Reply to Brother Lemmons

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 147]

     In the June 4 issue of the Firm Foundation, the editor presents an article under the heading, "Why We Did Not Run Ketcherside's Articles." He assigns two reasons: (1) The articles were not relevant to the objections made against my position; (2) My attitude as shown in the articles was different than that demonstrated personally in the Denver and California lectures. I am willing to allow the articles to speak for themselves and perfectly willing for the brethren who attended the public lectures to testify as to my conduct. Those who were present may wish to write Brother Lemmons who was not.

     Our good brother says of me, "He bent over backwards in his public speeches to court the Digressives while throwing insults and slurs at what he calls the "non-instrument segment of the Disciples Brotherhood." The editor is wrong on three counts in this one statement. First, I conduct public forums simply for the purpose of sharing my views with brethren who are concerned about the divided state of the heirs of the restoration movement. I do not court any group, segment, splinter or fragment, for I never again intend to be allied with any faction or to be a spokesman for such. Second, I have a deep love for all of my brethren in the Lord, whether they use instrumental music or not. I have never intentionally hurled a single insult or slur at any of them. I believe the tapes of the meetings will show that I did not but if anything I said can bear such an interpretation I herewith apologize freely and abjectly. To insult any brother would be detrimental to everything I hope to accomplish in pleading for peace among all the Israel of God.

     Third, I have never used the expression twice assigned to me by the editor. I do refer to the instrumental segment and the non-instrumental segment of "the disciple brotherhood," a term long used to describe the heirs of the restoration movement. The "Disciples Brotherhood" may be quite a different thing as all students of later developments in the restoration movement well know. I had hoped we had arrived at the state of spiritual maturity where we could dispense with such partisan designations as "the Digressives," and am somewhat surprised to see this label affixed three times by our brother. Those whom he labels as "the Digressives" are my brethren for whom Christ died. I feel that we digress from the spirit of brotherly love when we thus corral and brand those who differ with us about the validity of certain things. This does not make any easier the tremendous task of trying to recover our lost oneness. Brother Lemmons writes that I am "a cunning manipulator of words and phrases." This throws a shadow over my integrity and makes his readers look for some hidden and ulterior meaning in my words. It is regrettable that we must have such imputations. Our brother asks us to mark carefully that "Brother K. actually denies that there is, or can be, any visible manifestation of the Lord's church." This is not true at all as the careful readers of MISSION MESSENGER well realize. It is my contention that when the body is in schism, no part or segment is the whole body. Brother Lemmons is still enraptured with the myth that only those who subscribe to the interpretations on controversial issues set forth by the Firm Foundation, constitute the one body. These have arrived and all others have departed. The fact is that God has a people scattered through all of our factions and sects, and all of these people are members of the one body. Others have not departed from us but we are separated

[Page 148]

from each other. Not all of God's sheep are caught in sectarian thickets, but most of them, including Brother Lemmons and myself, have grown up in, or grown up and come into certain fractions or factions in the Christian realm. The one body will manifest itself visibly whereever any congregation of saints refuses to allow artificial barriers erected by men to keep them separated and segregated from each other. This does not mean to ignore our differences at all. It simply means that we cease to regard our differences as more important than the blood of Jesus and love the more intensely those with whom we differ.

     Our brother declares that differences create sects. I deny this. Differences place strains upon relationships but do not sever them. This is true in the domestic, social, political and spiritual realms. We differ over many things about which we do not divide. The writers in Firm Foundation do not create a sect every time they differ with each other. Sects are created by the party spirit as unity is produced by the Holy Spirit. It is lack of love that results in division. So long as we love each other as we should we will not divide into factions. Our factions are not so much a witness of our faithfulness to Christ, who condemns them, as of our lovelessness to each other, and this will condemn us.

     Our brother directly accuses me of making a plea for unity "that urges a loose amalgamation of various factions." In this he reveals that he does not begin to understand that for which I contend. Of what use would an amalgamation of factions be? Such an amalgamation would not constitute the one body at all. Since, as he says, "Readers of the Firm Foundation have a right to know what Brother K. believes on this matter," I think I am better qualified to state it than my esteemed brother editor. I am opposed to all factions and factionalism. A faction is a work of the flesh. A loose (or tight) amalgamation of factions would be but a conglomeration of works of the flesh, devoid of the Spirit. I am set for the eradication of all factions, including the two in which Brother Lemmons and myself grew up. I believe this can only be accomplished by crucifixion of the party spirit within our hearts.

     I am branded an "All-factionist" despite my refusal to be a defender of any faction. It is charged that I "support and fellowship all factions," but I steadfastly refuse to support any, and that is the real trouble. If I had left the faction in which I served and joined the one with which Brother Lemmons serves, I would have been regarded as being in "the Lord's church." I have been in the Lord's church since the day I was immersed, for the Holy Spirit immerses one into no other. I was factional in that church for some years due to my ignorance and I am sorry for it. I do not propose to remedy the situation by switching to another faction.

     Wherever my Father has a child, I have a brother I may deplore his environment while devoted to his interests. My plea is that we restore a recognition of realistic brotherhood so that we can discuss our differences in a framework of fraternity, and not fight as "armies of aliens." If we can substitute association for accusation, dialogue for debate, and charity for irresponsible charges we may be able to lessen the frightful gaps and chasms which Satan has created between us.