Keep the Door Open

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 168]

     We must point out that all shades of thinking among us have much in common. Each group will quote with the same vigor the pioneers of the Restoration. One group thinks as much of Campbell, Fanning, Smith, Stone and Scott as does the other. And behind these men there was a heritage of respect for the Bible gained from various Protestant sources.

     Even among second generation restorationalists like McGarvey, Lipscomb, Errett, Sommer, Pendleton, Pinkerton, Rowe, Johnson and Clark there was a bond of brotherhood. Even though they had begun to differ from each other over such questions as the missionary society, the use of instrumental music, the millennium, located preachers and the Sunday School, they still worked together when they could conscientiously do so, and maintained communication with each other and in most instances friendship to the end of their lives. Party issues had not yet crystallized.

     Even after major cleavages had occurred there were some giants who tried to keep lines of communication open. East of the Mississippi numerous men, even into the 20th century strove to

[Page 169]

maintain dialogue between elements of the Restoration which were gravitating further and further apart. We were fortunate enough to hear Daniel Sommer's now famous speech at Abilene Christian College in the early thirties in which in the closing years of his life he sought to close the gap his own teachings had created. We were also fortunate enough to have passing friendship with N. L. Clark during the last years of his life, and to hear him speak with regret of the cleavage the opposition to "Sunday Schools" had caused. We feel sure that some of this generation will weep bitter tears before they die over the cleavage of the past ten years.

     That there are divisions in the body of Christ none will deny. They had that in the church at Corinth. We have it today. It is as sinful today as it was then. But to refer to every little difference of opinion among brethren as a "segment of the Restoration Movement" is a little ridiculous.

     There are many times when brethren differ one from another--within a congregation and between congregations. As we look back upon history we feel that in all likelihood it was good for all of us that we have been forced to constantly re-examine all the postulates and all the consequences of our differences. True unity must be found in the Scriptures, and nowhere else. At the same time there is a basic need for a certain amount of friction within the society of saints, lest they become petrified through lack of challenge to study. Every challenge the saints have received, whether it comes from denominational or heathen sources, or whether it comes from other saints, stimulates us to deeper study of the scriptures and increase (sic) activity in the interest of righteousness. Some diversity of opinion and method among churches is essential for incentive, and is a prod that goads along the way the odyssey of the human spirit. Brethren require of other brethren enough in common to understand each other, enough difference to provoke attention, and enough worth emulating to command admiration.

     It would be to damn the Restoration to hopeless fracture if we should shut the door completely to dialogue between brethren whose opinions and whose interpretations of scripture differ. We must maintain contact with each other and prayerfully and hopefully work toward a better understanding of the scriptures upon the part of us all. We must never consider theological discussion closed between any two elements of brethren.

     Unity is always to be sought within the framework of scripture; never outside it. We have no liberty or license to set aside what the Bible teaches in order to have fellowship. If fellowship is in a Person it is in the teachings of that Person. Salvation is in Christ which means on Christ's terms and within the framework of Christ's teachings. Likewise unity is in Christ--which means Christ's terms and within the framework of Christ's teachings. To attempt to set aside Christ's teaching either on the plan of salvation or the basis of Christian unity would be folly. There can be no fellowship--outside of Christ's teachings.

     It would be unfortunate if in our discussions with each other we should meet only in the twilight zone of our mutual agreements. These are not the grounds upon which we took leave of each other. It is certainly good to explore mutual ground, but to do this at the expense of examining with honest hearts the grounds of difference would be unprofitable. To close our minds to the fruitful possibility of discussing points of difference would be to kiss fellowship goodbye, and murder any hope of unity. With mutual respect for the conscientious belief of each other let us consider one another in love, and always keep the door of communication open.

     Unity--not compromise--should always be the goal of our efforts. It is time we see how close we can get together rather than how far we can get apart. And in it let us pray, "Not my will but thine be done."

     Our good brother admits that heirs of the Restoration "have seen fit to part ways on many issues." He does not say how many factions there are but he thinks we set the figure too high when we mention "twenty-five different segments" of the Restoration movement. He infers that every little difference of opinion is made a "split." By our use of the word "segment," which is merely a polite term for sect, we mean an exclusivistic party which makes a definite test of fellowship out of something which God has not made a condition of salvation. We do not refer to "little differences of opinion," but to opinion elevated (or degenerated) into partisan tests of fellowship.

     There are at least twenty-five such parties within the restoration spectrum. We have personally visited and conversed with representatives of twenty-one of them, and trust, through God's grace, to visit the rest, seeing they also contain our brothers. While others may gloat over "the number of such differences," we are seeking by association and sharing of thought to reduce tensions and eliminate further strife and division. Our divided state is a scandal and shame, an occasion of sorrow and sadness. Our esteemed brother does not know how many segments exist because he limits his efforts to the faction for which he is one of the chief spokesmen. He espouses the fallacy that it is "the Lord's church" to the exclusion of the others. We do not say this derogatorily, but merely as a point of fact, since we once held the same position as to the faction with which we were identified.

     It is true that we have much in common, but it will come as a distinct surprise to most of the brethren who differ with us about the missionary society, instrumental music, and the pre-millennial interpretation, to know that our brother considers the door is still open for maintaining communication and dialogue. Most of them have thought that the orthodox party with which our brother is affiliated had slammed the door shut. Certainly the members of this party are conspicuous by their absence in every gathering of free men from various segments to engage in dialogue. In several places where our brother has labored, preachers and elders have issued decrees that their members must boycott such meetings. Brethren all over this country who use instrumental music and have sought to establish forums for open discussion have been rebuffed and repulsed. They can furnish our good brother photostatic copies of letters which are arrogant and insulting, received in reply to invitations issued in kindness. I know whereof I speak. I have read these rude epistles with sadness. The writers refuse to engage in dialogue and know only one course to pursue, that of unlovely insinuation and unbrotherly challenge to partisan debate.

     I have published this editorial so our readers all over the world will see that there is still hope because of the changing attitudes of men like our esteemed brother. In April, 1962, he said in an editorial personally attacking our position, "Brethren are united only when they see alike." It is refreshing to hear him now say that it is ridiculous to think that differences of opinion indicate division. While our brother once condemned me for saying that the only unity possible for thinking men is unity in diversity, he now goes so far as to assert, "There is a basic need for a certain amount of friction within the society of saints," and also, "Some diversity of opinion and method among churches is essential for incentive."

     We concur heartily and sincerely with the paragraph in which our brother says, "It would be to damn the Restoration to

[Page 171]

hopeless fracture if we should shut the door completely to dialogue between brethren whose opinions and whose interpretations of scripture differ. We must maintain contact with each other and prayerfully and hopefully work toward a better understanding of the scriptures upon the part of us all. We must never consider theological discussion closed between any two elements of the brethren." This expresses our own viewpoint better than we could express it. I share in the sentiment without reservation.

     On January 2, 1964, I wrote to Roy H. Lanier, Sr., Denver, Colorado, a brother who is a staff writer for Firm Foundation, in these words: "I suggest that we meet in Denver to engage in dialogue with reference to the question of fellowship and its relationship to the current status of the Restoration Movement. I suggest that we hold six sessions of two hours each, and that in the first session each of us take one hour to present his position on some agreed upon phase of the subject, and follow this by a two hour session in which we question each other in the presence of the public, and this, in turn, with another two hour session in which we sit down together and allow the audience to question us. I suggest that we repeat the same procedure with a second phase of the subjects so interesting in this day. In such a confrontation only truth can gain. If you concur with this fair and non-partisan approach, I further suggest that you agree to announce it in three issues (at least) of Firm Foundation and I shall do the same in three issues of Mission Messenger, and I shall urge representatives of all segments of the Restoration Movement to attend and participate in the questioning."

     Our good brother Lanier rejected this approach to dialogue. He wrote, "I am not in the position you are; I am so related to brethren in the area that I cannot do such things without their fellowship and endorsement. The brethren in this area would have to realize the need of such discussion. Next, they would have to be allowed to choose their representative. I have talked with several preachers and they doubt if you have a sufficient following in the area to justify giving you an audience."

     Our brother did not want dialogue but partisan debate as a representative of a particular faction. He said, "I would insist on at least two nights of regular debate for one night of questions previously agreed on, at least as to the field of inquiry. Also general propositions would have to be drawn which would obligate you to affirm the outstanding doctrines you have taught since 1957. I am not interested in giving you an audience before which you would say a lot of pretty things about fellowship."

     I am heartened by the fact that the situation has so changed that the editor of the paper of which Brother Lanier is a staff writer now makes a plea for dialogue as the means of holding the door open. Brother Lemmons differs with my approach to making the spirit of the Restoration movement relevant to our day. He has accused me of surrendering in toto the entire restoration plea and of completely losing sight of any former truth which I held. He also wrote about me, "He has swung from the extreme of the narrowest of sectarian spirits to the broadest cover-everything-stand- for-nothing liberalism." In one issue he charged me with gross error and rank liberalism, and declared that my current writing and speaking constitute "a glaring example of blindness." None of this has affected my love or respect for our brother. I think I understand the pressures upon him. I realize that when I was editing a factional journal I wrote the same way about some of my brothers with whom I differed. Brother Lemmons is a good man, and I do not think he really wants to write as he feels forced to do in his position.

     But now I have a proposal to make to our gracious brother. On the basis of his own editorial I propose that the two of us "keep the door open" by meeting for open dialogue. Specifically, I propose that

[Page 172]

we meet in some Texas city of his own designation, for two full days of three sessions each, with each session lasting two hours. In the morning session let each of us speak one hour in setting forth his position on fellowship. In the afternoon session let the two of us question each other an equal amount of time for better understanding. At night let us sit down together and allow the audience to question us both for two hours. Let us then conclude the two day confrontation with joint prayer that God may use us as instruments of His grace in promoting unity among all of the saints. Let us do this as free men, representing no one but ourselves, even as we shall be judged in the last day.

     I further propose that we invite all of the concerned ones among the Disciples of Christ, Independent Christian Churches, and various types of Churches of Christ, to attend and share in the occasion by directing questions to us in the evening forums. I pledge to Brother Lemmons, upon my sacred honor, that I will conduct myself toward him and all others who attend, as a Christian gentleman, and that when we part I shall love him as my brother as much as I do now. Because of the current atmosphere it is my earnest conviction that the two of us may go far toward relieving tensions and uniting our brothers across all lines and barriers within the restoration movement.

     For reasons I shall not here disclose, I now feel that if effective witness of the original ideals of the restoration movement can ever be made to the leaders of the ecumenical movement, it will probably come from those in the non-instrument segment who dare to rise above partisan considerations and establish rapport with world leaders of theological thought. But time is running out and our own shameful divisions hinder us in any attempt to approach such groups as "the Faith and Order Commission," which are affecting the hearts of men in our day. I refuse to believe that the restoration ideal is invalid, but if there is not enough dynamic in it to hold us together, on what ground can we expect it to be accepted as it was originally defined by Alexander Campbell--a project for uniting the Christians in all of the sects.

     I urge our readers in all segments of the restoration spectrum to write Brother Lemmons and encourage him in his announced purpose of actually using dialogue as a tool to forge the bonds of unity. I concur with him that we should not meet only in "the twilight zone of mutual agreements," and I am ready and anxious to explore with him "the fruitful possibility of discussing points of difference." His statement which follows is a noble one: "With mutual respect for the conscientious beliefs of each other let us consider one another in love, and always keep the door of communication open." In the unabridged spirit of that declaration I invite my good friend and brother to share with me in public dialogue in consideration of our differences as to the grounds and nature of fellowship and unity among the saints of God.

     Perhaps our brother would like to arrange a mutual dialogue on the campus of Abilene Christian College, where he serves on the board, and where members of the faculty could act as moderators. Failing this, perhaps some congregation with the courage to face twentieth century problems would consider inviting the two of us to engage in dialogue, with the elders serving as chairmen. I am not afraid of any of my brothers in the Lord. I shall not quibble about mere details. Time is failing us. We must get on with the task of unity among ourselves so we can present a case and a demonstration to the ecumenical world around us. I am so thoroughly convinced that the Spirit will work with and through one who trusts in Jesus completely that I am ready to go anywhere at any time.

     You may write our brother by addressing Reuel Lemmons, P.O. Box 610, Austin, Texas 78767. May God use us both as instruments to bring about an answer to the prayer of His Son for the oneness of all who believe upon Him through the apostolic testimony is my own prayer. Let the truth be known!