REPLY TO THE FOREGOING

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 173]

     4. Our genial brother strives hard to indict me but I suspect that many of his readers share my views. Most of us are better than our unwritten creeds. One is begotten of God when the Spirit quickens him through the gospel upon his belief that Jesus is the Son of God. It is believing this which produces life (John 20:31). The period of gestation differs with the individual. When one is immersed he is born into the family relationship. Prior to that he is God's child in prospect and my brother in prospect. But there is a difference. God can call things that be not as though they were (Rom. 4:17). When one is conceived, even though not yet born, God can foresee his future relationship (Cp. Romans 9:10-12). He knows how those who have believed will further respond although I do not.

     In the sense in which John uses the expression, those who are begotten "do no sin" because the divine seed remains in them and they renounce the practice of sin. In the sense in which Brother Lemmons apparently uses it they commit sin just as he does, for I hardly think he would affirm sinless perfection for himself. A believer receives the Holy Spirit when born into the family relationship and becomes a brother in fact instead of in prospect (Gal. 4:6).

     5. Our brother now admits "there may be a diversity of opinion and yet unity." On June 25, he wrote, "Unity can only come by putting out of our hearts our own opinions." He assailed what he called "a highly inferior and absolutely counterfeit proposal for unity in spite of differences." Now he has accepted our thesis in a degree and is willing to "counterfeit" in a limited measure. I deny that any honest opinion when held as such by a humble child of God, can ever be made a test of fellowship because fellowship in Christ is not conditioned upon uniformity of opin-

[Page 174]

ion but upon oneness in Him. The greatest sin to which diversity of opinion can lead is schism in the body and that is the very thing our brother condones.

     He says, "In matters where diversity leads to sin there can be no unity." If a brother sincerely holds the opinion of the pre-millennial reign of Jesus but is not led into sin does Brother Lemmons consider him as in the fellowship? Will he use the Firm Foundation to urge acceptance of all the humble brethren who hold the pre-millennial view and are not sinners? Has the post-millennial view held by Brother Lemmons led him into the sin of dividing the body into warring parties over the coming of our glorious Lord who is the head of that body and of us all?

     6. I did not say that fellowship used as a verb is an Americanism. I quoted from Richard Grant White, a distinguished linguist, who in turn referred to John Russell Bartlett and his "Dictionary of Americanisms." In his book Words and Their Uses, Mr. White lists the verb "to fellowship" in a chapter entitled "Words that are no Words." He declares that it is "the least educated sects" who use the word "fellowship" in this fashion. The passages cited by our brother do not obviate my position that fellowship is a relationship between persons. In Phil. 4:14 the brethren were commended for sharing with Paul in his difficulties; in 1 Timothy 5:22 the evangelist was warned against sharing with others in their misdeeds.

     It is proper for our good brother to point out our own lapses into the factional speech we are striving to correct. We regret our mistakes but rejoice when someone is gracious enough to point them out to us. We are surprised that our brother did not find more errors in his meticulous search of our writings. No doubt there are others which he overlooked. It is our aim, God willing, to free MISSION MESSENGER from error as we learn better and in the words of our brother to "clean up the sheet." We invoke the prayers and help of all the brethren that we may edit a journal deserving of the consideration of every member of the concerned ones.

     7. No, Brother Lemmons, those who have believed the facts of the gospel but have not been immersed into our Lord have not entered the fellowship. Will our readers note the statement that I cannot sidetrack the issue by calling attention to minor opinions? I mentioned "Herald of Truth, classes, cups, orphan homes, instrumental music, or an organization for spreading the gospel." Are these minor human opinions? If so, will our brother give up his human opinion on all of them, to have peace? This is his recommendation with reference to opinions.

     Certainly we are to "take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness" mentioned in Ephesians 5:3-12. But does Brother Lemmons classify all of God's sons who use instrumental music with those who are immoral, impure, covetous and idolaters? We are not divided over such things. We are divided over cups, classes, colleges, etc. Why equate our brothers who disagree with us with the pagans of Paul's day? Does God break fellowship with one of his sincere humble children over a misunderstanding relative to orphan homes or instrumental music? Does Brother Lemmons?

     8. Our respected brother assumes that every one in a sect is a sectarian. But sectarianism is an attitude. It is the party spirit. A great many people are caught in the meshes of the sects who are not sectarian, just as a great many who are sectarian have been caught in the same faction as Brother Lemmons. I do not urge "complete fellowship of sectarians" at all. I simply affirm that I am in the fellowship with the Christians who are in the sects. I am opposed to all sectarianism but I am not opposed to God's children wherever they may be. I deplore their errors as I do mine but I love them as He loved us all.

     I am castigated as having a "far more liberal view of the essentials." Our brother mentions instrumental music and premillennialists. I am opposed to the use of instrumental music in the corporate worship. I do not hold the pre-millennial interpretation. What makes me a liberal? Simply that I love God's children and my brothers who disagree with my views about instrumental music and the millennium.

[Page 175]

I will not drive them from me. I will not make a test of fellowship out of these matters because God does not. I will not subscribe to a creed of orthodoxy which makes a man's relationship to my blessed Lord depend upon his having a correct view of instrumental music or the millennium. I will not build a party around my opposing views and make membership contingent upon conformity to my interpretation.

     I believe all sectarianism is dangerous and none more dangerous than that which develops an exclusivist attitude which attempts to cut men off from God because they will not bow to our unwritten creeds. I am through with factionalism-- all of it! I am through with all parties and partisanism! I intend to be just a child of God and a brother to all of his other children. To deny their paternity is to insult my Father. Our brother applies to me the quote from Henry V, by Shakespeare, about "the valiant flea." It is an undeserved compliment. Instead, I have taken the advice of the immortal bard as suggested in Macbeth, "Take no care who chafes, who frets, or where conspirers are."