REPLY TO BROTHER LEMMONS

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 184]

     In the Firm Foundation, June 18, 1963, Brother Lemmons presents his third editorial against my appeal for unity among believers in Christ. In it he directs some questions at me to which I presume he desires my answer. Lack of space will not permit an exhaustive reply but I am happy to submit the following. Our brother postulates that "the Ketcherside plan is nothing more nor less than the Ecumenical movement of the World Council of Churches boiled down and applied to the church." He is wrong. The Ecumenical movement would preserve denominational structures; my plea is for a destruction of all the factions among us by eliminating the party spirit. I am not so unrealistic as to think this can be done in a day so I simply urge that all who are in Christ work together on the problem in a spirit of love. All factionalism is sin and we must overthrow, not defend or protect it.

     Brother Lemmons asks, "If differences have destroyed fellowship, how can fellowship exist in spite of them?" Differences do not destroy fellowship. They only place strains upon the relationship. It is lack of love which destroys fellowship. Fellowship is that state into which we are called by the gospel. When we are called we have differences, and we always will have. We need not be divided over them. That "sect of the church" (to use his own terminology) with which Brother Lemmons is identified is composed of brethren who differ over the war question, divorce and remarriage, method of caring for orphans, support of institutions, and a host of other things. Does Brother Lemmons consider these differences have destroyed their fellowship? It is the dogmatic attitude which makes partisan tests of points of difference which destroys fellowship. I refuse to recognize the relevance of these tests men have devised to divide God's family, and therefore, I am in the fellowship with all of my brethren in spite of them. It is easy to see how fellowship can "exist in spite of differences" when you learn to love your brothers more than you love your differences.

     I am asked, "If it is wrong for the World Council to disregard error why is it not wrong to disregard it among the divisions of the Lord's church?" It is wrong to disregard error anywhere. I do not plead that we disregard error but that we regard as brothers beloved those for whom Christ died and who have been called into him, and that, in spite of their errors. I just do not have any brothers who are not in error, although they are not all in the same error. Error is not necessarily sin, unless all ignorance is sin.

     I am asked, "If Brother K can accept the error that exists among the sects in the church, why can't he accept the error that exists among the denominations outside the church." I cannot accept error anywhere, not even in the Firm Foundation. I love the truth and am dedicated to seeking for it and accepting it. None of us are perfect in knowledge, so all of us are in error in some of our concepts. If any person on earth accepts me he has to do so in spite of my error. I do not consider that in so doing he accepts my error any more than I conclude that God accepted my error when he received me. Our trouble arises when someone dogmatically decides "which mistaken view" must be made a test of fellowship. I no more accept the lines that men draw against my brothers, than I accept their errors, for I think it is an error to draw such lines.

     I am asked, "Why is error so important regarding how one gets in, but unimportant after one gets in the church?" Error is never unimportant, but while all truths are equally true, they are not all equally important. One must believe a certain fact to have life. "That you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name." Freedom from error in Christ is not essential to life else one would have to be perfect in knowledge the day he was immersed. What our brother really asks is, "If a

[Page 185]

person can be wrong about anything after he was born and still be a child, why could he not be wrong about how he entered the world and still be a child?" God has conditioned life upon belief of certain facts related to Jesus, but he has not conditioned that life upon knowledge of all truths at a given time. A man may be right about Jesus and wrong about many other things and still be saved, but if he is wrong about Jesus he can be right about a lot of other things and still be lost. We should never confuse the process of birth with our digestive system.

     Our brother affirms that "the entire restoration plea is surrendered in toto by K's unity plan." In this he reveals his lack of knowledge of both the restoration plea and my proposals. The fact is that the very point against which my brother inveighs in this editorial is merely a re-statement of the great principles enunciated in Propositions 6 and 7 of the "Declaration and Address" by Thomas Campbell. These propositions express my position exactly. It is their rejection that has fragmented and factionalized us.

     It is charged concerning me that, "He means that he does not believe that instrumental music and other digressive practices are really any more than matters of opinion." What does our brother include in "other digressive practices"? Many good brethren in Texas affirm that individual cups, Sunday schools, and use of women teachers, constitute digressive practices. Some regard Bible colleges and the Herald of Truth program as in the same category with missionary societies. To them such things are matters of faith and they do not feel they can "gloss over the errors" in that "sect of the church" with which Brother Lemmons is identified.

     When other brethren oppose individual cups and Sunday schools, our brother insists that they are "matters of opinion." He asserts the right of those who have them to determine how they should be regarded. But when it comes to instrumental music he insists that those who oppose it should determine its category. It all depends upon whether you have something you wish to defend, or other brethren have something you wish to oppose--in any event, you are to be the final judge as to whether it is a "matter of faith" or a "matter of opinion."

     I do not endorse instrumental music in the corporate worship of the one body but I propose to allow those who use it the same rights I demand for myself in dealing with those brethren who oppose what I feel is justified. I regard as my brothers all of those in what Brother Lemmons calls "the various sects in the body of Christ" and I propose not only to call them brethren, but to treat them as my brothers--every one of them! I think there might be hypocrisy involved in "calling" men brothers, and treating them as aliens. "My children, love must not be a matter of words or talk; it must he genuine, and show itself in action" (1 John 3:18).