Another Gospel

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 1]

     I marvel that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel.

     Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

     But though we or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1: 6-8).

     This has become one of the "twisted scriptures." It was written to summon back to trust in the grace of God those who were being bewitched into placing their confidence in works of the law. It was intended to be unitive in a context which condemns "strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit," as works of the flesh. It is now employed to promote and defend schism and division among the children of God. It has been captured by the partisan proponents of orthodoxy and re-forged into a weapon to carve the one body to bits.

     Perhaps we should not be surprised that men would thus treat the writings of the apostle Paul. We have the testimony of another apostle indicating we should expect it. "As indeed our beloved brother Paul has written to you, out of the wisdom vouchsafed to him, speaking of this as he has done in all his letters--letters containing some knotty points, which ignorant and unsteady souls twist (as they do the rest of the scriptures) to their own destruction" (2 Peter 3: l--Moffatt). "There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures" (RSV).

     I do not think this implies that everyone who wrests a scripture from its context is wilfully ignorant and unsteady. No doubt men can do this innocent of any evil motive and in a firm belief that their application is the will of God. If they are ignorant, it is involuntary and not deliberate. Such men, when shown the more excellent way, will at once amend their thinking. It is because of my firm conviction that the good and honest heart will receive the seed of the word and not reject it, that I address myself to those brethren who are shivering the kingdom of heaven to fragments under the delusion that by so doing they best serve the interests of the King.

     Those who mistake unity with conformity and who predicate fellowship upon endorsement, brand as "another gospel" every view, opinion and interpretation, which is divergent from their own. Under the fallacious notion that every religious concept which they enunciate is "gospel" they pronounce an anathema upon every person who dares to question their orthodox procedures in any respect. Thus they splinter the family into fragments unless all are willing to make them the inviolable and inerrant interpreters of the sacred oracles. Every party within the spectrum of orthodoxy thinks it alone has an infallible interpretation and men must

[Page 2]

stifle their thinking and bow in humble subservience to the unwritten creed, or else be hounded out as having "perverted the gospel of Christ."

     One faction accuses those who defend the use of individual cups as preaching another gospel; a second accuses those who employ Bible classes as preaching another gospel; a third labels those who support "Herald of Truth" as preaching another gospel; while those who support this international propaganda medium denounce those who believe in the premillennial coming of Jesus as preaching another gospel. The non-instrument segment of the restoration movement has disintegrated into a group of clamoring camps and clashing clans, slashing at each other over radio and from behind paper curtains, all blasting away at the others as having "perverted the gospel."

     Within the past year I have personally read that advocacy of missionary societies, instrumental music, centralized control, Bible colleges, institutional orphan homes, sponsored radio programs, unfermented wine in the Lord's Supper, individual cups, classes, Sunday school literature, the pastor system, and a host of other things constitute "preaching another gospel." In all kindness I say that those who thus write may not be unstable but they reveal their ignorance of what constitutes the gospel, in no uncertain fashion. In the same spirit of kindness I say that, regardless of whether all of these items are right or wrong, they are not related to "the gospel of Christ" and one does not pervert that gospel if, in all sincerity, he advocates any of them, or, in the same spirit, opposes all of them.

     That you may not think we are falsely accusing our brethren in the Lord, let me cite you a documented case of what I mean. In April, 1964, I received an appeal for funds for Herald of Truth Radio and Television Program, from one of the elders of the "Fifth and Highland Church of Christ" at Abilene, Texas. The letter containing the appeal boldly asserted that there was "no church of the Lord" in some areas, and since I had but recently visited some of those places and found a lot of God's children (although they did not share my views about instrumental music and some other things) I concluded that my good brother in Abilene was equating "the church of our Lord" with the particular faction supporting his program and conforming to the policies of the congregation of which he was one of the bishops.

     I addressed a letter to him asking him to define "the church of our Lord." I received a very gracious and ecumenical reply to which no one who loved Jesus could take exception. In closing, our brother wrote, "We urge men and women to join us in accepting these immortal truths as the basis and only basis of Christian unity, and we plead, Brother Ketcherside, that you will join hands with us in standing for and preaching only that which will unite the brotherhood as mentioned above."

     Perhaps I am too suspicious, but I know how the factional spirit works. I learned it from experience, a fact of which I am properly ashamed. So when my brethren use such terms as "the only basis of Christian unity" and "that which will unite the brotherhood" I want to know what they mean by Christian unity and who all is included in the brotherhood. I certainly want to join all in accepting immortal truths but I've seen very mortal restrictions placed upon them. For that reason, I addressed another letter to my brother who made the plea to me, in which I wrote among other things, the following:

     I am deadly in earnest about what I am writing because I feel that a false image of the one body is being projected from many sources these days. In your printed literature you speak of the places where there is no "church of the Lord" and somehow I get the impression that you equate "the church of our Lord" with that segment of the restoration brotherhood which conforms to the "Church of Christ" of which Highland is a congregation, and you imply that the New Testament church is limited only to those who thus conform to the exclusion of all others.
     1. Do you consider that those humble and sincere saints who have been immersed into our Lord Jesus Christ, and who cannot conscientiously see that the use of instrumental

[Page 3]

music is a sin, are memhers of the one body and, thus, are in the Lord's church?
     2. Do you consider that those sincere and consecrated saints who have been immersed into our Lord Jesus Christ and who conclude from their study of the new covenant scriptures that Jesus is going to return to this earth and do so before the millennium are members of the one body, and thus of the Lord's church?
     3. If you do consider that they are, than it is quite apparent that the "Lord's church" is in some sectors which you have said are devoid of it; if not, it is apparent that you must inform us of what such persons must do to come into the Lord's church.
     This matter is of interest to me because I have recently met several brethren in the Independent segment of the instrumental branch of the restoration movement who are helping to support your program. One such brother and his good wife drove all the way from _____ to _____, to attend the fellowship forum in which we discussed our mutual problems of brotherhood. He informed me that he had been to Abilene and had conversed with you personally. He feels that you certainly regard him as being in "the Lord's church" even though he attends with the brethren who use instrumental music at _____. Is he mistaken in his impression of what you believe? Certainly this man is my brother and I consider him a member of the one body, although I am opposed to the use of instrumental music in the corporate worship, as I am to the pre-millennial view. Will you kindly address yourself to these questions?

     As I had anticipated, our brother, when confronted with these pointed queries, revealed the true spirit of orthodoxy, which makes use of "loaded passages" and "twisted scriptures" in the hope that the unwary will not see that they have no connection with the subject at hand. He said he would give "a Bible answer for everything for which we stand and teach." This has become another "loaded term." Our brother used only two scriptural passages, neither of which was remotely connected to the question at hand. Here is what he said:

     I want to first notice the closing paragraph of your letter of May 2 in which you say, "I am opposed to the use of instrumental music in the corporate worship, as I am to the premillennial view." I am glad to hear you make that statement for I, too, agree with you and oppose the mechanical instrument in worship as well as the pre-millennial view. I believe that we both can prove on the same grounds that they are both contrary to the teaching of the Bible--that's my basis for opposing them and I feel it is yours. Now in view of that fact, I think we have a quotation from the apostle Paul in the Galatian letter--chapter one beginning with verse six--"I marvel that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel which is not another, but there be some that trouble you and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than ye have received, let him he accursed. For do I now persuade men or God, or do I seek to please men? For if I yet please men, I should not be the servant of Christ."
     Brother Carl, there is not a doubt in my mind but what these brethren who use instrumental music and the pre-millennialists are both preaching a perverted gospel, and if that be true and your statement quoted from the May 2 letter would lead me to believe that you believe it is true, then they are to be "... accursed ..." according to the passage from the Galatian letter.

     Of course there was nothing in my letter to lead our brother to think that I believed that "the humble and sincere saints" were preaching a perverted gospel. This conclusion was reached because he did not know of what the gospel consisted, and because he was unable to distinguish between honest differences of understanding and a perverted gospel. The tragedy of this resides in the fact that brethren are being asked for millions of dollars to preach the gospel to the world and those who propose to do it do not know of what the gospel consists. They use the money to promote Church-of-Christism. They can never secure unity on this basis. They will but serve to divide the saints in the future as they have in the past. Even now there is a pro-Herald of Truth party and an anti-Herald of Truth party, each accusing the other of preaching a perverted gospel. The scholarly world looks with disdain upon such childish antics. I wrote our brother as follows:

     My reason for writing you again in replication to your letter of June 4, is to be certain that I make it clear that I do not share in your application of Galatians 1:6 to the problem of association with brethren who do

[Page 4]

not concur with our views relative to the coming of our Lord and the use of instruments in the corporate worship of the body. You will pardon me for speaking thus plainly, and I certainly do not mean to be unkind, but I think your application of the scripture to which allusion has just been made is more divisive and will be productive of more strife than instrumental music or the pre-millennial question could ever be.
     These brethren with whom we are concerned are not preaching a perverted gospel. They are announcing the same Good News as we are and that news is about the same Christ. They are affirming the facts concerning him that the apostles affirmed and in the same way as did the apostles--actually quoting the apostolic texts as effectively as you or I could ever do.
     And those whom I know are telling men to implement their faith in the Lord Jesus exactly as you tell than to do, and thus men are obeying the gospel exactly as you insist that they should. Undoubtedly you have their misunderstanding of certain aspects of the apostolic doctrine mixed up with the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
     If these brethren who are mistaken about the coming of our Lord are preaching a perverted gospel then every man who is honestly mistaken after being born again is accursed of God. Can you state positively that you are correct in every understanding and every interpretation of the book of Revelation? If not, you damn yourself with the same passage with which you pronounce them accursed.
     Certainly I am opposed to the theory of pre-millennialism and to the use of instrumental music in the corporate worship, but I do not charge my brethren who honestly have arrived at their conclusions with perverting the gospel as you do. I am sure that, holding your view, you will only augment division and strife instead of lessening it.

     I have not cited this case at length because I think it is unique, but because it is typical of the thought pattern which cripples "The Church of Christ" today. The brother to whom I wrote is no better and no worse in his reasoning than thousands of others. He is a victim of that sectarian attitude which eats like a cancer at the heart of a great movement and fetters it with the chains of bondage in what could be its finest hour. Unless there is a re-examination made of the implication contained in scriptures parroted to prove partisan righteousness our brethren are doomed to perpetuation of puerile mediocrity and the thinking world will pass us by as we wallow in the mire of our misguided zeal and legalistic attitudes.

     Any interpretation of the written word which defeats and makes impossible the fulfillment of the plan, purpose and prayer of the Living Word is wrong. Any use of the revelation of God to fracture the family of God is abuse and misuse. The purpose of the scripture is to point to Jesus and not to prod us into hatred of our brethren. It is sinful to falsely accuse brethren. It is sinful to "set at nought a brother" for whom Christ died. But brethren are falsely accused when their honest mistakes in understanding are transmuted into "another gospel" and they are set at nought by those who think they please God. No one can be more mistaken than that!

     What is the gospel? Before one can designate a thing as "another gospel" he must be able to identify the original gospel. The gospel, by etymology, is good news. It is not a system of doctrine, a philosophy of life or a code of ethics. It is good news about a person and what that person has done for us in our helpless, hapless and hopeless condition. It is not a message for the saved but for the lost. It is never addressed to the church but to the world. It is designed to make believers instead of providing food for them. The word gospel is a translation of euangelion. It is an evangel and you cannot evangelize saved persons. It is sadly amiss to talk about preaching the gospel to the church unless the church is composed of those who have never come to

[Page 5]

Christ, that is, have never obeyed the gospel.

     The gospel which Paul proclaimed in Galatia did not originate with man (1:11). It was not the presentation of borrowed "sermon outlines." It was the "gospel of Christ" (1:7). It consisted of "preaching Christ among the Gentiles" (1:16). It was "preaching the faith he once tried to destroy" (1:23). And what was that faith? "And I said, 'Lord, they themselves know that in every synagogue I imprisoned and beat those who believed in thee'" (Acts 22:19). It was belief in Jesus which Paul sought to destroy. It was faith in Jesus which he later proclaimed.

     The careful student of the Galatian letter will at once see that the good news was a proclamation that we are justified by faith in Christ and not by works of law (2:16). There was no good news in a reign of law. Those who rely on works of law are under a curse (3:10); no man can be justified before God by law (3:11); if justification were through law, Christ died to no purpose (2:21); if inheritance were by law, it was not by promise (3:18). The utter futility of law lies in the fact that it must leave man dead. "For if a law had been given which could make alive, then righteousness would indeed be by law" (3:21). There is no such law, either divine or human.

     Law confines and keeps under restraint. It binds but cannot free (3:23). It makes a person under it "no better than a slave" (4:1). Men had to be redeemed from it before they could even receive adoption as sons (4:5). It is impossible to be justified by faith in Jesus and to try and be justified by law at the same time, because one binds while the other frees. One cannot be both a slave and a son, because the adoption as sons frees from the bondage of law. One who thus seeks to be justified by law, or by legal conformity, severs himself from Jesus. "You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace" (5:4). Nothing is plainer than the statement, "You are not under law, but under grace." You cannot be under both at once. The attempt to be will make of us schizophrenists in the spiritual realm.

     Salvation is a state of right relationship with God. Jesus did not come merely to keep us out of hell but to keep hell out of us. He came to reconcile us unto God. "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself." We do not enter this relationship by bargaining with God. We cannot earn it, purchase it or deserve it. We cannot bid on it or for it. If we did all we could we would still be unprofitable. It is not what we do for God that brings us into this relationship but what he has done for us. We are saved by grace through faith. It is not of ourselves. It is not by works. Study Galatians 4:1-7. "We were slaves...but...God sent forth his Son...God has sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts." We could not adopt ourselves into his family. We had nothing by which to purchase our redemption from the slave pen. "So through God you are no longer a slave but a son."

     Our response to the grace which sent a person to become sin for us, and to reconcile us, is faith in that person. This is what justifies. Justification has to do with freedom from guilt. We are not justified because we are guiltless for all of us are guilty. We are not justified because we have done something to free ourselves from guilt for no one can ever undo an act he has committed. Not even God can do that! We cannot "take back" what we have done. But Jesus is guiltless. He is the sinless one. If we are in Jesus we are not in a sinless state but in a sinless person. If we trust in his righteousness, that faith or trust is reckoned unto us as righteousness, or justification. Justification must always be a gift of God. We cannot give anything to God to meet a need of his. We must be always on the receiving end.

     To one who works, what he receives must be counted as wages, and not as a gift. One who works has something coming to him, but no man has anything coming from God. He cannot be placed in our debt. We cannot keep books on

[Page 6]

God or "figure our own time." "To one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness" (Romans 4:5). To be in Christ does not mean we have not sinned. It does not mean our sinful acts have been undone. It does not mean that we are guiltless. It simply means that in him God can treat us as guiltless. He can, through Jesus, reckon our faith as righteousness and not reckon our sins.

     The gospel is the good news, the glad tidings of that justification by faith in Christ Jesus. It is the welcome communication from heaven that by trusting in Jesus in complete surrender and commitment, God will regard us as if we were without sin, since we are in one who is in that state. This is the gospel which Paul proclaimed in Galatia. It was the good news that Jesus was not as powerless as Greek wisdom and Jewish legalism. Salvation was not hinged upon coming into wisdom or coming under the law, but upon coming into a person! God has made him "our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption" (1 Cor. 1:30).

     Paul declared that the message brought to Galatia was "Jesus Christ publicly portrayed (or placarded) as crucified" (3:1). The truth of that gospel, that is, the essence, the basis, the central theme, was justification by faith in Jesus Christ. Truth is reality, stripped of all extraneous matter and naked of all artificial covering. The glad tidings to the world consisted of announcement of the most tremendous, magnificent and earth-shaking principle in the universe--that justification is by faith in the Son of God. This is the core of the message. This is "the truth of the gospel."

     Shortly after Paul had gone from Galatia, members of the circumcision party came and taught those who heard the good news that something else was required, that faith in Jesus was not sufficient. No doubt their message was the same as that which they promulgated at Antioch, "Except ye be circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved" (Acts 15:1). Paul and Barnabas went up to Jerusalem to consult the brethren. They took Titus along as a test case. They encountered "false brethren secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage--to them we did not yield submission even for a moment, that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you" (2:4, 5). If Paul had yielded on this occasion, the principle of justification by faith, the truth of the gospel, would have been washed down the drain by the flood of legalism.

     When Peter went to Antioch he ate with the Gentiles, until certain men came from James at Jerusalem. "When they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party" (2:12). This was a repudiation of the principle of justification by faith in Jesus and an adoption of the tenet of the party--you must believe in Jesus and something more to be in the fellowship. Peter caused a division with his unwritten creed. Others were drawn into the faction, including Barnabas. Paul saw that "they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel." Do not be mistaken. Peter still believed in Jesus. So did Barnabas. But they lent their influence to those who insisted that this was not enough to be justified.

     Paul proceeds to define the truth of the gospel in one of the most sublime passages in the Galatian letter. "We ourselves, who are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, yet who know that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified" (2:15, 16). To profess this as the marrow, or kernel, of the gospel, and then, under partisan pressure, to tack something else on to it as a condition of salvation, is to act insincerely and to be "not straightforward about the truth of the gospel."

     Those who were in Christ in the days of the apostles were in error on many points. They were mistaken about a lot

[Page 7]

of things but they were not charged with "preaching another gospel." Freedom from error is not a condition of salvation else all men would be damned. We are not saved by attainment to a certain degree of knowledge but by faith in Christ Jesus. It is by belief of facts related to him, and not by grasp of abstract truth, that we are justified before God. Certainly it is not by performance of meritorious deeds nor by legalistic conformity. When we postulate a program of justification by knowledge we hang ourselves on the gallows we have constructed to rid ourselves of others, unless we are prepared to make ourselves even more ridiculous by affirming that we know as much as God.

     There were saints in the congregation at Corinth who still had not been able to completely shake off the notion that there might be something to idols. The apostle wrote, "As to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that 'an idol has no real existence,' and that 'there is no God but one,'... However, not all possess that knowledge. But some through being hitherto accustomed to idols, eat food as really offered unto an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled" (1 Cor. 8:7). Paul did not call their honest ignorance, conditioned upon their past teaching and association, "preaching another gospel." Instead, he forbade the one with superior knowledge to act upon it if it would ensnare the weak. "And so by your knowledge this weak man is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died." Shall I act in such a manner with regard to cups, classes, colleges or instrumental music that I destroy my brothers for whom Jesus died? Shall I use any of these as a battle-axe with which to chop my brothers to pieces?

     There were some in the same congregation who were in error about the resurrection. "Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?" (1 Cor. 15:12). Were these among the "beloved brethren" whom Paul addressed in the last verse of this chapter? The Corinthians were in error when they tried to settle their grievances by impleading each other in heathen courts, yet Paul said it was "brother going to law against brother." He did not call their error "perverting the gospel."

     Even the Galatians, troubled as they were by some who wanted to pervert the gospel of Christ, were far from perfect. They were below the standard which Paul desired them to obtain. They had come into Christ but Christ had not yet been formed in them. Yet they were his "little children" as evidenced in his words, "My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you" (4:19). He did not accuse them of preaching "another gospel" because they had not matured. Paul knew the difference between the seed from which life came and the daily bread upon which the children fed. He knew the difference between gospel and doctrine, and between faith and knowledge. He knew that the gospel brought us into being while the doctrine was essential to our growth and wellbeing and he did not make a test of fellowship out of spiritual digestion.

     No honest opinion held by one who is in Christ Jesus and who respects his lordship, is "another gospel." Since it is the gospel which forms the basis of the fellowship with the Father, the Son and with one another in Christ, such an opinion can never be made a test of union or communion in Christ. A man may hold a view as to the perseverance of the saints, the manner of the resurrection, or the second coming of our Lord, and he may prove to be as wrong as one could be, but he cannot be debarred from citizenry in the kingdom of heaven by the other subjects, any more than one can be disenfranchised in the United States because he disagrees with the government space program or holds the view that it is impossible to reach the moon.

     No man "preaches another gospel" simply by being mistaken about some aspects of the will of God, otherwise one would need to know perfectly the divine will or be a perverter of the gospel. It is absurd for those good brethren (and they are numerous) who oppose the centralized

[Page 8]

control represented in the Herald of Truth program, to brand those who defend the program as "preaching another gospel" and "apostatizing." Those who do so, regardless of motive, reveal that they are ignorant of what constitutes both gospel and apostasy. The brethren who present Herald of Truth are not guilty of "preaching another gospel" simply because they support the work through a manner which some believe to be without scriptural authority.

     Whether it is right or wrong to send contributions to support the program of the Highland Church in Abilene, Texas, the doing so and the defending of the alleged right to do so, is not preaching "another gospel." To quote Galatians 1:6-8 and make such an application is to wrest and twist the scripture. Those who separate themselves from their brethren and set up rival parties, pro or con, are guilty of "setting at nought their brethren." I have some definite convictions about the Herald of Truth program, and about the principle involved in its method of support, but neither side will enlist me in their factional attitude where I must set at nought my brethren on the other side. They are all my brethren and they are all right on some points and all wrong on others. I propose to recognize them all as my brothers and treat them that way, regardless of how they treat each other. They did not become brothers by an attitude toward Herald of Truth, but by the blood of Jesus applied to their hearts, and no attitude toward a radio or television program will ever be as important to me as that blood. I just refuse to allow an attitude toward things to cancel the relationship created by the cross.

     But by the same token those who defend Herald of Truth act with an equal degree of absurdity when they accuse the brethren who hold the view of the pre-millennial return of Jesus, of "preaching another gospel." Regardless of how or when Jesus comes, or what men think about the time and method of his coming, to set at nought a brother over such matters is to sin against Jesus. It is as wrong to create a post-millennial party, or an amillennial party, as it would be to create a pre-millennial party. We are one body. This is true regardless of our varied views, opinions or interpretations. The brethren who promote Herald of Truth are as factional and divisive about unfulfilled prophecy as those whom they castigate for opposition to Herald of Truth.

     I have some definite ideas about the millennium and the coming of our Lord but I refuse to make these tests of fellowship. I shall not drive out the children of my Father because they do not concur with me as to the time when our elder brother will return, or the circumstances under which we will all live with him. I shall not smite my fellowservants because my Lord delays his coming. It is not a correct understanding of the time, manner and place of the second coming which makes us members of the same family, but belief in the One who was incarnate almost twenty centuries ago and died for our sins. There is room in his kingdom for men who dearly love him to hold either view of his return. There is also mercy enough to extend to those who prove to be mistaken about it. I refuse to be a "millennial partisan" of either kind. Neither segment is going to capture and corral me so that I cannot associate with the others and love them as my brothers.

     The same can be said for those brethren who think that the use of instrumental music as an aid in corporate worship can be justified by proper interpretation of the scriptures. I do not belong to a vocal music party nor to an instrumental music party. It is just as factional and sectarian to put up a sign "Church of Christ--Vocal Music" in order to separate from brethren as to put up one reading "Church of Christ--Instrumental Music." Brethren who do either reveal much more about themselves than they do about others. I belong to Jesus and not a faction. Every person whom God welcomes as a child I shall receive as my brother. No group upon this earth will ever again build a partisan wall to

[Page 9]

enclose me and shut me off from others of God's children. I shall be shut up only by the love of Jesus.

     We need to give serious thought to this problem of "another gospel." There is a grave danger that those who are most vociferous in their accusation that others are preaching "another gospel" are treading on thin ice and may be guilty of the very thing of which they accuse others. Actually there is no such thing as another gospel and cannot be. The gospel is the good news that we are justified by faith in Christ Jesus. Anything else is just not gospel. That is why Paul said, "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel--not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ."

     To offer justification, or right standing with God, upon any other basis than trust in Jesus, may appear to those who hear it to be "a gospel." They may regard it as such and even accept and designate it as such. Ultimately they will learn that it could not deliver what it offered, that there is only one basis for right relationship to God. Then that which appeared so plausible and convincing, which seemed so rational and documented, will be shown to be empty and frustrating, and not good news at all.

     Let us imagine a person standing at a crossroads, deliberating upon a journey and carefully scrutinizing his map. An affable stranger steps up and enquires as to his destination. Upon learning where the man is going he declares that he can show him a shortcut which will require but half as much time and effort. "That is good news to me," replies the other as they start out. Soon they come to a place where a bridge is out, and in an attempt to find another crossing, they become entangled in a swamp and finally the guide is forced to admit that he is lost. The "good news" proves to be not good at all. It seemed like glad tidings when first offered but it left the traveler in a worse state than before he heard it.

     The gospel of Jesus Christ is the offer of a right relationship with God through faith in Christ--that faith which works by love--not by law! There may be many responsibilities growing out of our relationship to the Father, but these do not beget that relationship and the relationship is not created by them. It may afterwards be affected by them and by our attitude toward them, but the relationship itself does not originate in them, and to make it contingent upon them is to come dangerously near to promoting another gospel.

     Let us be specific. When brethren make a test of union and communion out of an attitude toward a specific method of breaking the bread in the Lord's Supper, and refuse to recognize as in the fellowship those who do not concur in their special brand of orthodoxy, they hinge justification upon faith in Jesus Christ and something else. The "something else" is agreement with their understanding, inference or deduction from scriptures, as to the method of breaking the bread. Their creed is no longer simply Christ but conformity with a factional pattern. Whatever any patty makes a test of fellowship is its creed. Whatever one must accept to be regarded as loyal is a creed.

     When brethren make a test of union or communion out of an attitude toward distribution of the fruit of the vine in the Lord's Supper, whether in one container or several, and refuse to recognize as in the fellowship, those who do not concur in their orthodoxy, they hinge justification upon faith in Jesus Christ and something else. The "something else" is agreement with their understanding of the relative importance of the container to communion in the blood of Jesus. Their creed is no longer simply Christ but conformity with a factional pattern.

     When brethren make a test of union or communion out of an attitude toward propagation of the message through such media as Herald of Truth, their creed is no longer simply Christ Jesus but conformity with a factional pattern.

     When brethren make a test of union and communion out of an attitude toward

[Page 10]

the millennium, their creed is no longer simply Christ, but conformity with a factional pattern.

     When brethren make a test of union and communion out of an attitude toward the use of instrumental music in expression of praise to God, their creed is no longer simply Christ but conformity with a factional pattern.

     To make one's right standing with God depend not upon surrender of himself to Jesus, but upon standing right on other things, is dangerously near to perverting the gospel. This was the mistake of the circumcision party in the days of Paul. Let it be understood that Paul did not regard either circumcision or lack of it as of any avail in establishing that relationship. "For in union with Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor the lack of it counts for anything; but only faith that is spurred on to action by love" (Galatians 5:6).

     One may be in Christ Jesus in spite of his attitude toward individual cups, classes, colleges, Herald of Truth, the millennium or instrumental music. He may be in Christ and never even know that these issues have troubled the saints. He does not enter this relationship by an attitude toward any or all of these, but if he sets up his attitude on any one of them as a test of fellowship, he makes that attitude or that thing equal with Christ and the cross. When he says, "Except you adopt our attitude concerning one cup (or classes, or colleges, or Herald of Truth, or the millennium, or instrumental music) you cannot be saved," he sits down in the seat of the Pharisees. Many quote Galatians 1:6-8 and apply it to others when they are actually the ones who set up other unwritten creeds and pervert the gospel with their partisan terms of fellowship and justification.

     Not every divergent view is "another gospel." Not every area of disagreement makes the one who disagrees with us a perverter of the gospel. Why do those who profess to love God seek so eagerly to brand their brothers and apply hurtful and prejudicial epithets? Why are they so anxious to set at nought their brothers for whom Christ died? Why are they bent upon smiting their fellowservants? Is this the more excellent way? Is this the royal road to unity? Will this accomplish the purpose for which Jesus shed his blood? Will it answer his prayer for the oneness of all believers? It God deals with us at the judgment in the same cold legalistic fashion that we deal with his other children, will any of us be saved?

     In closing this little review of one of the "twisted scriptures" I would like to insert two quotations from yesteryear. The first is from the "Declaration and Address" as read by Thomas Campbell at Washington, Pennsylvania, in 1809.

     That although inferences and deductions from Scripture premises, when fairly inferred, may be truly called the doctrine of God's holy word, yet are they not formally binding upon the consciences of Christians futther than they perceive the connection, and evidently see that they are so, for their faith must not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power and veracity of God. Therefore no such deductions can be made terms of communion, but properly do belong to the after and progressive edification of the Church. Hence it is evident that no such deductions or inferential truths ought to have any place in the Church's confession.

     The next quotation is from the pen of Alexander Campbell, the worthy son of the man who wrote the preceding lines.

     The present partyism is a disgrace to our profession. It is fatal to the progress of piety and truth... The key of knowledge is virtually taken away, and ages of darkness are again spreading sable wings over a slumbermg world. We must awaken from this sleep of death--this fatal lethargy that has seized the body ecclesiastic. Men are fighting about chimeras, loving and hating, approbating and disapprobating one another for reasons they do not comprehend, and, if comprehended, they would blush to see the illusions and phantoms that have bewildered them.

     This is the first of a series of reviews of "The Twisted Scriptures." Others will appear in this journal each month of this year and then be bound in a book bearing that title at close of the year. Be sure and read next month's issue.