggested is that when sincere brethren disagree as to which of these categories a thing belongs in, they should recognize that it is a matter of opinion, or judgment, as to whether it is a matter of faith or opinion, and should not divide over that opinion or matter of judgment. I cannot force others to categorize all things as I do. I must learn to tolerate those who do not. A man who loves God must reach personal conclusions as to what is faith and what is opinion, in some cases, and for such conclusions he must be answerable to God and not to me. "To his own Master he standeth or falleth!" Many of our problems of division will be settled when we cease to play at being God.
Our learned brother is not the first to feel that he has a point in prophesying where he thinks my "basic argument really leads." He reminds us that "denominational people consider baptism by immersion to be only a matter of opinion." What is baptism by immersion? I have labored under the impression that the word "baptism was a transliteration of the Greek word for "dip or immerse." Does any one consider that "immersion by immersion" is a matter of opinion? Or "baptism by baptism"?
[Page 56] |
I do not think the Father writes the name of a newly-born spiritual son in the Lamb's book of life only to scratch it out immediately if he opposes cups or classes; or endorses orphan homes, the pre-millennial viewpoint, or instrumental music. That name is not recorded on the basis of an attitude toward any of these things and God will need to be very patient, longsuffering and merciful unto all of us, if our names are found in that book when opened in its finality. I may be mistaken, of course, but since I have ceased to be "the champion of a very legalistic attitude" I find myself trusting more and more upon faith in Jesus and God's grace, and less and less upon my intellectual attainment and spiritual perfection. I will do everything I can as nearly as I understand the will of the Master but I am resigned to being an unprofitable servant when I have done all.
It is probably fortunate that I am referred to J. W. McGarvey for the principle that can get me "back on the right track." It could be enlightening for us to see how he personally applied that principle as relates to instrumental music. He was the first man in the restoration movement to write an article affirming that the use of instrumental music in the corporate worship is not legitimate. The initial article appeared in the Millennial Harbinger of November, 1864. His thinking was challenged by A. S. Hayden and for several years the discussion of "the organ question" was in the forefront of brotherhood journalism. So intense did the involvement become that the editor of Millennial Harbinger, W. K. Pendleton (twice Alexander Campbell's son-in-law) wrote, "We note a growing heat under the discussion of this subject, but let us keep cool."
I have carefully read every word that J. W. McGarvey wrote. His was a masterful presentation. I have never seen a single new argument against instrumental music since his day. The arguments for its justification have altered considerably in the interim. Brother McGarvey was a member of the Broadway Church, Lexington, Kentucky, when the elders decided on November 2, 1902, to submit the question of the organ to a vote of the congregation. On the same day McGarvey wrote a letter withdrawing his membership from the congregation. But W. C. Morro, in his biography entitled "Brother McGarvey" asserts, "This much is a certainty: McGarvey never allowed his position on the organ to become a source of division in the church. His soul recoiled from such a step." Again he writes, "McGarvey never made silence of the organ a condition of his participating in any service....McGarvey would speak or worship in any church or assembly where a musical instrument was used, but if conditions made it possible, he preferred the singing be without the instrument."
Brother Thomas did not cite McGarvey as an authority in religious matters, nor do I. Our authority is the same as that which Brother McGarvey always recognized and defended, the inspired scriptures. Still it is interesting to note the manner in which this earlier brother sought to cope with the same problem which confronts us in our attempt to maintain intact the fabric of fellowship in the face of crisis. It seems to demonstrate that each succeeding generation must confront the same problems and all
[Page 57] |
Our good brother mentions Romans 14:23. Does this mean that he places instrumental music in the category of things dealt with in that verse and the context? If not, I do not know why he introduces it. If so, is he willing to say, with regard to instrumental music, "I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for any one who thinks it is unclean" (verse 14)? The "faith" mentioned in verse 23 is one's personal conviction of what is right and wrong, that is, what he thinks. It is the opposite of "doubt" and one who has no doubt is acting in faith, according to this verse. J. B. Phillips is close to the correct interpretation when he puts it: "Your personal convictions are a matter of faith between yourself and God, and you are happy if you have no qualms about what you allow yourself to eat. Yet if a man eats meat with an uneasy conscience about it, you may be sure he is wrong to do so. For his action does not spring from his faith, and when we eat apart from our faith, we sin."
On the basis of this verse, our good brother writes, "If I believe instrumental music in worship to be a sin, I cannot practice it, neither can I honor any one else that does it." But the whole tenor of this chapter to which the verse cited is the conclusion, is that one dare not bind his personal faith on brethren who do not share his scruples or opinions. "Let every one be fully convinced in his own mind" (verse 5); "The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God" (verse 22); "Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another?" (verse 4); "Then let us no more pass judgment on one another" (verse 13). This entire chapter was written for the specific purpose of teaching us how to honor those "for whom Christ died" (verse 15) and who differ with us. It is a treatise on how to preserve unity in spite of diversity. Our good brother employs one verse in it to completely offset everything for which the apostle contended. That which was given as an instrument of unity becomes a weapon of division and dishonor.
Brother Thomas says, "One of Brother Ketcherside's basic fallacies in this whole matter, I think, is his argument that he is reported to make that: "Full fellowship does not mean endorsement." The report of my argument is incorrect. All of the words are correct but they are misplaced. My argument is not that "full fellowship does not mean endorsement," but rather that "fellowship does not mean full endorsement." Fellowship in Christ is created by the Holy Spirit. Endorsement is an act of the mind by which one sanctions that which he approves. I do not fully sanction any brother in all he says or does, for to do so would be to give perfect endorsement to an imperfect being. The only persons on earth with whom I have been in fellowship (except the Spirit), are all imperfect. I am in the fellowship with them, not because of their perfection, but in spite of their imperfections.
If my brother is correct in his contention that "fellowship does constitute endorsement" I am guilty of a basic fallacy. I know that it must seem presumptuous for me, with my meager knowledge and ability, to even imply that the fallacy rests with Brother Thomas. Very humbly do I submit that I think he is mistaken. I doubt that any of our readers would deny that the apostle Paul was in fellowship with the saints at Corinth. He positively states that they had been "called into the fellowship" (1 Cor. 1:9). He calls them "my children" (4:14) and tells them, "I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (4:15). He declares that they constitute "the body of Christ" (12:27) and that God's Spirit dwells in them (3:16).
In the language of our brother, Paul wanted to "buddy-up" with the congregation and associate with them. He wanted to worship with them with "some degree
[Page 58] |
Was such association in the fellowship an indication of endorsement? Did Paul endorse the denominational parties (1:11, 12); the arrogance in the face of immorality (5:2); the lawsuits against each other in heathen courts (6:1-8); the injudicious conduct of the sisters (11:5); the abuse of the love feast (11:18); and the disorderly conduct in public services? In all of my experience I have never yet found a congregation of disciples in the sad state of the one at Corinth. If my brethren of today had been in Paul's place they would have rented the Odd Fellows Hall, on the corner of Tenth and Main in Corinth, and started a "loyal church" before next Sunday. Instead of urging young preachers to visit such a place, they would have urged them not to go near it, and would have "withdrawn" from those who did go. It has been done you know!
What was Paul's attitude? He simply acknowledged that because these were the called saints they were in the fellowship. He repeatedly called them "brethren." He commended them in every area where he could (11:2) and in those areas where he could not he said, "But in the following instructions I do not commend you" (11:17). I think that we need to face up to some real questions in the divided state of the "restoration brotherhood" and I would like to suggest a few queries to the non-instrument brethren with whom I am more directly associated and who cannot even associate with "brethren in the Christian Church" because "they have corrupted the worship."
Were those who composed the congregation at Corinth "brethren in error3'? Is it any worse to "corrupt" one phase of public worship than another? Is it any worse to "corrupt" the song service than it would be to "corrupt' the Lord's Supper? Can a congregation be any worse by having an instrument play when they come together than one of which it was said, "When you come together it is not for the better but for the worse"? Can a congregation "corrupt the worship" more by having someone play on an instrument while they sing, than one of which it is affirmed, "When you meet together, it is not the Lord's Supper that you eat"? If you had lived in the days of Paul would you have accompanied him to the congregation at Corinth? Would you have "fellowshipped them" as our brethren so quaintly phrase it? Would you have associated with them with "any degree of regularity"?
Lately, under pressure and to save their modern theory of fellowship, I have heard brethren affirm that they would no longer "fellowship" Alexander Campbell, Barton W. Stone, or David Lipscomb. Will they now become modern Ebionites and cast Paul into the discard as well? The stark truth is that our brethren would have divided almost every congregation mentioned in the new covenant scriptures, and filled the ancient world, as they have the modern one, with dissident factions, all claiming to be "the Lord's church." Perhaps we need again the admonition to Corinth, "Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; be babes in evil but in thinking be mature" (14:20).
Is not "commendation" equivalent to endorsement or sanction? If so when Paul wrote, "I do not commend you," did he mean that he was no longer in "fellowship" with the "beloved brethren"? If he could stay with and "even spend the winter" with brethren who did things he could not commend or endorse, why can we not visit such folk "with the other brethren"?
Beloved brethren, our attitude of parti-
[Page 59] |
If I have extended these remarks to too great a limit, please forgive me. I have an earnest desire to be understood and my lack of ability in expression may require more space for clarification than you deem justifiable. I am grateful for the patience of those who have read thus far. I appreciate the friendly spirit exhibited by Brother Thomas in his article. I revere and respect him as my brother in the Lord Jesus. I apologize for any apparent harshness which may appear in my reply and close with the fervent prayer that we may find the way to a greater and nobler peace. If I thought that we must achieve unity upon our own I would despair of ever attaining to it, but because I believe that the Holy Spirit is actively at work in this world to answer the prayer of Jesus, I hold no fear about the outcome. "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all."