Terms of Communion

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 120]

     The development of orthodoxy, accompanied as it generally is, by a dogmatic attitude, has been the bane of all reformatory efforts in the realm of Christendom, through the centuries. When men discover certain truths, or what they consider to be truths, they begin to take those steps which they think are best adapted to preservation of those truths. The first step is to exalt such discoveries to the degree that it is assumed that only by holding correct views regarding them, can one sustain a vital relationship with God. Spiritual life is thus conditioned upon one's degree of attainment in knowledge upon the point at issue.

     The next step is to postulate that those who do not concur in the matter cannot be received into, or retained in the fellowship with those who hold the "correct" view, since it has been assumed that they are no longer in fellowship with God. This automatically develops a party in the Christian framework for the advocacy and defence of the discovery and a new sect is born. All such sectarianism results from pride and fear and from these twin evils most creedalism is born. We would not be so much concerned about such exhibitions of pride and fear, since most of us are proud of some things and afraid of others, but in this instance the whole Christian concept is at stake.

     The danger in all such creedalism lies in the fact that it creates another system of justification before God. It amounts to

[Page 121]

setting up our own righteousness." It predicates our hope of salvation, not upon faith in Christ Jesus, but upon conformity and uniformity in knowledge. It actually dethrones Jesus, and while clamoring loudly that we respect his authority, it substitutes the authority of the party for his divine prerogative. It is the "official interpretation" and not the revelation of God which becomes the real criterion.

     This poses certain questions. Did not the apostles mean to convey certain specific ideas when they wrote? If so, does not the person who grasps these ideas correctly, understand the apostolic doctrine? If so, should he not teach these things and demand that others subscribe to them? If these others do not concur in them, should he not mark and avoid them, and urge others who correctly understand to do the same? This is the reasoning which is the foundation of all that sectarianism which is promoted by honest men. There is a difference between an honest and a dishonest sectarian promoter. The first strives to uphold the glory of God; the second is interested only in his own glory. The first is intellectually mistaken; the second is morally corrupt.

     There is a fallacy in this chain of reasoning which betrays good men into becoming unwitting sectarians. Certainly the apostles meant to imply specific things when they wrote and the student who deduces the ideas they sought to convey from the things they wrote, grasps the apostolic doctrine. Surely he should teach what he understands the apostles to teach. But he "cannot demand that others subscribe to them." To do so would be to substitute his authority for that of Jesus. Others must arrive at these truths as he arrived at them, out of respect for Christ, and not out of respect for a human exponent of truth!

     No man has a right to bind his knowledge of any point of apostolic doctrine upon any other person who does not so understand it. To believe a thing only because you have confidence in the judgment and wisdom of another man of superior intellect is to condition your faith upon the wisdom of men and not upon the power or authority of God. In the spiritual realm one is obligated to accept truth because of his relationship to God and not because of his relationship to men, regardless of how good and sincere they may be. The conscience is a sacred precinct reserved for God and no man has a right to invade the conscience of another and bind anything upon it which his own intellect cannot attest as truth. We must respect the consciences of others even while we deplore some of their ideas.

     One who pledges allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ thereby obligates himself to respect and embrace all truth, and this obligation implies certain corollary obligations, among which are these: (1) To make a diligent search for truth; (2) To accept as truth those truths discovered as a result of such search; (3) To reject errors previously held and to correct one's thinking and behavior accordingly. In this process of acquisition we may help each other but no one can establish his own doctrinal knowledge as the measure of another man's acceptability with God. We differ in intellectual powers as much as we do in physical appearance.

     We need to distinguish between evangelization and indoctrination. To accomplish the first we have "an evangel," or good news, to proclaim. To accomplish the second, a doctrine has been provided. We are begotten by the gospel and sustained by the apostles' doctrine. The first originates life, the second perpetuates it. The doctrine sustains the same relationship to the "evangel" as the daily food one consumes does to the sperm from which he was begotten. No one can eat enough food in a day to last him a lifetime, so the assimilation of food is a continuous process. But one can be begotten at once.

     There is a difference between one who is deformed and one who is merely immature. It requires a complete gospel to beget else one would be deformed when born. When Peter proclaimed the gospel on Pentecost he did so fully and those who accepted it obeyed it fully. But those who obeyed the gospel that day had not fully obeyed the apostles' doctrine. They

[Page 122]

were immature but not deformed. They were born of a proper seed but had not yet grown up. Not one apostolic epistle was written until twenty years after the gospel had been fully preached and it was written to those who had long since obeyed the gospel. Life is produced by the gospel and the gospel must be believed. It is good news and consists of facts. The wellbeing of the child of God is dependent upon his partaking of the bread and meat of doctrine but these no more originate or create spiritual life than the bread and meat upon our tables originate our physical life.

     It would seem logical to recognize that the gospel is that which brings us into that relationship in which we are said to be saved, that is, to have life through the indwelling Spirit, by faith. Jesus instructed the apostles to "proclaim the good news to every creature. He who believes (the Message) and is baptized shall be saved." There is no indication that the apostolic doctrine was to be taught to every creature on earth. The epistles were addressed to the churches and written to the saints.

     Superficial students are afraid to acknowledge this truth for fear that it will reflect a disregard for the doctrine. This is somewhat ridiculous. One does not speak derogatorily of bread and milk when he insists that he was not begotten by them. And no one ever thinks of judging one's right to be regarded as a member of the family upon the amount of milk and bread he can digest on any given day. Of course, refusal to eat any food, and going on a hunger strike, in revolt against the family authority, would bring about death, but even then there is a difference between such refusal and the inability to digest properly.

     Our restoration ancestors clearly understood this and while they were exceedingly zealous for the doctrine of God's Word, they never once thought of making proficiency in doctrine a criterion for fellowship in Christ. We commend unto all of our readers that portion of the "Declaration and Address" by Thomas Campbell, which contains the phrase which forms the heading for this article. Read it frequently, carefully and meditatively. It contains the formula for overcoming almost every one of our current divisions, and also the means by which we can avoid all such in the future.

     That although inferences and deductions from Scripture premises, when fairly inferred, may be truly called the doctrine of God's holy word, yet are they not formally binding upon the consciences of Christians further than they perceive the connection, and evidently see that they are so, for their faith must not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power and veracity of God. Therefore no such deductions can be made terms of communion, but properly do belong to the after and progressive edification of the church. Hence it is evident that no such deductions or inferential truths ought to have any place in the church's confession.

     Thomas Campbell was not so ignorant as to affirm that the inspired writings did not need to be interpreted. He knew that every communication in human language requires interpretation. When one reasons fairly (that is, by logical rules of interpretation) upon the premises in the sacred writings, the inferences or deductions thus arrived at, constitute the apostolic teaching. Notice the expression "formally binding." This is the most important distinction in the paragraph. All truths contained in the revelation recorded by the apostles are naturally binding upon every person under the lordship of Jesus, that is, they are obligatory because of the nature of that relationship. As one becomes convinced of them he must accept and implement them in his Christian walk or be responsible to the one Lord for his failure to do so. But no other person can formally bind them upon him as a condition of fellowship, because no one else can read his heart and determine the degree of his responsibility.

     Study carefully the expressions "terms of communion" and "after and progressive edification of the church." The contrast is vital and valid. It is the contrast between gospel and doctrine. The "terms of communion" are equated with "the church's confesson," I. e., those things which are conditions of salvation, the things bound upon one in obedience to

[Page 123]

the gospel. What Thomas Campbell was saying was simply that we have no right to make anything a test of fellowship which God has not made a condition of salvation.

     Since God has not made the arrival at a certain degree of doctrinal knowledge a condition of salvation, we have no right to make it a test of fellowship. Our brethren generally, in their growing sectarian arrogance and exclusivism, have made items belonging to "the after and progressive edification of the church" the "terms of communion" in their respective parties. One even has to believe "the right thing" about the millennium, or rather, believe what "the right people" tell him about it, to be in what is called "the fellowship." Such persons have so forsaken the word of God and the restoration ideal that they would brand Thomas Campbell "a liberal."

     Perhaps it was a growing tendency to make fellowship contingent upon doctrinal correctness and attainment of knowledge, which caused David Lipscomb to write in Gospel Advocate, April 22, 1875, as follows:

     So long as a man really desires to do right, to serve the Lord, to obey His commands, we cannot withdraw from him. We are willing to accept him as a brother, no matter how ignorant he may be, or how far short of the perfect standard his life may fall from his ignorance...We will maintain the truth, press the truth upon him, compromise not one word or iota of that truth, yet forbear with the ignorance, the weakness of our brother who is anxious, but not yet able to see the truth...Why should I not, when I fall so far short of perfect knowledge myself? How do I know that the line beyond which ignorance damns, is behind me, not before me? If I have no forbearance with his ignorance, how can I expect God to forbear with mine?...So long then as a man exhibits a teachable disposition, is willing to hear, to learn and obey the truth of God, I care not how far he may be, how ignorant he is, I am willing to recognize him as a brother."