Reply to Brother Lemmons

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 132]

     Brother Lemmons regards the stirring of the church by the ecumenical spirit as being good. He rejoices that every splinter of the Restoration movement is dealing with the subject orally and in writing. He affirms that unity is now possible. He concedes that all of the past approaches to unity may have contributed some good thing, although he believes they came to nought because of certain weaknesses inherent in them. We are concerning ourselves with his article because it came as the conclusion of three previous articles in which our brother attacked what he is pleased to call "the Ketcherside unity plan."

     We are serious about an attempt to restore a sense of unity to all of the saints in the shattered restoration brotherhood and to the children of God who may never have heard of the restoration movement. We have been writing, talking and conferring on the theme in many parts of the United States and Canada. We have answered questions by the hundreds in forums. It must be candidly stated that the one "splinter of the Restoration movement" which has done the most to discourage association of free men for honest discussion across partisan lines is the one represented by Brother Lemmons. These brethren have generally refused to participate in forums in which every other faction and segment has been represented. In some places they have threatened reprisals against those who attended and in others have exerted pressures to cause men who promised to confer to withdraw and go back on their word.

     I freely offer to give ample space to publication in MISSION MESSENGER of a plan submitted by Brother Lemmons which will be designed to secure restoration of harmony among all of the dissident factions which have grown out of the restoration movement. I am not committed irrevocably to any approach to our grave problem if a better one can be developed. I invite Brother Lemmons to take the space required to present a definite, positive, spelled-out approach without inherent weakness. Since he admits the possibility of having unity, and since he opposes the approach we are making we are ready to hear "a more excellent way."

     We will publicize in advance the fact that he will offer such a program and will do all within our feeble power and with our limited resources to assure him a hearing through the medium of this little journal. We will examine any such approach as objectively as possible. If criticism is deemed essential it will be made in love.

     We believe that a realistic approach must rise above a narrow partisan appeal. It must preserve the inalienable freedom of all of God's children to go to the word of God for themselves and to be accountable only unto him for their sincere and studious deductions from that word. It must provide a means for removal rather than for preservation of traditional barriers between brethren without indignity to any. Brother Lemmons has used Firm Foundation as the base for an extended attack against our plea. We invite him now to use MISSION MESSENGER as a medium for giving to us all a genuine objective and positive program which will lead to the unity of all without the sectarianizing of any. Let us have done with platitudes and generalizations and get on with the real task.

     We think an examination of the article by Brother Lemmons is in order. He closes his first paragraph with the statement that 'Unity in spite of differences is not unity." Of course our brother knows that unity is unity where men differ about many things. He has unity confused with conformity. Free men will always differ and the only way to eliminate differences is to surrender freedom to the rule of a dictator who can through coercion and fear make men outwardly conform.

     A man and wife can have unity in their marriage relationship and be one flesh in

[Page 133]

spite of many differences. The truth is that the only unity possible to them is that which recognizes diversity. Does our brother think that those who give the flag salute lie when they say, "One nation under God indivisible"? None of us would be so foolish as to affirm that there are not differences among our elected representatives but these do not destroy the fact that we are united states.

     I daresay that in the very congregation where Brother Lemmons attends in Austin the brethren do not concur on every interpretation. Must we conclude that he is a member of a divided congregation? If we cannot have unity in spite of differences can there ever be any unity at all? I do not agree perfectly with any man on earth. Who is going to be the universal regulator of what free men must think about everything? Can we have absolute conformity without creating a pope? Was it not this very type of reasoning coupled with a desire to secure conformity which led to the pontifex maximus of Rome?

     Our brother quotes l John 1:7, "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another." Every faction quotes that same verse and every faction thinks the members of every other faction are in darkness. Those who oppose cups, classes, and Herald of Truth, think Brother Lemmons is walking in darkness and they will not have "fellowship" with him. We have the ridiculous spectacle of some two dozen groups quoting this passage and applying it in condemnation of all the others. What each means is actually that, "If you walk in the light as we are in the light, we will have fellowship with you." In every instance the party interpretation is the "light" and if you do not kow-tow to it you are in darkness.

     Brother Lemmons says, "we can do those in error more good by preaching the gospel unto them than we can by extending to them a synthetic fellowship." He also says, "It is a painful thing to find we have no monopoly on the truth, nor are we immune from error." We presume our brother includes himself in the statement. Now we are as confident that our good brother is in error as he is in thinking we are, but we cannot help him by preaching the gospel unto him. Nor can we help any of our factions by preaching the gospel unto them. They are all made up of people who have obeyed the gospel. Has not Brother Lemmons obeyed the gospel? Does he not claim to actually be a gospel preacher"? How can one help a gospel preacher who is in error by preaching the gospel to him, the very thing he obeyed in order to become a gospel preacher? Our sinful divisions are not caused by lack of obedience to the gospel for the obedience to the gospel brings us all into one body. It was after we came into that body we became divided.

     Our sinful schisms arise from mistaken views about "fellowship" upon the part of those who have heard and obeyed the gospel. Not only can we not extend a synthetic fellowship, but we cannot extend a genuine fellowship. The fellowship is a state or condition into which we are called of God (1 Cor. 1:9). Certainly it is "more than just a nice attitude toward every one." It is the mutual sharing in the life of the indwelling Spirit by every child of God. It is a joint participation in the Spirit of the living God.

     We agree that "a denial of reality is no approach to healing the schisms" and also that "we must correct the error that causes the schism." But we do not believe that colleges, cups and classes have caused the schisms. The error lies in making brotherhood contingent upon these things and an attitude toward them, and of assuming that the way to maintain doctrinal purity is by separation from brethren and division of the divine family. Our brethren are not divided because of Herald of Truth, but because we do not love one another enough to maintain the family ties of unity in spite of divergent views and interpretations. We do not need to agree about cups, classes, colleges, television programs, and the manner of breaking the bread, to be one in Christ Jesus. Anyone who says we do is just not realistic! Jesus did not die for a "cups party" or an "anti-cups

[Page 134]

party"; or for a "television party" or an "anti-television party." He died for one body. All who have obeyed the gospel are in that body and I shall recognize and treat them all as my brothers in Him, in spite of our differences.

     Our brother quotes 1 Corinthians 1:10, Philippians 1:27 and 2:2, but he does not apply them as did the apostle. Paul did not write a single admonition to "be of one mind" or to "be of one accord" in order to bring men into the fellowship. Every such admonition was written to those who were in the fellowship and because they were in it. Being of "one mind" is not essential to being in the fellowship, but being in the fellowship is essential to becoming of one mind. We are in the fellowship because we are in one person and because we are in him we strive to achieve harmony. Certainly we are not to ignore differences, and we are to seek to eliminate them, but we are not to divide over them. There will always be differences among free men but these are not as important as the cross. We should allow ourselves to be drawn together by the cross rather than drawn apart by our divergencies of viewpoint.

     We are not pleading for "a loose federation of divergent beliefs" but for a close aggregation of devoted believers. The body of our Lord is not composed of beliefs, but of believers, and those who are one in Christ may differ without dividing as we learn from Romans 14. It is Brother Lemmons who substitutes a plan of unity for that proposed by Jesus. He predicates unity upon conformity and makes forbearance an unworthy or unnecessary virtue. "The pattern of unity proposed by the Holy Spirit" makes allowance for differences. It forbids you to "pass judgment on your brother" or to "despise your brother." The man who "sets at nought a brother" no longer walks in love. He destroys the work of God. Through love I can cling to my brother and hold my opinions.

     Brother Lemmons repudiates "the authority of the scriptures" and makes a traditional partisan pattern his rule of faith and practice. The word of God does not authorize the rending and riving, the splitting and shredding of the fabric of brotherhood. Our brother is not pleading for unity but for the sanctification and maintenance of our divisions until every person sees everything as does the party with which he is identified. He seeks to justify division in the family of God but the Holy Spirit everywhere condemns it.

     Our beloved brother demonstrates his "denial of reality" when he says, "Unity is not attained by the maintenance of these private interpretations of scripture, but by the abandonment of them." How can a man abandon what he believes the scriptures to teach? Will Brother Lemmons give up his interpretations of scripture to have unity? Of course he will reply that he refers to interpretations that are "in error." But who among us deliberately holds an interpretation that he believes is in error? Who clings to an interpretation after he is convinced that it is in error? Are we to allow our brother to become the sole arbiter as to whose interpretations are in error? Do the brethren who oppose classes think they are in error? Do those who oppose Herald of Truth think they are in error? Do those who believe in the pre-millennial return of our glorious Lord think they are in error? Of course, Brother Lemmons thinks they are all in error, but they all think he is. Who is to decide who must abandon what?

     God never predicated our fellowship upon surrender of our private interpretations. A man can no more abandon his brain-children than he can his children in the flesh. The word of God does not tell us to abandon such, but says, "Your personal convictions are a matter of faith between yourself and God" (Rom. 14:22). Unity is not attained by abandoning our interpretations of scripture, for this is an impossibility for honest men, but by a proper sense of values which allows us to maintain our interpretations without placing them as obstacles or stumbling blocks in a brother's way. We agree that "any attempt that offers pardon and heaven to those who have not met the terms of heaven's King is not a

[Page 135]

scriptural attempt." We have no intention to "convey the idea that there is a fellowship much more broad and vast than that defined by the scriptures." But it is just as dangerous to confine fellowship to "narrowing little bands" with their "zealously defended barriers." In an editorial appearing in Firm Foundation, April 21, 1959, under the heading, "The Deadly Narrowing," Brother Lemmons wrote thus:

     If the Restoration movement is to escape the inevitable fate of denominationalism we must hold fast the line against the "narrowing of our horizon of spiritual things." Recent years has seen the division and subdivision of the forces of the Restoration into ever narrowing little bands of vicious and highly sectarian people. We believe it is high time that attention be called to the broad undenominational nature of the Christian religion...
     This narrowing has produced different brands of Christians, and most of the groups have built "spite fences" separating themselves from all others. By what principle of Christianity do groups of brethren separate into camps with zealously defended barriers that prohibit the fellowship and co- operation of one group of them with another? Every division that takes place makes that group more narrow and more sectarian than ever.
     As Christians all of us are members only of that broad, universal church for which Jesus died. If the undenominational view of the early church, and of the leaders of the Restoration, had continued until this day there would not be the divided warring factions among us that spend their energies fighting each other rather than fighting the devil in a united, invincible army.

     Does Brother Lemmons equate "the broad, universal church for which Jesus died" with that "sect of the splintered Restoration" with which he is affiliated? Could one believe in the pre-millennial interpretation as did Moses E. Lard and be a member of "the broad, universal church"? Could he accept those from the Baptist Church as brothers without re- immersing them as David Lipscomb did and be a member of it? Could he profess to be a Calvinist as did Thomas Campbell after his immersion and be a member of it? Could he believe there were Christians in all of the sects as Alexander Campbell did and be a member of it? Could he believe in universalism as did Aylette Raines and be a member of it? Could he refuse to make instrumental music in worship a test of fellowship as did John W. McGarvey and be a member of it? Could he oppose the idea of a triune Godhood as did Barton W. Stone and be a member of "the broad universal church for which Jesus died"? Has our good brother Lemmons "forgotten the Restoration principle entirely"?

     Brother Lemmons believes that "the plea for unity first made by the pioneers of the Restoration movement was basically sound." In the same paragraph be talks about "a highly inferior and absolutely counterfeit proposal for unity in spite of differences." Yet it was "unity in spite of differences" which constituted "the plea for unity first made by the pioneers of the Restoration movement." In one breath he calls it basically sound and in the next breath labels it as absolutely counterfeit.

     In April, 1831, the Millersburg (Kentucky) Christian Church was constituted by a union of a congregation planted by Barton W. Stone and another planted by Robert M. Batson. The record says:

     It was the practice of the brethren forming the two congregations to commune together at their several meetings, and finally, finding themselves to be one so far as faith and practice are concerned, they agreed to meet together without regard to difference of opinions, acknowledging no name but that of Christian and no creed but the Bible."

     A historian who was an intimate associate of Aylette Raines, writing of his acceptance with his peculiar views, says:

     Early in the history of the Restoration circumstances occurred that put its principles to a severe test. Whether the disciples of Christ could be united in faith, and at the same time hold different opinions in regard to speculative matters, having fellowship together in the one body of Christ on this basis, became a question of absorbing interest and vital importance. It was not expected that all thinking minds would reach the same opinions on questions not directly explained or settled ex cathedra in the Scriptures...

[Page 136]

     If the disciples could not be united in faith and have fellowship with each other while holding contrary opinions as respects matters lying outside the circle of faith, then the movement was doomed to dismal failure. But if they could do these two things, the success of their plea could not be thwarted.

     The "pioneers of the Restoration" all advocated unity in spite of differences of opinion, and Brother Lemmons declares that their plea was basically sound. Then he writes, "Unity can only come by our putting out of our hearts our own opinions." Now listen to Alexander Campbell:

     But men cannot give up their opinions, and, therefore, they never can unite, says one. We do not ask them to give up their opinions. We ask them only not to impose them upon others. Let them hold their opinions; but let them hold them as private property. The faith is public property; opinions are, and always have been, private property. Men have foolishly attempted to make the deductions of some great minds the common measure of all Christians...It is cruel to excommunicate a man because of the imbecility of his intellect...I never did at any time exclude a man from the Kingdom of God for a mere inbecility of his intellect, or, in other words, because he could not assent to my opinions. All sects are doing, or have done this."

     In the very same article, Brother Campbell wrote again:

     Reason and experience unite their testimony in assuring us that, in the same proportion as individuals labor to be of one opinion, they disagree. The greater the emphasis laid upon opinions, the more rapidly they generate. The nearest approaches to a unity of opinion which I have ever witnessed, have appeared in those societies in which no effort was made to be of one opinion; in which they allowed the greatest liberty of opinion, and in which they talked more and boasted more of the glory and majesty of the great facts, the wonderful works of God's lovingkindness to the children of men, than of themselves, their views and attainments...
     If I were to attempt to produce the greatest uniformity of opinion, I would set about it by paying no respect to opinions, laying no emphasis upon them, admiring and contemning no opinions as such. But if I wished to produce the greatest discrepancies in opinion, I would call some damnably dangerous, others of vital importance; I would always eulogize the sound, and censure the erroneous in opinions. We all know that strife is like the bursting forth of water--it always widens the channels; and many a broil in churches, neighborhoods, and families would have been prevented if the first indication had been sympathetically attributed to the infirmity of human nature.

     Not only is our good brother in the Lord, who edits Firm Foundation, inconsistent with the word of God and the pioneers of the Restoration in his contention for unity based upon conformity in opinion, but he is also inconsistent with himself. In his editorial, "The Deadly Narrowing," printed April 21, 1959, he said:

     There are many things that most brethren consider to be matters of opinion. Yet they make the acceptance of their opinions the basis upon which they will withhold or extend fellowship. If others will have opinions which parallel theirs then fellowship is extended, but if others hold converse opinions fellowship is withheld. We have never believed that matters of opinion should be the basis of fellowship. We are loathe to see the horizon of our spiritual things narrowed to the limits of any man's opinions.

     In 1959 our brother offered what he now calls "an absolutely counterfeit proposal for unity in spite of differences" and castigated the "division and subdivision of the forces of the Restoration into ever narrowing little bands of vicious and highly sectarian people." Now he thinks these "little bands of vicious and highly sectarian people" should remain divided until they can put their opinions out of their hearts. Our brother should have labeled his editorial "Some Thoughts on Disunity." He offered nothing constructive for promotion of unity among our divided brethren but simply rehearsed that traditional thinking which has shivered us to bits and tainted us all with the sin and shame of division. Instead of straightening our walls we should remove them as Christ did that other "middle wall of partition which was against us."

     In conclusion, let us voice our sympathy for Brother Lemmons and all the rest

[Page 137]

of us within the present framework of the Restoration movement. All of our brethren mean well. They do not want to compose "little bands of vicious and highly sectarian people." They are only being faithful to a fatal philosophy which has fractured us into fragments and will continue to do so until we no longer equate it with the will of God. We need to think boldly and act bravely if we expect to measure up to the demands of these stirring times. The noble pioneers of the Restoration movement met the challenge of a universal defense of division. Can we, as their sons, meet the challenge of a universal desire for unity?