Ecumenical Encounter

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 77]

     Alexander Campbell declared that the restoration movement was inaugurated as "a project to unite the Christians in all of the sects." At the time of its inception the sectarian spirit was running high. Campbell and his contemporaries spoke to members of all religious parties whenever invitation was extended or opportunity afforded. It is doubtful that these men ever turned down an invitation to address any convention of earnest men. Frequently they encountered resentment upon the part of those who regarded the divergent sects as a fulfillment of the divine purpose on earth.

     In our day the situation has changed. Many leaders in sectarian circles deplore division in the Christian realm. Extensive research is being prosecuted into the grounds for unity. The entire religious fabric is being colored by ecumenical thought. If Campbell were alive now he would undoubtedly rejoice at the altered attitude everywhere manifest. One wonders to what extent that attitude may reflect some of the ideas he dropped as seeds in the whole field of Protestantism.

     What about the heirs of this noble experiment which made such signal gains against such frightful odds in the early part of the nineteenth century? Are they entering the ferment of dialogue to point seekers for unity to the restoration ideal? Strange as it may seem, they are conspicuous by their absence. Other restoration groups of different national origins are participating directly in the current exchange. They are bringing to bear the thinking of their fathers and there is some evidence that they are making an impact in stemming the tide of liberalistic philosophy.

     It is with a sense of regret, mingled with shame, that I confess that most of those within the non-instrument segment of the disciple brotherhood hardly know what is transpiring in the world immediately about them. Even the occasional articles (always critical and negative) dealing with the current confrontation of our religious neighbors betray a sad deficiency of understanding upon the part of the writers. These must be governed wholly by hearsay. They have never attended one of the meetings which they denounce, they have never met the men whom they castigate. Most of our brethren have never exchanged correspondence with the leaders in other areas of the religious spectrum.

     Ours is a most unrealistic situation. We claim to have the very cure for which others are searching. We boast that the restoration principle is the answer to the problems of strife and schism. But our factions are monasteries into which we have retreated and isolated ourselves from the mainstream of thought. We spend our time talking to ourselves about others. The balm of Gilead is applied

[Page 78]

only to those we consider to be whole and well. We do not go to those whom we regard as sick.

     It is observable that even in schools professing to be Liberal Arts colleges, no one can appear upon the program who does not parrot the party line. Only "sound" men are invited to participate and a "sound man" is one who can be trusted to say what the promoters want to hear. Our brethren dare not listen to another angle. They cannot share thought with others. They can only unload their thinking upon others! They can only offer a monologue, never a dialogue. Lectureships devoted to a study of "restoration" are loaded in advance. There are no real forums or exchanges between divergent groups. Any such exchange has to be on the purely partisan and childish level of debate.

     What would happen, for instance, if Abilene Christian College would rise above the narrow confines of orthodoxy and measure up to the stature of bold leadership demanded in our day, by inviting representative men from all segments of the restoration movement to share in a program where the varied viewpoints would be heard and discussed? Would not the school be hailed as a pioneer in a noble endeavor even by the thinkers outside the ranks of the restoration movement? Of what are our brethren afraid?

     In 1866 David Lipscomb and Tolbert Fanning took the lead in urging conferences everywhere between the Baptists and the Disciples. Lipscomb wrote, "Will not our brethren then invite the Baptists, either as a body or as individual churches, to meet them, and prayerfully consult, to see if they cannot come together, and labor and worship as one people in Christ the Lord?" Both editors signed a statement which said, "The idea of a meeting for consultation, as suggested by Dr. Broaddus, is certainly in harmony with the spirit of the Christian religion and at all times must result in good to those who engage therein with the proper spirit. What say our brethren, Baptists and Disciples of Tennessee and the South? Will they speak out freely on the subject? Whether for or against the pages of the Advocate will be open to them."

     Those brethren were made of real stuff! Most of their heirs are unworthy of such spiritual sires. Not only will their successors not meet for consultation with the Baptists but most of them will not even meet with their fellowheirs of the restoration movement to "prayerfully consult, to see if they cannot come together." Not only are the pages of their journals closed to real discussion encounter, but they will not even announce a meeting when the brethren come together. I charge that if David Lipscomb were alive today he would not be allowed to teach in the school that bears his name. He would be excluded from any "Church of Christ" in Nashville and denounced as a Ketcherside-ite. We have become sectarian, factional and frightened! We would not even let our "restoration fathers" in the door!

     But an individual can rise above all of this. He can throw off the shackles! He can blot out the partisan brand with the blood of Jesus. As a free man in Christ Jesus I am ready to go anywhere, to meet with any group and to discuss with them the deepening insights into truth. I am also a seeker! What a thrilling thing it is to be just a Christian and a Christian only, without obligation to defend anything except the one body of which He is the head. What a source of power to recognize as your brethren all who "by one Spirit are baptized into that one body."

     If it be urged that the ecumenical machinery is so complex that only an organization can survive among it, or that its concerted sound is so great no voice can be heard above it--disregard such notes of failure. Go as Paul went in his penetration of the Greek world with its maze of philosophy! Go in the faith of Him who opened up the Red Sea when destruction appeared imminent. Go in the power of the indwelling Spirit who has never lost an encounter.

     I feel driven by deep inner compulsion

[Page 79]

to share the little I have gleaned with all who love Jesus, in spite of the unfortunate circumstances which have conspired to separate us from each other. I have resolved to belong to no one but Him who bought me. I have pledged allegiance to a person and not a party! I solicit the prayers of all those in "the fellowship of the concerned" that I may conduct my life with reverence and godly fear. I do not subscribe to the defeatist philosophy that we can best help the world which Jesus left heaven to visit by remaining in our own little heavens and refusing to visit and share with them. Fortunate am I indeed that I am controlled by no vested interest and have nothing to lose but my soul!