ANSWER TO OBJECTIONS (No.2)

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 169]

     (Editor's Note: This is the second article in reply to an editorial by Reuel Lemmons, which appeared in the Firm Foundation, June 11, 1963.)

     4. "He teaches that every sincere believer in the Messiahship of Jesus is a child of God, whether he is ever baptized or not, and is now his brother or sister in prospect." This statement is not true. I teach that every sincere person who believes that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God (1 John 5:1) and I must love all such because I love the one who begot them. Baptism is the delivery of such believers into the family of God. Before they enter the family relationship they are God's children in prospect and my brothers or sisters in prospect. They are no more children of God before they are delivered than any other embryo or foetus is a child. My responsibility toward them is to act as an obstetrician or midwife and bring them to birth, I. e., deliver them into the fellowship. What God will do with those who die in the womb, or are abortions or miscarriages, must be left to his mercy and judgment. He will no doubt deal with them as with all the rest of us, on the basis of individual responsibility.

     5. "Bro. K teaches there must be diversity of belief among God's people in order for them to have unity." I do not teach any such thing. I do not say there must be diversity to have unity, but I do

[Page 170]

teach that to have unity it must be a unity in diversity. There is no other kind of unity possible for frail, finite beings such as Brother Lemmons and myself. In the domestic, economic, social and political realms all unity is that of diversity. We are the "United States" but no one would deny there is considerable diversity between Alabama and New York, or between Texas and Missouri. God has not bound us to conformity but to unity and Romans 14 was written to show how to maintain that unity in diversity.

     6. "Bro. K refuses to deal with the verb form of fellowship." I have not refused to deal with it. I have said that the use made of the term by those like Bro. Lemmons is not sanctioned by scripture or linguistic research. In his next paragraph he asks, "Should we fellowship those whom God excludes from heaven?" We do not use other words ending in "ship" (signifying state or condition) in such fashion. We do not ask if elders should eldership each other, if apostles apostle--shipped each other, or if citizens should citizenship one another. Nor does anyone ask if a person companionships his wife, partnerships his associates, or sonships his father. Then, why ask if we fellowship this person or that?

     In the Koine Greek there grew up an acquired usage in verbal form and Paul employs it in such places as Phil. 4:15; Eph. 5:11; Phil., 4:14, etc., in the sense of "having fellowship," i. e., sharing in the state, or in the common life. Richard Grant White in Words and Their Uses (pages 141-143) says: "Fellowship used as a verb is an abomination which has hither-to been regarded as of American origin. It is not often heard or written among people whose language is in other respects a fair example of the English spoken in 'America;' but Mr. Bartlett justly says in his 'Dictionary of Americanisms' (a useful and interesting although a very misleading book), that it 'appears with disgusting frequency in the reports of ecclesiastical conventions, and in the religious newspapers generally.' The convictions, however, and the newspapers are those of the least educated sects." I just do not care to have MISSION MESSENGER adjudged in that category.

     7. "His idea that error in doctrine, except for that of the antiChrist, should never cause us to break fellowship puts him in opposition to Gal. 1:6-9 and Eph. 5:3-12. If God breaks fellowship with those who preach another gospel (or doctrine) why should not we? The latter passage excludes from heaven those who practice covetousness, envy, jealousy and such like." Certainly we will not be in the fellowship with those who proclaim another gospel, for it is the gospel of Christ that brings us into the fellowship. We do not enter it by an understanding of all the apostle wrote to the churches, but by belief of the gospel they proclaimed to the world, for we are in the world until we come into Christ. Does Brother Lemmons intend to imply that those who differ with him about cups, classes or colleges, are preaching another gospel? Is our brother teaching a gospel of salvation by multiple cups and of damnation by instrumental music?

     We should disassociate ourselves from all whom God has cut off and from no others. Those whose conduct denies the Lordship of Jesus over their lives prove themselves unworthy. I never knew of an anti-covetous party, an anti-envy party, or an anti-jealousy party. Our problem is making men's views, opinions and interpretations the grounds upon which to form sects. Does God exclude from heaven a child of his who is honestly mistaken in judgment about Herald of Truth, classes, cups, orphan homes, instrumental music, or an organization for spreading the gospel? Covetousness, envy and jealousy are works of the flesh. Is an honest mistake in judgment or a misunderstanding of a scriptural passage a work of the flesh? Does our brother think God will damn everyone who does not see everything just like the faction with which he is allied?

     6. "He teaches sectarianism is sin (which is true), but then urges complete fellowship of sectarians." Our good brother uses "fellowship" in a way unknown to the scriptures, but I do not urge "fellowship of sectarians" at all. I only say that I am

[Page 171]

in the fellowship with every child of God wherever he is. I am in the fellowship with such children of God because God has added them to the one body, not because they have added themselves to something additional. I am not in the fellowship with God's children who may be in the Baptist party because they are Baptists, for I am not a Baptist. I am in the fellowship with them because they are Christians, that is, have come into Christ. One need not be sectarian because he is in a sect any more than one has to be a Russian because he is in Russia, or a Texan because he is in Texas. One is not a sectarian because of where he is but because of his attitude toward truth. Some members of the "Church of Christ" are very sectarian, some who are not in it are relatively free from the sectarian spirit.

     I have urged those in the various factions of the restoration movement to stay where they are when they learn new truths and not switch factions. Above all, they should not come out and start another party on the basis of their newly-discovered truth, under the guise that it will be the "loyal church." This troubles Brother Lemmons. One time he argues that I am going to start a new sect but the next time he condemns me for insisting that we all stay where we are and share our increasing knowledge with those whom we know best and who need it most. How can you start a new party if everyone stays where he is and loves all the rest. What all of us need to do is not to start a "loyal church" but quit our sectarian attitude toward our brothers and be loyal to Christ Jesus. I am not interested in an anti-party party or an anti-faction faction!