Prophet and Priest
W. Carl Ketcherside
[Page 97] |
Because of the nature of religion there are two roles which must be enacted by men within its ranks. Religion expresses itself in ritual and protects its devotional manifestation with certain forms. Its grave danger is ever that true worship will become confused with the forms of its expression and degenerate into empty performance carried out with punctilious precision while the heart of the worshiper is far removed. There must be those who call the minds of men back to their true status and urge constant reformation.
In days of yore these two functions were carried out by priest and prophet. The priest was concerned with the correct observance of the required ritual. He presided over the public phases of worship and was always alert to detect any deviation and to correct procedures which tended to vary from the norm. The prophet had a different message. He was not unconcerned with preservation of form, but he knew that even a corpse retains its form for awhile after the spirit is departed. He was primarily interested in inspiring men to serve God in a vital way, so his cry was always, "Turn ye, for why will ye die?"
The priest called for a constant examination of the service to see that no alien modification crept in. The prophet called for a constant examination of the heart to see that no alienating concept was retained. One called upon men to conform, the other called upon them to reform. It was not necessary that their tasks conflict because men must express their worship and such expression must be made by use of formal means. However, men are averse to change, and they frequently find it difficult to distinguish between worship, which is an attitude of the heart, and the forms which are the external means of expression of such worship.
The prophet often found himself under attack by both priest and people. It has become axiomatic that no people can endure their own prophets. It was to the chosen people of God that the question was addressed, "'Was there ever a prophet whom your fathers did not persecute?" Nevertheless, without the prophet, or reformer, calling upon us to consider our beginnings and ponder our present ways, we generally adopt such attitudes as will eventually lead us into exile and render our witness a sterile and static thing.
The present writer is neither a prophet nor a student of the schools of the prophets. For that reason it may appear presumptuous indeed for him to humbly call for an examination of the motives and methods of his brethren in the Lord. We must confess, however, to being driven by a strong inner sense of urgency to write as we do in the hope that God may use our meager appeal to stimulate and raise up men possessed of far greater qualification and who can approximate more closely to "the prophetic vision" needed for such days as these. If the brethren can endure
[Page 98] |
Having been reared in a Danish Lutheran background, we deserted that sect at a rather early age, being immersed upon an acknowledgment that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God. In the mining region where we first lived there was but one faction of the restoration movement and we were firm in our conviction that it alone was "the kingdom of heaven" which had been spoken of by all of the prophets. There was little question but what we had restored the primitive church in its purity and constituted "the people of God" to the exclusion of all others in our humble community. Our attitude toward other sincere religionists in the neighborhood was that of native-born citizens toward foreigners who are poaching on their private preserve. They were either ignorant or dishonest in their claim to be Christians and we were called of God to "smite them hip and thigh" and drive them out of the land.
I am not sure when I first became aware that there were other factions which also claimed to be "The Church of Christ" but it was a great comfort to know that none of them constituted the "loyal church." They were suffering under "strong delusions." All of them were either hobbyists or sectarians, depending upon whether they opposed things we had, or had things we opposed. We were fully persuaded that those among them who were really honest would some day learn "the truth" and become identified with us, while the remainder would go farther and farther into the depths of stubborness on the one hand, or of apostasy on the other, and we would judge them in the day when we also judged the angels. There was no question but what we would do the judging and we were constantly practicing up in anticipation of the last great day. We did not want to come to the task wholly inexperienced!
When we convinced someone in another faction that he was treading on dangerous ground and he "lined up with us, we exultingly reported this as a conversion to the truth. But when someone left our party and aligned himself with another faction we quoted, "He went out from us because he was not of us; for if he had been of us, he would no doubt have continued with us." He might have been preaching for us for years, but when he forsook the party we marked and avoided him as if he had the plague. We always rationalized as to what prompted such a person to defect, whether love of money, desire for prestige or pride of position. If none of these fit the case, we concluded that he was temporarily out of his mind. It was just unthinkable that a sane person would not see everything exactly as we did or that he could learn something we had not taught him.
I do recall the first time that I heard of a "Christian Church" putting up a sign "Church of Christ" on their building. I was incensed and indignant that such a group would seek to steal the name of "the Lord's church." The "Christian Church" was composed of apostates and they were worse than other sectarians for two reasons. In the first place they had known the truth, that is, had been identified with us, and had deliberately departed in an unmitigated and unquenchable desire to be like the denominations around them. In the second place, they were more like us in some respects than others were, and the counterfeit which is most like the original is always calculated to deceive the most people.
As factions began to increase and multiply due to introduction of other innovations, we regarded their rise as a fulfillment of prophecy. "In the latter days perilous times shall come. Men shall be lovers of their ownselves." "The Spirit speaketh expressly that in the latter times, some shall depart from the faith." "Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived." Our responsibility was fulfilled when we "marked and avoided" if we were in the majority, or heeded the admonition to "Come out from among them" if they happened to outnumber us. We attributed to "hardness of heart" such questions from
[Page 99] |
Now, in a more mature state of mind, I can see how inconsistent and sectarian was our whole approach to the majestic revelation of the kingdom of heaven. I am sure that we did not want to be arrogant, supercilious or intolerant. Certainly we always spoke disparagingly of the Pharisees in our lessons, although none of us ever equated their attitude with ours. We always thought of "the others" as being Pharisees. Others were contentious, but we were "contending for the faith"; they were stubborn while we were just steadfast; they were lax while we were loyal.
The party spirit plays strange tricks on one as do most of the other "works of the flesh." It seeks always to hold you in as much of its grip as possible, knowing that so long as one is factional at all the tendency is to try and find security by building the wall higher. As one walls others out he walls himself in, and it is the one inside who is in prison. One must either break the hold of the party spirit completely or spend the rest of his life struggling for freedom while remaining in bondage. When I was a lad, before we had toxic poisons to spray for insects, we would place sheets of "Tanglefoot" in strategic places to ensnare flies. When a fly lighted on the sticky surface he immediately began to try and lift his feet. So long as one foot remained entangled his eventual death was certain, actually hastened by his efforts and activity.
It was difficult to ever arrive at that place where I could concede that the faction in which I had always been sheltered was not the body of Christ to the exclusion of all others. The mental struggle was intense, and heightened, as it always is, by the fear of being unfaithful to the memory of your dear ones whose struggle for righteousness led to the formation of the party, and to the instruction of godly men with whom you labored to promote and protect its interests. When I reached this stage of thought after long and bitter inner wrestling it was not so much the result of any prophetic foresight or insight, but more the result of projected hindsight. Many of us are like lightning-bugs. We have our headlights on the tail end and cannot see anything until we are already past it. A continued study led to the conviction that no party, splinter or segment of the restoration movement was the church of God in its fulness, and never has been.
This led to a re-evaluation of the restoration movement itself and finally I was led to the very basis upon which it was launched, and which caused me to see that the restoration movement was not the church. When I became convinced that the kingdom of heaven was greater than any one of our factions, greater than all of them put together, and more extensive than any "movement" in history since the one body was created, I was in a position to love brethren beyond our walls. It was a revelation to find that even while walls are still standing, love makes them transparent, and you can see right through them and behold your brother on the other side. It was even more startling to find that, while imbued with this spirit, you could walk right through walls which others still regarded as firm and opaque and associate freely with those in all of the segmented groups without fear of what might happen to you.
I think it is this attitude of not waiting for the walls to be torn down which troubles a lot of brethren. If I had simply forsaken those with whom I had always been aligned and moved over into another faction they would know exactly what to do about me. All partisans must "pigeonhole" others, and I just do not fit into any of the contemporary holes for I am no longer any group 5 pigeon! This "pigeon-holing" is for the birds! It is not that I have renounced our faction but that I have renounced factionalism--the whole grimy, tainted, reeking mess, that presents a problem. We can tolerate a man who pays lipservice to being a Christian only
[Page 100] |
I do not propose to leave the brethren I have always loved, and I do not ask any brother to leave where he is and come to me. I am not interested in forming an anti-party party or an anti-faction faction. I happen to know that all of our artificial walls existed in men's hearts before they were constructed and they must be destroyed in our hearts before they will ever be removed otherwise. But nothing need serve as an impediment that is not in your own heart, and I have destroyed these walls in my heart. Having done this, I do not need to go anywhere else. I can stand where I am and see my brothers everywhere! And now, since I no longer see walls, but see only brethren, they are all in one body. It was our own jerry-built barriers which kept us from realizing this all of the time.
If it were not so serious it would be highly amusing to listen to brethren account for what has happened to me, even as we used to analyze and categorize others. Because I did not leave "our" faction and switch to "theirs" as practically everyone else in the past has done, it is difficult for them to see how I can be in the Lord's church. The editors and philosophers among us always regard love for all of the saints of God as "liberalism" and it must be admitted that such love is much more liberal than a mere factional affection. They account for my willingness to regard all of God's children as my brothers, not as an indication that the love of God is shed abroad in my heart by the Spirit, but rather as a sign that I have swung from one extreme to another.
Readers of periodicals are constantly reminded that I was once the champion of a narrow faction and that, in freeing myself, I have thrown all caution to the winds. The theory seems to be that if you grow up in a large orthodox faction you can probably always be trusted to remain somewhat factional, but if you grew up in a more restricted one you are liable to see farther when you get your eyes open. I doubt that it is any easier to get out of a small room than it is to get out of a big one if the house is on fire. I suspect that the gravest danger would be in losing your wits and running from one room to another in the mistaken idea that you had thus escaped danger. The thing that bothers my factional brothers is that when I jumped the fence I did not come down in their yard, but while up in the air and thus closer to heaven, I soared over all of the back fences.
But the party spirit is very subtle and I wonder if any of us will ever be completely purged from it. The "faithful church" fallacy constantly betrays us into trusting in our own righteousness and in appearing good in our own sight by contrast with others. No doubt at the end of the trail when we can stand on the heights and look back we will be amazed to see how winding and crooked is the path we have blazed and which we thought of as being so straight and direct. But we will have to await that time to prove it for none of us would be convinced of it now.
I can recall how we were always challenging the sects to debate and I rather think we felt less sting from our own shortcomings by revealing those of our neighbors. Perhaps we were not so much trying to prove to them that they were wrong as we were trying to convince ourselves that we were right. In other areas of the social realm one does not especially endear himself to thinking people nor demonstrate his own adjustment to life by going about with a chip always on his shoulder. Only a bully is expected to dare everyone for a fight and most bullies have been found to suffer from an
[Page 101] |
When propositions could not be signed on specific issues we could always drag one out which read, "The church with which I am identified is identical in origin, name, doctrine and practice, with the church of the New Testament." There are several things wrong with such a proposition besides its manifestation of egotism, conceit and complacency. Of course the biggest factor is that it is just not true. Actually we were not defending the church at all but the party with which we were affiliated. Proof of this is found in the fact that representatives of two different factions of "The Church" would sign the same proposition and each labor arduously to prove that his faction was "it."
The same spirit prompted such debates as motivated the brethren in one area where constant troubles arose and division resulted several times. A tourist driving down the highway saw a sign: "Church of Christ (Christian)." A mile or so further along the road he saw another building bearing the label: "Church of Christ (Vocal Music)." Still farther on he came upon one designated "Church of Christ (Old Paths)." But the fourth one simply read: "Church of Christ--This is it!"
In some cities as many as a dozen or fifteen different groups all calling themselves "Church of Christ" would affirm that they were identical with the church revealed in the new testament, but the members of one would not even call upon the members of any other to lead in prayer to God. One can imagine what distortions and contortions of the scriptures need to be indulged to "prove" all of them to be right, for no one has ever yet lost a debate. It is revealing indeed to read the reports of the same discussion in rival journals and to see how completely both opponents were swept from the forensic field and to note the solemn supposition of each that the other would never debate again while life lasts and the world stands.
As to our origin no one would want to question that the church of God began with the baptismal outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon Pentecost. However, "the Church of Christ" as we know it in the United States is the result of an early nineteenth century restoration movement launched by honest preachers of various sectarian groups, primarily the Presbyterian. They had no intention of starting "a church" and would probably not recognize what we now have as what they once envisioned. Those brethren who put "Established 33 A.D." on the corner-stone of their buildings, not only reveal a great deal of wishful thinking but also a considerable amount of confusion, since they cannot distinguish between the one body for which Jesus died and the restoration movement which ought to still be moving, seeing there are a lot of things which have not yet been restored.
Unprejudiced historians among us are fully aware that the distinctive title "Church of Christ" as used to designate that segment of the movement which does not employ instrumental music in corporate worship, does not date back beyond the 1906 religious census. Before that time it was used interchangeably with other designations. We do no harm by admitting that, as a separate group of people, we came into history as the result of a restoration effort. We do untold harm to ourselves and the cause we represent by perpetuating the myth that there is no difference between the church for which Christ died, and the particular "Church of Christ" in which we have always lived.
Only the ignorant and ill-informed think that we can trace an unbroken chain of "loyal disciples" back through the centuries to the apostles. There is no evidence that there was a congregation meeting anywhere behind a signboard reading "Church of Christ" when Thomas Campbell read the "Declaration and Address" in 1809. The purpose of Campbell and his associates was to inaugurate "a project to unite the Christians in all of the sects." It is a wee bit ridiculous to think that when this movement split the first time that all of God's children in the sects flocked in from their varied parties to take their place with us and constitute
[Page 102] |
It has been a chastening experience for some of us to learn that the primitive church had no name except a common noun. I once wrote a tract entitled, "Whose Name Shall the Bride Wear?" and circulated thousands of copies. I also used this as a theme in all of my meetings. You can imagine my chagrin when I suddenly realized that Christ is not the name of God's Son. That is his office and "Jesus" is his name. Few of the brethren would be willing for the church to be designated as "Mrs. Jesus," yet the expression "churches of Christ" simply indicates possession like the term "house of Simon" or "kingdom of God."
The primitive saints were described in corporate fashion by various terms indicating relationship. As to origin, they were the church of God; as to constituency, churches of the saints; and as to possession, churches of Christ. In relation to unity they were the body of Christ; as to government the kingdom of God; as to relationship the family of God; as to heirship the church of the firstborn ones whose names are inscribed in heaven. None of these were specific titles and to take any one of them and make it the exclusive designation is merely to sectarianize it. The term "church of Christ" does not once appear in the sacred scriptures. It is true that "churches of Christ" is found in Romans 16:16 as is "churches of the Gentiles" in 1 Corinthians 16:4, but one is no more the name of the church than the other.
Actually we have lifted the expression "church of Christ" and made of it a sectarian designation just as others have done with "church of God" and "church of the firstborn." Such a sectarian usage is unscriptural and utterly unknown to the primitive community of the saints. We have done with this expression the very same thing we castigate others for doing with other expressions. The wresting of the scriptures essential to establishing the title "Church of Christ" as the name of the church ought to prove to every thinking person how shallow is such a contention.
To argue that we are identical in doctrine with the primitive saints also appears somewhat ridiculous in the light of our currently divided state and our sinful schisms. Among those who oppose instrumental music I personally know of divisions over centralized control, colleges, orphan homes, Herald of Truth, breaking the bread, individual cups, fermented wine, Bible classes, uninspired literature, the pastor system, present status of elders, marriage of divorced persons, foot washing, a head covering for women, the time when we should meet and interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy, to mention a few of the things. We are divided over everything from how to take the gospel to the heathen to how to pass the emblems to the saints.
Which group or segment is identical in doctrine with the scriptures? Each group will affirm that it alone is and will deny that all of the others are. In the absence of an infallible pope, who is going to identify the party with the exact identity? Obviously, thinking men will admit that all of us are imperfect and all have a lot to learn. when we become identical with the new covenant scriptures all study should cease at once. There will be no further scriptural research required for we will have arrived at an absolute knowledge of spiritual truth. All we will need to do is to parrot the discoveries already made and threaten those who propose to study beyond our creedal limitations.
Take for instance, the views related to the coming of our Lord. Which segment among us is identical in doctrine with the new covenant scriptures--the brethren who hold to the pre-millennial interpretation, or those who do not? That depends upon whom you ask, and the same is true of all of our other divisive elements. It would be far better to join with others in a mutual search for the truth, holding ourselves ready to accept all truth as it becomes clear to us, than to set ourselves up as the authorized dispensers of truth and the defenders of
[Page 103] |
So divergent are our practices that we make a spectacle of ourselves when we try to prove to the rest of the religious world that our procedures are all exactly like those of the primitive church. Who knows if Paul would speak over the "Herald of Truth" program and urge congregations to subscribe to it if he were living today? Who knows that he would sign a letter urging the congregations to raise a "Million for Manhattan" with which to build one big meetinghouse in New York City? Who knows if he would recommend the men we send to farflung mission fields to transport our divisions and schisms to pagan lands? Who knows if Paul would authorize a seminary for training "Ministers" or set up a charitable organization to care for the needy?
We are not now arguing the right or wrong of these actions and procedures. We are simply saying that our "practice" in many regards cannot be found in the account of the primitive church. Our authority for it lies not in the word of God but in our deductions from the word of God. It is not the revelation given by heaven but our interpretation of that revelation upon which we rely. We err in judgment when we devise means and then seek to find a parallel for them in the early church. It is not certain that some aspects about which we are most dogmatic have as clear a mandate in the written word as they do in our own minds. We are all victims of tradition and find it easier to think as we have been conditioned to think!
I am not at all averse to denying that the party with which I am identified is not identical in every particular with the church mentioned in the covenant scriptures. I doubt that it is identical in any particular. Because we are restoration-minded we are seeking to recapture and imitate the spirit which animated the holy apostles but we have not yet arrived. I do not think we will arrive during my lifetime. Once that would have worried and frightened me, but it no longer does. I do not rest my hope of eternal life on being a member of a perfect congregation or upon living a perfect life. I rest it upon my relationship to a perfect Savior. Praise His name! So while we have not attained to the ideal and will not do so in the flesh, we keep pressing toward it while we keep on trusting in Him for our salvation.
I can lay no claim to being a prophet, but I do venture to predict that we stand upon the verge of our greatest and most effective witness as a people. It will not come because of our attempt to prove that we are identical with the primitive church in origin, name, doctrine and practice. It will come because we are willing to recognize that this is not so, and that we also, like others, are only striving toward the goal. As we lose our party arrogance and come to feel a deep love for the scattered flock of God, we will find that the Holy Spirit can more effectively use us and we will be able to gather the grain into the granary!