Queries to the Editor
W. Carl Ketcherside
[Page 161] |
Experience has taught us that a great many people in the disciple brotherhood have questions about our plea for unity among the members of the various and dissident factions which have grown out of the restoration movement. Generally these questions follow a certain pattern and thus betoken a kindred concern. We think that brethren should be encouraged to question and even to doubt until they have seen convincing proof of the rightness of that for which we contend. We need to recapture the right to think without fear of reprisal and the right to differ without threat of derision. Here are a few of the questions we receive and our replies to them. Be certain that these replies are not delivered in a dogmatic spirit. You must feel no compulsion to agree contrary to conscience.
1. Why are you so concerned about the unity of believers in Christ?
Primarily because I consider myself to be incorporate with Christ so that which affects the extension of his kingdom on earth directly affects my life and thinking. In his prayer offered just before "he was delivered to death for our misdeeds," he besought the Father that all who believe on him through the testimony of his chosen envoys might be one. He conditioned his acceptance by the world of mankind upon the unity of the believers. The world will be won to believe in Jesus when those who believe are one in Jesus.
It is unthinkable that those who love the Lord will not be actively engaged in promoting peace among all of God's children. This means the repairing of past breaches, elimination of present tensions, and provision against future schisms. It is the peacemakers who will be called the children of God. The apostle says, "Let Christ's peace be arbiter in your hearts: to this peace you were called as members of a single body" (Col. 3:15). Until we learn the secret of oneness in Christ most of our efforts on the far-flung mission fields of the earth will be wasted. The misguided world will not accept the message of the one Lord from a divided church.
2. Do you think the prayer of Jesus can he answered by restoring the restoration movement?
No, I do not. The restoration movement launched by the great heroes of the faith in the early part of the nineteenth century was simply a means to an end. It was never intended to be an end in itself. Alexander Campbell wrote, "We only profess to work and walk by the rules which will inevitably issue in a pure speech, and in right conceptions of that pure and holy, and celestial thing called Christianity--in faith, in sentiment, and in practice." It is too much to expect of these noble pioneers that they would be able to either discover or translate into practice all that was essential to the accomplishment of their aims. The restoration movement was vital precisely because
[Page 162] |
Alexander Campbell did not believe he had all of the answers. He freely admitted that to enter some areas of consideration "we should have to launch upon a wide and tempestuous ocean, for which our slender bark is not at this time sufficiently equipped. This may yet deserve the construction of a larger vessel in a more propitious season." Our task, as I conceive it, is not to restore a movement inaugurated by men but to recapture the ideal of God. We believe that in this we may be aided by restoring to our generation the spirit of the restoration movement. Even this must be regarded as a means to an end.
3. Is it correct to say that you are leading a movement to recapture the spirit of restoration?
No, that is not correct. I am not fitted, either by knowledge or native ability, to lead any type of movement among the disciples of our Lord. I have no ambitions in that respect and suffer from no illusions about the matter. I realize my personal shortcomings in education, talent and expression. Being sick of my previous factional attitude and experience, and realizing that the wranglings and bickerings of the party spirit as exhibited among the heirs of the restoration movement constitute a reversal of the purpose of that movement as well as a rejection of the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ, I have resolved to oppose all factionalism as a work of the flesh.
I no longer represent or defend any faction, fragment, splinter or segment of the disciple brotherhood as "the faithful church" to the exclusion of others. I recognize that the brotherhood includes all who belong to the Father, wherever they may be. I accept as my brothers all whom he accepts as his children. I accept them upon exactly the same basis as he does. I simply state my views about these things as an individual. I do not seek to bind them upon anyone else. I love those who disagree with me as I do those who concur. So I'm not leading a movement, I'm simply walking with those who believe that the church of God is greater than any faction, segment or sect, and that we should recognize God's sheep even when they are caught in strange thickets. I'm a sharer and not a leader.
4. Why do you feel so strongly that the spirit of restoration is essential in our present condition?
It seems only just and proper that we should apply to ourselves under the same circumstances the remedy which was recommended for others. In his Declaration and Address Thomas Campbell said, "We would desire to be at rest, and were it possible, would also desire to adopt and recommend such measures as would give rest to our brothers throughout all the churches - as would restore unity, peace and purity to the whole church of God. This desirable rest, however, we utterly despair to find for ourselves or to be able to recommend to our brethren, by continuing amid the diversity and rancor of party contentions, the veering uncertainty and clashings of human opinions; nor, indeed, can we reasonably expect to find it anywhere but in Christ and his simple word, which is the same yesterday, today and forever."
The restoration spirit was born of a firm desire to unite God's children who were scattered among the sects. Alexander Campbell wrote, "A deep and abiding impression that the power, the consolation and joys, the holiness and happiness, of Christ's religion were lost in the forms and ceremonies, in the speculation and conjectures, in the feuds and bickerings of sects and schisms, originated a project many years ago for uniting the sects, or rather the Christians in all the sects, upon a clear and scriptural bond of union--upon having a 'thus saith the Lord,' either in express terms or approved precedent, 'for every article of faith, and item of religious practice.'"
Today the heirs of the restoration movement constitute the most divided religious movement on the current American scene. If the restoration was the
[Page 163] |
5. How do you account for the integration of the restoration movement?
We are exactly where our thinking has brought us. Those of us who live in this generation are victims of a philosophy adopted by our fathers which has now become traditional, sanctified by both time and practice. When confronted with certain innovations they devised a strategy of opposition which consisted of attempting to maintain purity of doctrine by separation from brethren. This was written in documentary form and read in 1889 under the title, "An Address and Declaration." It stated that those who did not renounce certain things would no longer be "regarded as brethren." This rejected paternity as the basis of fraternity and enthroned conformity in its stead. From this time forward one who differed with the party norm either had to be brought into subjection or be driven forth as a "heretic."
Eventually it came to pass that there was only one ultimate solution when differences of opinion arose and that was division. After division occurred there was but one approach to the problem and that was partisan debate. This created a vicious cycle. When brethren inside the movement began to debate with each other, their divisions increased the debates and the debates increased and deepened the divisions. In many localities so much bitterness and animosity was created that those on both sides could not treat others with common courtesy or civility.
6. You have engaged in a good many debates in the past. Why do you no longer regard debating as a proper method of approach to our problems?
It is true that I was once recognized as a sort of "champion" for that segment of the disciple brotherhood in which I was reared. Some of my good brethren insist that my debates accomplished a great deal of value to the cause. I think, however, that such public clashes between brethren have a great deal more potential for harm than otherwise. As a student of various reform movements I note that all of them seem to pass through this phase of rather violent encounter. It seems to be part of the "growing up" process until men can arrive at a degree of maturity where they can discuss differences in a calmer and more relaxed atmosphere. There are at least five reasons why I believe the type of confrontation generally referred to as "public debate" is inimical to our spiritual growth.
a. Such debates where two party champions are selected and thrown into the forensic arena serve to intensify party feelings instead of destroying them.
b. They tend to be divisive in their very nature as exhibited by the common question, "Which one are you for?" Those who have attended such debates are aware of how the adherents of each party even sit together, holding themselves physically aloof from their brethren who disagree.
c. They tend to make real, objective search for truth difficult, if not impossible. Each party expects its man to emerge a winner and no one ever loses a debate according to reports in partisan journals. This means that the word of God has been made a repository of controversial texts with which skilled men belabor each other to the applause of their partisan followers.
d. All such debates proceed on the fallacy that each faction is "the loyal church" which is a ridiculous assumption in the light of our many sections and cross-sections today. Actually, all debates engaged in by various splinter groups are simply skirmishes between factions and not wars between the church of God and armies of the aliens.
e. They demonstrate their futility to achieve the purpose of God by their fruits. Do not forget that this is the method we have employed for almost a century. Instead of promoting oneness it has made us one of the most divided
[Page 164] |
7. Do many of the brethren share your views about the inefficacy of debates?
More of them are beginning to do so. They are sickened and shocked by some of the spectacles to which they are subjected by partisan controversialists. They have seen reports in the papers filled with ridicule and half-truths and have witnessed communities of the saints blasted apart by men called in to "discuss" propositions. They are growing weary and ashamed of the whole sordid mess.
However, a great many think we cannot be "in fellowship" until we argue out every angle of every wrangle. They contend there can he no fraternity until we have first debated every action of every faction. This warped view results from the mistaken concept that one party is "the loyal church" and must "convert" all others to its every view and opinion before they can be regarded as "the Lord's people." This is a very childish idea but it is still held by some prominent men. It stems from a legalistic approach to God's grace and as long as it is retained men will regard brethren who differ with them honestly as being pagans and unbelievers.
I do not want anyone else to represent me and I do not want to represent anyone else. No one else can answer for my views before the judgment seat of human opinion any more than before the judgment throne of God. I'm just not allied with any party or faction as a front man. No one is responsible for my convictions except myself, and I'm not seeking to get anyone else to "line up." I shall not allow myself to be thrown into the arena as a party gladiator. I believe that thinking people in all factions are growing disgusted and sickened with the tactics of those who pose as debaters and are actually defenders of partisan orthodoxy!
8. How do you feel about the success of your efforts to promote peace among members of the various factions?
I rather suspect that I am inclined toward optimism but it seems to me that we are standing on the threshold of a brighter day in many areas. Several congregations which were divided have repaired the breach which existed and are now presenting a united witness in their respective communities. In a good many places brethren of various segments are meeting regularly for calm and measured discussion of differences on a local level. We have renounced the attitude that we have "arrived" while others have not. We now know that none of us has done so. This makes it possible for us to sit down as equals in our failure to maintain the peace. We are no longer concerned so much about "who split the log" as we are with how we can get it back together. We have shifted from the accusing "Who?" to the enquiring "How?"
One cannot measure the success of any effort by looking at a given area which is affected by it. He must survey the field as a whole. The factional spirit is much more entrenched in some places than in others. But brethren everywhere are being stimulated and challenged to think. We need not fear so long as men think. We should only fear when they quit thinking. Perhaps there has never been so much discussion of "fellowship" as there is right now. This is good for it is much better to discuss such a vital
[Page 165] |
I do not work for "success" at all. I simply plant or water and leave the matter of growth and increase to God. Peace is a fruit of the Spirit from seed sown by peacemakers. There is a difference between a pacemaker and a peacemaker. I've no inclination to set the pace. I'm content simply to sow the peace. If brethren concur with me I am grateful to them; if they do not they are still my brethren and I love them as such and am grateful to God for brotherhood which includes all that are in him. My whole philosophy is summed up in the remark about David, "After he had served God's purpose in his own generation he fell asleep." I cannot serve God's purpose in preceding generations. Our fathers did that the best they could. I cannot serve God's purpose in succeeding generations. That must be left to our children. I can serve that purpose in this generation and am content to leave it to future generations to profit by my failures and mistakes. I'm sure they will find many things to justly criticize. I think I can best serve by plucking up the thorns of dissension which have been sown and planting flowers in their stead.
9. What is the attitude of those with whom you have personally labored in the past?
We should remember that the reaction toward any revolutionary thinking is always the same in every faction or religious group. A study of history will reveal that no reform has ever been won easily. All of us are resistant to change. Most of us prefer the security of partisan walls and dogmatism to the freedom of the Spirit. We have been conditioned to life within the boundaries of orthodoxy. Those good brethren with whom I have always labored are no better and no worse than those in any other segment. For that reason their attitude toward me is what you'd generally find elsewhere.
All revolutionary thought--social, political, economical, or spiritual--produces both action and reaction. The latter develops as the first becomes evident and generally in proportion to it. Frequently the reactionary is more vocal as he wants it known that he is a "defender of the faith", i.e., of the partisan program of orthodoxy. All factions equate their partisan interpretations with the will of God. Very often those who amend their lives and thought as the result of the impact of new concepts say very little. In not a few cases it would be dangerous for them to make an open avowal and it would not avail a great deal under local conditions. But no external force can stifle thought.
The reaction of the brethren with whom I have always labored depends upon their attitude to the party with which we are affiliated. Those who regard that party as the one body to the exclusion of all others regard me as a dangerous heretic. They are frightened at the thought that the church may lose its identity. Of course they regard our faction as the church. It never occurs to them that there can be no possible means by which the church of God can lose its identity. Those who have caught a vision of the majesty and power and glory of the kingdom of heaven regard my own feeble efforts to explore the greater fellowship of the Spirit with a considerable degree of real joy. Many write that we are simply giving expression to the thoughts which have been welling up in their hearts for years.
I am not disturbed by opposition and I pray that I shall not be distracted by those who concur. I did research for six years after I became convinced that we had made another sect out of the restoration movement, before I ever wrote an article on fellowship. During that time I sought to steel my heart against the bitter attacks I knew would follow from many with whom I had labored. But one cannot always suppress truth in his heart and finally I began to write.
[Page 166] |
10. Are there not many who are reluctant to promote reform for fear that another division will result?
I think there are many such brethren and one cannot blame them a great deal. Every attempted reform in the past has produced another division and those reforms were urged by men who were much better and brighter than ourselves. It is a strange phenomenon that we seem to be grateful for reformatory cleavages of the past which paved the way for our existence but all of us want the reformation to stop with us. "This far and no farther shalt thou come!" We regard the severance created by Martin Luther as a noble and heroic step. Those whom he was trying to reform did not share that view at the time. We do not deplore the gulf created by Stone and the Campbells when driven from the Presbyterian and Baptist communions, but rather seem grateful for the result.
The real question, of course, is whether we shall maintain the status quo at all costs, even at that of suppressing truth, or whether we can really develop a sense of freedom and assume the responsibilities which go with it. Most people would prefer to be in bondage just a little. We like to be in green pastures but we want to be tethered in them so we can be brought up with a jerk when we reach the end of the partisan rope. We fear what lies beyond so we merely tread water close to shore so we can rush back to the factional beach if we are threatened. This kind of life does not appeal to me. It depresses the real spirit of adventure inherent in the Christ way. I am not afraid of the fellowship of the Spirit or where it will lead. I ask only for strength to follow for we need "followship" as well as fellowship. However, I do not envision another division over a plea for unity in Christ
11. What is there about your proposal which you think will avoid division?
For one thing we are presenting our appeal for restoration of brotherhood in an age conditioned to laboring toward unity. The whole pattern of religious division has been reversed. The news media which once reported cleavages and splits as news are now giving great space to describing attempts to unify divergent sects. I grew up in a Lutheran background and when I was sprinkled by the Rev. Mr. Petersen in that communion, there were seventy different Lutheran groups in the United States with little fraternization between them. Today this has been reduced to eleven. There is a feeling of peace and unity in the air. None of us are wholly unaffected by circumstances surrounding us regardless of the attempted insulation of our life and thought.
The thinking world is sick and tired of religious squabbling and wrangling upon the part of those who claim to follow the Prince of peace. The littleness and bigotry which characterized the past cannot he tolerated in a world threatened by holocaust. It is in such a frame of reference we are granted the privilege of presenting the hope of genuine fellowship in the Spirit with all of God's children and our brethren. Never has there been a more propitious season for sharing with mankind the fundamental message of the Spirit. It is to be regretted that so much time must be spent in calling back together the divergent forces of restoration but we cannot well proclaim peace effectively while we practice division. I am sure that most of us would be happy to see our brethren united.
However, there is one vital factor about our proposal that can avoid formation of another party and preclude division within the ranks of the heirs of the restoration movement. We are urging
[Page 167] |
Previous attempts at restoration of fellowship have been based on the fallacy that one of our factions is "the loyal church." This is a myth. It has no foundation in fact. So long as men hold that fallacious view they will move from party to party seeking "the faithful group." Generally, when they become disillusioned they will create another faction of their own in the vain hope that they are "restoring the true church." They only add to the confusion.
So long as we are divided no faction is the faithful church. When one is in schism all are in schism. One can be in a faction without being factional. He can be in a sect without being sectarian. We urge no one to leave where he is except those who are out of Christ Jesus. We invite no one to come into anything except those who are not in the one body. Let us stay where God has called us in that body and be a part of "the fellowship of the concerned ones." If our brethren are wrong about some things they need us most. It is a poor doctor who deserts the hospital to spend all of his time with the healthy members at the country club. No one can start another party in the restoration movement framework if everyone just stays put. In time the parties now existing will melt away. An iceberg can be removed much more easily by the sun than by men with ice picks!
12. If every person remains where he is will we not always have our present quota of factions?
Indeed not. When we reverse our past procedure and cease to divide in the vain attempt to protect doctrinal purity by such means, not only will there be no new factions formed but the old ones will gradually cease to have relevance for our time. We have been victims of "the will to divide" and when we crucify this attitude we will find a tremendous change taking place. The very recognition that we can remain together in spite of differences will act as a tremendous catalyst in our lives.
All reformation is effected from within. When we withdraw from a party with which we have been affiliated we lose our influence for good in that party. After that any attack against their partisan spirit by ourselves will be from without and regarded as on a partisan basis. This will create a spontaneous resistance. Our task should not be to win men to "our side" but to take them by the hand and move with them closer to the side of Christ. No man can take another by the hand while his own is a clenched fist. If the fellowship of the concerned ones will retain their concern for unity and remain where they are and let their influence radiate forth they will be much more effective than if they all withdrew and formed a new "radiation party." We need to learn how to differ without devising parties to promote our differences. If we do this the factional spirit will die out and our factions will dissolve and disappear. When men learn how not to be factional there will be no more factions.
13. Does this mean that divergent congregations in a locality will all drop their differences and come together to form one large congregation?
I am not sure what pattern will be followed in every place. I doubt that it will be universally uniform. It will depend a great deal upon temperamental and psychological factors as well as traditional attitudes. We should not seek to bind a procedure upon every locality regardless of its circumstances. I am of the opinion that in most places it would be better for the congregations to continue meeting where they are and to carry on the corporate worship in the manner to which they are accustomed or which commends itself to their consciences in the sight of God. Let the congregations respect each other as breth-
[Page 168] |
If a congregation prefers to use one cup under the conviction that this best enables them to implement the Master's design for the Supper, let them continue to do so without discrediting those whose sincere convictions lead them to do otherwise. If a congregation prefers to carry on their teaching program without Bible classes let them do so but abstain from harsh judgment of their brethren who feel it is no violation of the spirit of Christianity. Above all else let the peace of God rule in our hearts until we will not carry on partisan attacks against each other publicly by radio or otherwise. We have a common enemy to fight which threatens us all. We ought not to waste our energies and expend our resources in fighting each other. It is noticeable that many of our points of difference have to do with matters pertaining to the Lord's Day service. There are many other meetings in which all could participate and present a united witness to the world and we ought not to cut ourselves off from mutual sharing in these. All of our current factions have something of value to contribute to the others. We need to cultivate occasions in which such mutual sharing may take place. At such times we might well avoid controversial issues and "follow after the things which make for peace and wherewith one may build up another." Certainly this is a scriptural injunction!
14. Do you apply this same reasoning to congregations which use instrumental music?
Indeed I do. I would not know how to be consistent and do otherwise. Those who use the instrument in their corporate worship are my brethren in Christ. We are all children of the same Father. From my study I have become convinced that I cannot conscientiously make the plea I do and condone the use of the instrument. Their study leads them to an opposite conclusion. If a congregation of disciples chooses to use the instrument as an aid I must respect their right to make a choice based upon their study, although I may not personally endorse the choice they make. But they are not answerable to me nor to the congregation with which I am affiliated and they enjoy the same autonomy as we do.
Brotherhood in Christ is not based upon instrumental music, classes, cups, or upon an attitude toward any of these things. I am obligated to love all of my brethren. I am not obligated to love the things they adopt. The Bible does not say, "For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another, unless one believes in instrumental music." I hold myself free to join with any of my brethren in those areas of service where I am not required to violate my personal convictions. I shall not allow brotherhood to be negated or destroyed by something to which it is not related. I shall not refuse to aid my brethren in Christ Jesus in any respect simply because we differ in some respects. I have no half-brothers or step-brothers in the Lord. We have paid lip-service to local autonomy while rejecting it in practice. Our motto seems to be, "Each congregation has a right to make its own decisions provided they are identical with the ones we make."
15. Are there any indications that members of the various factions are actually re-thinking their positions?
Yes, there are. Our mail indicates that many thinking people in every segment of the disciple brotherhood are intensely interested in what is being written. Many of these have been conscience-ridden for a long time over the substitution of orthodoxy for the freedom of the sacred scriptures. They have chafed under the narrow restraints of the party and looked upon the "holier-than-thou" attitude as being repugnant to their own Christian idealism.
It is obvious that a transformation of a cultural and intellectual nature is taking place in the more extreme segments. There was a time when the visiting preacher who held the annual meeting,
[Page 169] |
I think it is not unjust or unfair to state that in many instances the "professional" preachers will be the last to alter their views. The congregations will generally seek to "hold the line" against any tendency to enjoy a wider fellowship. Such a participation in the Spirit will be termed "liberalism" and "compromise" and those who derive their livelihood from the party treasury will be afraid to give voice to any real charitable feeling for others. But in every congregation there will arise noble and generous souls who will quietly and effectively work as leaven to usher in a more benevolent spirit. These are the real heroes and heroines for Jesus in our day for they must endure the maligning of their motives by those whom they love in the Lord.
There is no question but what "the fellowship of the concerned" now has adherents in every faction. Many of these, because of local circumstances, are doomed to silence temporarily. The day is coming when they can be heard. What we are experiencing is the first thaw after a long winter of icy partisanship. The first drops from a glacier warmed by the sun seem inconsequential until one sees tiny rivulets from every direction worming their way around obstacles and flowing toward each other. When enough of these meet they form a mighty river refusing to be held in check by artificial barriers. We are fortunate enough to be able to see the initial gathering of those forces which will some day become a broad river of fellowship flowing toward the distant sea of destiny. This I believe!
16. If there is merit in your proposals for fellowship why do not the educational leaders and teachers in the colleges endorse it?
I think that a goodly number of these brethren are in sympathy with much that we are saying and doing. There are several reasons why they do not openly commit themselves. Some of them are skeptical about me and my motives. They find it difficult to believe that I am sincere. They have known of my previous factional disposition and they are still fearful that I have "something up my sleeve." They are afraid that we are simply employing a ruse or strategem to eventually divide and disrupt the brethren over other issues. The fact that I refuse to align myself with any party as a factional tool creates a problem. It is hard to deal with one who loves all of his brethren and simply refuses to recognize any of the lines they have drawn or the barriers they have erected against each other.
Another thing that may have some bearing on the question is that I do not employ the specialized terms with which textbooks in philosophy and advanced education are filled. I write in simple language because I would find it difficult to do otherwise. This type of writing is also best adapted to achieve our purpose which is to stimulate the thinking of all of our brothers and sisters and not that of a specific caste. I suspect that those who are accustomed to a more profound and erudite approach consider what we are doing as rather naive and unpretentious. Perhaps they regard it as relatively
[Page 170] |
Too, we must remember that religious seminaries and parochial schools are not created primarily for education but for indoctrination. They are supported by a certain segment to defend a partisan concept or position. Even among the noninstrument brethren there are three distinct kinds of schools. Those who have adopted the pre-millennial interpretation, those who make a test of fellowship out of opposition to charitable organizations and brotherhood propaganda devices, and those who represent the orthodox "Church of Christ" viewpoint--all of these have their own brand of colleges. Not only does this make for rivalry but it also limits the academic freedom of the teachers in all of them. A great many brilliant and consecrated men and women must sublimate their own scholarship and personal convictions to conform to the party norm or be subjected to dismissal.
The schools are ever in a precarious position as are all party organs. They are subject to whispering campaigns and veiled attacks. They are faced with "foes without and fears within." The teacher who will not be content with enforced mediocrity but who dares to rise above the partisan confines and restraints in his teaching will eventually be hounded down and out by "heretic detectors"--generally preachers or editors, the self-appointed censors of the faith. In such a state of affairs the administration must tread carefully. The men who form the administration have been hired to do a job and it consists of keeping the school "safely in line."
It is obvious that many of the original thinkers on the faculties of all of these schools have long since banished from their minds the idea that "The Church of Christ" is the one body to the exclusion of all other persons on earth. They realize that the kingdom of heaven is more majestic and mighty than our strife-torn factions. However, they are dealing with students who are often immature. Their classes are drawn from every type of home and community and the teachers dare not disturb the status quo which the parents demand and for which they pay. In spite of this, principles can often be enunciated which will enable the students to reason themselves out of narrow orthodoxy as they mature. I suspect it is only upon this basis that some instructors can gain the consent of troubled conscience to remain within the partisan framework.
Although I am personally skeptical about seminaries and parochial schools, seeing they must inevitably contribute to the parochial and provincial viewpoint by their very nature and purpose, I must acknowledge a debt of gratitude to a great many fine and wonderful brethren who have been in administrative and faculty posts within them. It was, for instance, from Bro. J. N. Armstrong, former president of Harding College, that I borrowed the trenchant statement: "I am resolved to make nothing a test of fellowship which God has not made a condition of salvation."
I am indebted to M. C. Kurfees for the following concept which he enunciated in the Abilene Christian College Lectures: "In the present divided state of the church and under the influence of parlance growing out of a denominational environment, it is difficult to avoid being sectarian or denominational in our speech; and hence there is a growing tendency today to sectarianize even the term 'church of Christ.' This is invariably the case when it is used, as it frequently is nowadays, to mean merely those people of God who do not work through missionary societies and do not use instrumental music in the worship, and to exclude other children of God who make the mistake of working and worshiping in the said ways. The church of Christ in any city today, using the term in accordance with Bible usage, includes all the children of God in the said city; and until these principles are observed, the primitive church, in its
[Page 171] |
No doubt there are brethren in all of the schools who share the views expressed so forcibly and well by Bro. Armstrong and Bro. Kurfees. I'm certain that all such rejoice in the tenor of the plea we are making although they are not in a position to publicly declare it. It is not necessary that they do so. We are not seeking to build up a personal following. We are content when men shall believe the truth and implement it in their lives according to their own dispositions and determinations. We cannot all work the same way and God does not intend for us to do so.
I am confident that many of the educators are often embarrassed by the narrow and provincial image of the church projected by self-appointed "guardians of orthodoxy" who rush into print or burst into vocal declamation with all of the old cliches, outworn slogans and misapplication of scriptures, which they have inherited from partisan fathers. But a better day is dawning. Hundreds of younger men and women are thinking for themselves. There will be a revival of the spirit of free investigation. We welcome it and it is long overdue. Truth has nothing to fear from research. Let the truth be known! Let it be followed regardless of where it leads, for one cannot go wrong who follows the pathway of truth.
17. Do you anticipate any increased active opposition to your plea for unity and fellowship?
Yes, I think we may expect such opposition. There are indications of a growing antagonism to the suggestions we have made. In the final analysis this will prove to be good. There should be a careful scrutiny of all that is said or written on such a vital and important theme. We are not unaware of the implications of what we have been saying. These things either contain one of the brightest rays of hope for the distressed and divided church today, or they pose one of the greatest threats to its survival.
If the church of God includes all of the people of God; and if it is composed of all the sincere immersed believers in Christ Jesus on the earth: and if all of these should recognize each other as being in the fellowship; what we are writing will make it possible for us to recapture the glory of the kingdom as it affects our lives in this generation.
But if the church for which Jesus died is to be equated solely and exclusively with an outgrowth of the American restoration movement operating under the title "The Church of Christ"; and if fellowship with God is to be conditioned upon a certain attitude toward instrumental music, cups, colleges, or classes, what we say will destroy the church. It is our intention to lift fellowship out of the realm of opinion about things and place it on the plane of sharing in the life of the Spirit.
We refuse to regard the one body as a modern faction or complex of factions. We esteem the kingdom of God over which Jesus rules as being greater than any sect, denomination, faction, fragment, splinter or segment, currently in existence. It is greater than all of them taken together.
Because we believe that the purpose of God will be fulfilled and the prayer of Jesus will be answered, we are content to labor and to wait. The impact of what is now being said will not be fully felt in this generation alone. We are willing to allow the history, as yet unwritten, to bring in the verdict as to its validity. That is why it is possible to love those who disagree with us and regard without rancor those who oppose what we suggest and recommend. In God's tomorrow, the hope of all of us for unity will be realized and the prayer of all of us for increased knowledge of fellowship will be answered. Then all of us will be able to see more clearly what He knew from the very beginning.
Editor's Note. We have received a number of questions recently asking for a clarification of our position as to who may he considered a child of God. Although we have considered this matter frequently and at length in the past, we
[Page 172] |