REPLY TO THE FOREGOING
W. Carl Ketcherside
[Page 187] |
Our good brother Lemmons claims to have found "false doctrine" in our appeal for unity but he sets up a straw man to belabor. Our plea does not include those "who have never really become the children of our Father" and the fact that he must make such a statement in order to have a case against me proves he cannot deal with my actual position. He is troubled and uncertain. In one issue he accuses me of trying to create another faction, in the next he assails me for telling
[Page 188] |
The trouble with Brother Lemmons is that he is thinking of reformation produced by one faction opposing another, or by one religious organization operating against another. We know that all fellowship is personal and individual. We are not concerned with one faction absorbing another, but with all lovers of truth in all of the factions acting as leaven where they are and thus gradually destroying all sectarianism from within. To call out all of the leaven in order to create a new "leaven party" will not destroy sectarianism. It will only augment it by creating another rival and vindictive party. This has been our mistake for a century. We have only increased and multiplied our factions. Let the brethren stay where they are if they are in Christ and be faithful to Him. This is the true restoration plea and the only one that can ever achieve our goal.
Notice how adroitly and abruptly our brother switches from "differences" between those in the fellowship to "any sinful thing." This kind of reasoning is unworthy of an editor of the caliber of our respected brother. What relationship is there between differences over cups, classes and colleges, to the sin of Adam? To unbelievers? To the impenitent? To perverters of the gospel? To one who deliberately adds to or subtracts from the word? To the works of the flesh? When I say that "we should love our brethren more than we love our differences" does any serious and unbiased person think this means we can overlook "any sinful thing"? Are our differences over perverting the gospel or over various opinions held by those who have obeyed the same gospel and love the same Lord?
If we love the truth will we not love all of our brethren as that truth enjoins us to do, even those who differ with our concept about the things which have troubled the family? When brethren sincerely differ with me about the Herald of Truth program, for example, must I choose between love for those brethren and love for the truth of God. I refuse to do so. I love them both! I am amazed to know that Brother Lemmons thinks Paul withstood Peter at Antioch over a matter of opinion. Peter "drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party." The party spirit is a work of the flesh. Separating yourself from other brethren is a sin. This was not a question about opinions. It is distinctly said that Peter acted insincerely! It is true that "love will not whitewash error" but it will embrace all who have washed their garments and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
I'm not certain that my brother is even fair in his accusation that all denominations foster sectism. I have talked with a great many denominational leaders in the past two years and I have yet to find one who defends or condones sectism. All of them, without exception, regard sectism as the scandal of modern Christendom and the greatest hindrance to the Christian witness. They have concurred in my condemnation of sectism when I have addressed them, and although they do not all agree with the remedial steps I recommend, they do agree that something must be done and many of them are prayerfully trying to do something. I thank God for such an attitude and take new courage because of it. Brother Lemmons is apparently still living in the nineteenth century with its sectarian bitterness.
Does our brother really believe that all who have the Son have life? Does he not actually mean that "All who have the Son and agree with my interpretation on every point of scripture" have life? If not, why does he make tests of fellowship out of the opinions and interpretations of other sincere brethren? If so, then does he not make life contingent upon knowl-
[Page 189] |
Our brother is so perturbed about instrumental music that he again misrepresents what I said. I pointed out to him that when certain brethren oppose classes which he endorses, he puts classes in the realm of opinion; but when he opposes instrumental music he does not allow those who use it to determine its category but insists it is a matter of faith.
I think the restoration movement is long overdue a definition and an analysis of "matters of faith" and "matters of opinion." If you hand one hundred brethren each a sheet of paper and tell them to classify a list of one hundred things as matters of faith and matters of opinion, you'll get back as many different answers as you have persons engaging in the test. We are in danger of being strangled by a slogan, mangled by a motto, and crucified by a cliche'. Everyone agrees that in matters of faith we should have unity and in matters of opinion we should have liberty. But no two agree on what constitutes matters of faith and matters of opinion, so we know neither where to unite nor to allow liberty.
It is interesting to note that to Brother Lemmons "the antis" are those who oppose classes. To the Disciples the "antis" are those who oppose the United Christian Missionary Society; to the Independents those who oppose instrumental music; to the advocates of orphan homes those who oppose such homes; to those who have Bible classes those who oppose such classes. All of us are "antis" to some groups and "liberals" to others. Recently another Texas journal branded Brother Lemmons as a "liberal" and Brother J. D. Thomas as a "modernist." Are we a bunch of "antis" fighting other "antis" or a group of "liberals" fighting other "liberals"? Or, are we all "liberal antis" or "anti liberals"? We are in a mess, aren't we? And yet we propose to tell the world how to be one in Christ!
Brother Lemmons is even confused about Paul's attitude toward circumcision. Paul did not say it was wrong in Galatians 5:24, or anywhere else. If he had thought it was wrong he would not have committed the wrong upon Timothy (Acts 16:3). Not once did he teach the Jews not to circumcise their children (Acts 21:21-24. He said that "In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncirumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love" (Gal. 5:6). What Paul opposed was the binding of circumcision upon the Gentiles as a basis of justification, instead of personal faith in the Lord Jesus. Circumcision as a national rite or as a matter of personal and family preference among Jewish Christians was a matter of indifference to the apostle, although it was not so to many of these Christians.
It was when men came from Jerusalem and taught the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the law of Moses, you cannot be saved," that Paul and Barnabas rose up against them. Paul was not at all opposed to the Jews circumcising their children if they wished to do so, but he was opposed to a circumcision party in the church of God. It was "the circumcision party" which criticized Peter for taking the good news to the Gentiles (Acts 11:2). It was this same party which tried to make salvation contingent on this rite at the Jerusalem con-
[Page 190] |
An "instrumental music party" or an "anti-instrument party" which makes one's standing before God dependent upon abject conformity to the party line is just as sinful as a "circumcision party" and for the very same reason. Brother Lemmons does not stand with Paul in opposing things as a basis of justification before God. He is with those who say to the brethren, "Except you agree with us about the instrument you cannot be saved." This assumes for the party the prerogative of God and this is really "a body of error and hidden poison."
Our brother emphasizes that I have proposed "absolutely nothing new" in my appeal for unity. I think this is correct. The furore is not so much about what I have proclaimed but over the fact that I am also practicing it. I refuse to allow any faction to restrict my efforts to any segment of the great brotherhood of saints. I shall move freely among all of God's children, commending what I can and refusing to commend what I cannot. I shall allow all of my brethren to be answerable to God who also will judge me in the last day. I intend to be a Christian and a Christian only and to share with every other Christian on the earth, regardless of his current factional or sectarian alignment. I am opposed to all sects and I love all Christians. Perhaps this is new in our age!
This concludes our arrangement with Brother Lemmons to publish in MISSION MESSENGER the articles he reproduced in Firm Foundation. We are grateful to him for publishing our four one-page articles in his paper and we pray for our brother and for all of our other brethren who read Firm Foundation. Better days are ahead for all of us. There are signs everywhere that attitudes are changing. Brethren are becoming more bold in their declarations against orthodoxy and legalism. Of course we anticipate further areas of personal attack and boycott, but this is a small price to pay for freedom in Christ Jesus. Be sure that we shall not allow ourselves to become embittered or cease to love. Our hope of sharing with Jesus over there depends upon our exhibiting love to all of the brethren over here!
To our readers who have been so patient and understanding during this published exchange we express our gratitude for your longsuffering and forbearance. As we now prepare to get on with the tremendous task of waging peace among all of our dissident forces, we "commend you to God and the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified." We entreat you, true yokefellows, to pray for us!