Are You a Liberal?

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 42]

     The brethren in Christ who grew up in a narrow and intolerant faction which they were taught, from earliest childhood, to regard as the one holy, apostolic and catholic church of God upon earth, and who were encouraged to think of all others outside the partisan pale as "heathen and publicans," find themselves in a state of shock when someone dares to question whether their faction, or any other faction, so conceived and so dedicated, is the sole constituency of the body of which the Son of God is the head. That there should be saints in Christ who are not in the party is unthinkable. The rest of the world may be wrong about many things, and is wrong about most everything, as they view it, but that their leaders can be wrong about anything, is unthinkable.

     Under these conditions, when someone suggests that the party walls are arbitrarily constructed by men and do not represent the limits of God's acceptance, and that there are sons of God outside "the brotherhood" created by allegiance

[Page 43]

to a certain journal or its viewpoint, he is liable to be branded as a liberal. This convenient term is used to frighten those who would be disposed to climb up on the top rail and investigate beyond the limits of "the old corral." There is something about the word "Liberal" which connotes denial of things basic and fundamental to the Christian concept. The mere mention of it conjures up the form a spectral evil genius, garbed in the robe of a philosopher, who plots and plans, in conjunction with Belial, the seduction and destruction of all we hold dear. To designate a person as a "Liberal" is equivalent to warning all of the folks that when he is in the neighborhood, they should put the dogs under the porch, call all the children in, lock and bar the door, and draw the shades before crawling under the beds.

     This is of interest to me because I have before me as I write, three papers, each produced by a different party in "The Church of Christ." One is edited in California, the other two in Texas. The California journal has an article designating as "liberals" the folk who subscribe to the viewpoints of both Texas papers because they espouse and defend Bible classes and individual cups. The congregations which have these things are referred to by the rather fantastic and slightly amusing caption, "Sunday School and cups churches." But one of the Texas journals designates the followers of the other as "liberals" because they endorse what is called "centralized supervision." This is a term coined to describe the method of support of "Herald of Truth" which is a propaganda device specializing the employment of radio programs.

     The third paper has an editorial referring to me as "a liberal." Members of the non-instrument segment of the disciple brotherhood have much in common, one of them being that all of them are tagged as "liberals" by some of the others. One does not need to be much of a logician to reach the conclusion that if every one is a liberal no one is, and that which loses its power of distinction can no longer distinguish. Before the word "liberal" can possibly define a man's position in these days, the one who uses it must define the word "liberal." As a label it is so indistinct that one cannot tell the content without opening the container. It is a little like the dear old soul who wanted to tell her pies apart and marked some of them T. M. for "'Tis mince," and the rest of them T. M. for "Tain't mince." We may all be liberal and not know it. On the following grounds I cheerfully plead guilty to the charge of my fellow-editor in Texas, who would like to see me hanged but always gets tangled in his own rope while trying to throw it across a limb.

     1. If reception of all who are children of my Father as my brothers, on the same conditions as he accepts all of us, makes one a liberal, then I'm a liberal.

     2. If reverence for the Lordship of Jesus over the whole body, and recognition that every sincere immersed believer in His divine Son is in that body makes one a liberal, then I'm a liberal.

     3. If regard for the authority of the new covenant scriptures in every particular, as well in fellowship and unity as in repentance and baptism, makes one a liberal, then I'm a liberal.

     4. If registering one's love for all the brethren, sharing with them and associating with them, calling upon them to pray to the Father, and defending their right to be answerable to a common Master, makes one a liberal, then I'm a liberal.

     5. If refusal to make anything a test of fellowship or of union or communion, which God has not made a condition of salvation, makes one a liberal, then I'm a liberal.

     6. If the resolution to be just a Christian and a Christian only, and not some special brand or type of Christian, not even a "Church of Christ Christian," or a "Christian Church Christian," makes one a liberal, then I'm a liberal.

     7. If respect for the sovereignty and dignity of the individual conscience, coupled with the steadfast refusal to allow my thinking to originate in or be regulated by any pressure group, in Texas

[Page 44]

or California, makes one a liberal, then I'm a liberal.

     On the same grounds I suspect we are developing more "liberals" all of the time. Not all have been "liberated" yet and cannot allow it to be known for fear of reprisal. But better days are in the offing. The sun is starting to break through the clouds. In the meantime I am trying to overcome the factional tendency to label others in the family. A man is not so much of a liberal or extremist because of where he stands as because of where I stand as I look at him. One might be on my left and still be "right," or he might be on my right and still be "left." I am concerned that all of us be in Him and that He abide in us. If we remain in the right person it will be difficult to stay in the wrong place!