Facing a Dilemma

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 129]

     Many of the heirs of the restoration movement are faced with a dilemma. The changing fortunes of history have conspired together to make their practice as vain as their plea is valid. This movement began, according to Alexander Campbell, as a project to unite the Christians in all of the sects." It was launched at a time when religious rivalry was rampant and sectarian adherents sought scriptural justification for their partisan establishments. The clear call for unity based upon faith in Christ Jesus instead of upon conformity in knowledge or opinion, was like a fresh wind blowing across an arid desert. One can only wonder what might have been the result if the same clarity of vision had been maintained by succeeding generations.      Now, however, the scandal of schism is almost universally recognized and the rest of the religious world is pleading for unity. This places the movement with which we are allied in an embarrassing position, for our brethren are still dividing while those we set about to unite have started uniting. The restoration movement had a real message for a divided church. What is its message to a Christian world seeking to unite? I am concerned about this because I know that the witness of my brethren will make no impact if it is not relevant to current needs. In this article I shall relate my investigation especially to the position of the non-instrument segment of the disciple brotherhood, with which I am best acquainted.

     One of the recognized journals of this particular group is the Firm Foundation which is edited by our brother in Christ, Reuel Lemmons. Brother Lemmons is thoroughly qualified by virtue of association and experience to express the orthodox position of the largest faction of our brethren, and this he does in an editorial in the June 25 issue of his periodical. The title of the article is "Some Thoughts on Unity," and we reproduce it in its entirety so that our readers may have access to it. This article appeared after three successive issues in which our brother wrote in contradiction to my own plea.

     We think that responsible journalism requires that we examine what is said in contravention to our position, and that we allow the views examined to be expressed by the one who holds them. To all of those who regret the necessity of publishing this kind of an issue we express our kindred regret, but we feel there is no way by which we can be true to the cause we have espoused and to our inner conscience, and evade or avoid such confrontations. We only trust that this issue of the paper will be regarded as it was intended--a feeble contribution to that unity of all of our brothers in the Lord, a unity for which we daily pray.