Approach to Authority

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 113]

     Seldom indeed is a thinker in the theological realm able to divest himself of all concern for the immediate segment of that sphere with which he is more directly affiliated. We survey the world through a porthole rather than from the lofty summit of a mountain and while we may see afar we can never denude ourselves of the environment which limits the sweep of our vision. Perhaps it is best this way for it creates a sense of dependence upon each other if any of us is ever to gain a knowledge of the whole spectrum. We must rely upon the testimony of others who are also looking through their portholes.

     Our situation or station is created by many factors. Not all are by voluntary choice directed toward a planned position. Many attitudes are the result of a fortuitous concourse of events which tend to shape our destinies in ways of which we do not dream. Thus we can never divorce ourselves from the history which reveals the origin and unfolding of the movements with which we are allied. This fact alone provides a sufficient ground for directing our attention to the current status of a restoration movement which received its greatest impetus in the early part of the preceding century under the brilliant leadership of such men as Thomas and Alexander Campbell.

     This movement grew in response to the need tor a solution of the problem of increasing schism and division within the ranks of the army of believers in Jesus. It was described as "a project to unite the Christians in all of the sects." Today it is one of the most divided movements on the American religious scene. From the date of its first division it lost its potency as a unitive force. From that day forward a dubious world would ask how those who could not stay together could expect to bring all others together. It is obvious that the heirs of this movement must solve the problem of division among themselves or forfeit any significant role in the unfolding drama of unity discussion.

     To reach a solution to the problem these heirs must go back to the initial division and heal this primary breach. Until this is done the movement will remain divided. The division cannot be healed by simply patching up later rents in each segment while ignoring the fact that these segments are themselves indications of a major disruption. Such a course would be symptomatic of the sectarian spirit. Yet it must be admitted that this latter has been the only approach to which the divergent groups have given their unstinted efforts and energy.

     The several parties have employed only one type of confrontation in the past- partisan debate-in which the main objective was not to produce peace but to defend as wholly justifiable the positions

[Page 114]

of the respective factions. Every scripture related to these positions has been examined and a great many which have not the remotest bearing on the issues have been wrested and twisted from their context by forensic champions whose aim was victory rather than virtue. It is apparent that what is needed is a bold new approach to the problem which places relationship in Jesus above every thing which creates a tension or strain upon that relationship. Such an approach will permit a candid examination of all facets of the problem, divested of hereditary and traditional emotionalism. It will preserve a sense of brotherhood regardless of the circumstances which affect the brethren.

     Such an approach will avoid the use of outgrown and worn cliches and slogans. It will not expect to arrive at a solution by over-simplification. These methods have been tried for a century without effect except for encouraging partisan rivalry. Rather, it will seek by depth and penetration to analyze and understand the motivations of all, while constantly refusing to think of any one fragment or splinter as the one body to the exclusion of others. It is in this spirit we propose to make certain suggestions to all of our brothers in the restoration movement leading to a re-examination of certain traditional attitudes and assumptions in the hope that we can inaugurate steps leading toward our mutual goal of "peace on earth to men of goodwill."

     There are now many facets to our problem but in the mind of the average member these are all an outgrowth of an original attitude toward instrumental music employed in public corporate expressions of praise to God. This is exhibited in the tendency to distinguish between our major groups as "instrument brethren" and "anti-instrument brethren." It is seen in the tracts and other documents of the latter who make a capella singing a mark of identity of the "true church." It is observable on sign boards along public highways which use parentheses under the title "Church of Christ" to enclose the modifying term "Vocal Music."

     No one can deal with our divisiveness in the restoration movement without facing up to this issue sooner or later. Yet to do so hurls one into the thick of an emotional turmoil in which any genuine attempt at pacification generally results in the would-be peacemaker suffering attack from all sides. The reason for this is obvious. The instrument has become a symbol tor a great many invisible feelings, including subconscious fears, frustrations and animosities on the one hand; and freedom, assertiveness and aggressiveness upon the other. It is the tangible token of certain intangible evils or values.

     To one group it is a mark of apostasy adopted in rebellion against the will of Jesus and they would as soon see Satan speaking from the platform as an organ on it; to the other group it is an insignia of liberty in Christ Jesus and they would as soon see "Old Glory" snatched rudely from the flag staff and trampled in the mire as to relinquish this emblem of victory over "reactionaries." No doubt the careful student of human behavior can see reasons for regret that people would so closely identify a human invention with either Satan or Jesus, but we must face conditions as they are, and not as we would have them. This entails recognition of the fact that men do not always respond rationally to religious involvements.

     The leaders of both sides affirm that instrumental music is not the real problem. All agree it is but an overt symptom. They disagree in their diagnosis of the underlying malady, of course, but all learnedly agree there is one. This raises the question as to why there should be so much attention given to the instrument. I suspect that it is simply because it can be seen and heard. It is visible and audible. A philosophy cannot be seen or heard in a man's heart, and even when expressed the masses may not grasp it. But those who must have criteria for loyalty--whether seeking for signs of secularism to avoid, or symbols of security

[Page 115]

to accept--can readily see a piano, and they can flee from its presence, or bask in its nearness, and thus feel they are pleasing God by the action in which they engage, whether flight or fancy!

     Sooner or later every reformer of the restoration movement must face this issue. When he does so he is generally finished insofar as effective impact is concerned. We propose to face it squarely. Do we thus invite murder or suicide for our simple effort of reform? We do not think so, and we will tell you why. It could be that we are mistaken in judgment and that our brethren in all segments will see fit to banish us to that religious Siberia where we can be marked off as a force to be reckoned with. Instead, we have high hope that our exploration of a thorny problem may encourage a sensible approach. Here are the reasons for "the hope that lieth in us," on this issue.

     1. We do not intend to engage in shallow partisan debate as a means of settling our difficulty. It is no exaggeration to say that we have read at home and abroad enough books on instrumental music to fill a twenty foot shelf. Many of these have been recorded debates. A great many were products of men within our restoration movement, but some of the best were written by Presbyterians and Primitive Baptists. We seriously doubt that any undiscovered scripture can be found to bolster a new argument either pro or con. Our hope of surviving where others have perished is by rising above the whole arena of controversy which has engaged the thought of all on both sides. If the instrument is but a symptom we shall penetrate behind the symptoms rather than fight over them.

     2. We shall not allow our fellowship in Jesus to be affected by either the ongoing study or its outcome. I am a brother to all of God's children in a relationship so transcendently superior to all who compose it, or to any views, opinions or interpretations to which they cling, that I steadfastly refuse to allow it to be negated or denigrated by any interpretation of those who differ with me in Christ. I am not told how to treat instrumental music but I am. told how to treat my brothers, and I shall not allow the silence of the scriptures to drown out the voice of God in my consciousness. A brother in Christ is much more important to me than any view he may hold as to vocal or instrumental music. Man was not made for music but music was made for man. I shall not destroy him for whom Christ died with my view about music.

     3. The real hope lies in the spirit of our present generation. There is a revolt against the stereotyped, sterile and static attitude which characterizes all of our feuding factions. Earnest young men and women are tired of being regimented and forced into a lock-step on the partisan treadmills. There is a spirit of adventure in the air which distinguishes between loyalty to the Son of God and fidelity to the traditions of the fathers. Men are sick of the glib answers and shallow responses which they are expected to swallow simply because they once proved effective in silencing ignorant protagonists. They are weary of hearing over and over the answers to questions which no one is asking. It is time for an examination in depth of things which we have accepted without question, not always because they were part of the apostolic tradition, but sometimes because they were part of our own traditions.

     Such an examination will reveal that the restoration movement did not divide over the missionary society or instrumental music when these were introduced, nor for a long time thereafter. The former was first started in 1849, and the latter was brought into a congregation in 1859. It was not until 1889 that it was first proposed that those who endorsed these and other "innovations," should "no longer be regarded as brethren." Even then division did not occur because those who had abandoned sects with their creedal tests were reluctant to create new parties with factional standards. Finally, agitation from both sides aroused such bitterness that the fabric of brotherhood was strained until it gave way.

[Page 116]

     Those who sought to inject instrumental music acted from various motivations. Some were anxious for the movement to progress with the cultural changes taking place as the nation passed from a frontier society to an industrial complex. Others were frightened at the thought of losing the more "respectable" members to the glamorous sects about them. Increasing numbers and wealth made possible the erection of more ornate meetinghouses and these encouraged the formulation of a ritualistic approach to worship. Feelings ran high, families were divided, neighborhood tensions increased. Men vowed that instruments would be brought in only over their dead bodies. Locks were changed on doors, and these were battered off with sledge-hammers. Conspirators met and spirited an instrument in at night under cover of darkness, the opposers entered the following night and battered the offending organ into bits with their axes.

     Worshipers were given an option of worshiping with the organ or leaving the meetinghouse they had helped to build. When they went forth under this ultimatum they frequently entered civil suits to recover the property. Courtrooms were filled to overflowing with witnesses and spectators, and whatever the decision, animosity reigned in the hearts of many, only to be passed on in unabated measure to their children. The camp of the saints was split into clashing clans and warring tribes whose followers spoke sneeringly of others as "Progressives" or "Antis". When an occasional gentle soul remonstrated, "My brethren, these things ought not so to be," he was accused of soft-pedalling, compromising, or being wishy-washy. Both sides denounced him because he would not parrot the party line. Only the debating champions were popular. These were trained professional warriors, skilled in strategy, apt at ambush, and talented with the tomahawk. They were generally imported and they taunted, threatened and challenged the opposition. Many were fluent on the platform and facile with the pen. They were out for victory while protesting their love for the truth and praying for the triumph of right. It division had not occurred before their arrival it followed soon thereafter. Brotherly love was stabbed to the heart in their partisan encounters and left gasping, writhing and twitching on the sanded floor of the arena.

     Now, almost a century has passed and we can with a greater degree of calmness survey the scene of battle and assess the changes that have taken place. One thing is apparent at first glance. The seeds which were sown in the original division have continued to bear fruit, with both sides suffering further fragmentation and splintering. The arguments now used to defend the use of instrumental music are not the ones employed at its inauguration, and the basis of justification varies from one area to another. A new generation has grown up whose members have come into parties well organized. These find the instrument or the opposition to it already entrenched and a part of the party program to be accepted without question. They are surprised that there was ever any disagreement over such a matter, and surprised too to learn that they are heirs of a restoration movement. The interest in such things as instrumental music must be kept alive by the preachers. It has become a battle of mercenaries, rather than of the enlisted men in the ranks.

     But the whole ecclesiastical atmosphere has changed. Once there was open sectarian hostility as circuit riders went forth

[Page 117]

to do or die for their denominational establishments. Now the whole religious world regards division as the scandal of Christianity in our day. There is a continual exploration of the means by which schism can be eliminated. Mergers rather than divisions, make the newspaper headlines. The world is asking for the prescription of peace from those who claim to be following the Prince of peace. Any movement selfishly talking only to itself, or with nothing to offer except an example of strife, is strangely out of place, and is as irrelevant to the present as a Dodo or pterodactyl.

     The heirs of the restoration movement must solve the problem of division among themselves or forfeit all right to sit as peacemakers at the council tables of our day. It will not do to freeze our schismatic state at its present status, or declare a moratorium on further division. It is imperative that we remove and repair the breaches among ourselves as proof that it can be done. At present this seems absolutely impossible to most of our brethren because they can see only one alternative. Either those who use instrumental music must give it up and confess that its use is a sin, or those who oppose it must cease their opposition and condone its use. In other words it appears that the only terms of reunion are absolute surrender of one party to the other.

     So long as this type of rationalization prevails little will be achieved. There will be an occasional debate between the more rabid advocates of the various viewpoints. Some will desert one party for the other, but the reasons will generally be social, rather than conviction as to the instrument. When a defector is received into the opposing ranks there will be a brief flurry of sectarian hope that soon the whole problem will be solved by wholesale capture but a little time will serve to dispel this forlorn partisan expectancy. If the current parochial attitudes prevail the various factions are doomed to a war of attrition until Jesus comes. But they need not prevail. They do so only because superficial thinkers have not sought for another alternative. There is one! It consists not of surrender of one party to another party but in the absolute surrender of both (or all) to the Spirit of God.

     It was loss of this Spirit, and not instrumental music, which created the first division in our ranks. Certainly instrumental music placed a strain on our relationship, and will still do so, but it was failure to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace which produced the separation. Until we restore that unity and that peace we are not in any shape to discuss differences, and the increasing number of divisions in all of our segments is proof of this fact. We can never attain the unity of the Spirit by debating our differences on instrumental music, but we must regain the unity of the Spirit in order to logically discuss our problems as brethren. I propose to enter more deeply into our task than the superficial attention usually given to it. There is real hope in such a course!

     That hope lies in what has previously been stated, that all admit that instrumental music is not the basic cause of division but a symptom of that cause. What is the real cause? It is an attitude toward the authority of Jesus as expressed in the revealed word of God. That attitude is the direct result of a philosophy, or principle of interpretation. When instrumental music was introduced and parties crystallized about the pro and con of its use, these took a position by rallying around one of two standards, each of which represented a particular postulate as to interpretation.

     To put it in another fashion, when the conflict was joined, each side withdrew to prepared fortifications upon hills facing each other across the valley. There they have remained to this day with each insisting that his hill is the promised land to be defended at all costs. Actually the valley between where men meet as brothers in spite of differences may be the true vantage point for God's people. Here is a brief statement of the two divergent views.

     1. Whatever is not specifically authorized in scripture as an expression of wor-

[Page 118]

ship is forbidden, and its introduction and employment constitutes a sin against the authority of Jesus.

     2. Whatever is not specifically forbidden in scripture as an expression of worship may be allowable and permissible provided that it does not violate some other clearly stated principle of divine revelation.

     Not all of those who use instrumental music in this day justify it upon this basis. Many deny that it is used in worship, as worship, or as an expression of worship. Some affirm it is merely an aid to keep the pitch as a tuning fork is an aid to securing the pitch. Occasionally these demonstrate the inconsistency of their argument by playing the instrument while taking up a collection or during a prayer. We are convinced this is primarily an accommodative position to which strategists have felt forced to retire in some areas and is more for public consumption than for private conviction. Generally speaking we believe that the two statements above are a fair exposition of the ground for its original introduction and the opposition thereto.

     We must not forget that there is a difference between the authority of Jesus Christ and any philosophy of that authority in the light of which we examine it and seek to implement its requirements in our lives. The authority of Jesus is a fact created by the infinite source of all authority. It is divinely bestowed and is unalterable by any human power or by any combination of human powers. A philosophy of interpretation is adopted by man, and is therefore adaptable in the light of increasing wisdom and deepening insight. But the authority of Jesus is as unvarying as the ordinances of sun and moon. There is as much difference between them as there is in the planetary system and the telescope through which that system is studied, or the human body and a fluoroscope through which fleshly organs are examined. Both telescope and fluoroscope are useful instruments provided one does not confuse the means with the object and conclude that because he cannot improve upon the planets or the human body he cannot improve upon the telescope or fluoroscope either.

     At this juncture the casual reasoner will interject the question "Why do we need a principle of interpretation? Why can't we just accept the Bible for what it says and forget about modes of approach to authority and revelation?" Although the answer to this is apparent little will be gained by attempting to explain it to those who ask such questions and compassion can probably be better bestowed upon them indirectly since it does not require so much expenditure of time or tension. One might as well enquire, "If man wants to visit Mars why does he not just go, without messing around with space capsules and satellites?" Obviously the reason he cannot do so is because he is human. No doubt an angel would have no difficulty at all in making inter-planetary visits without benefit of a capsule, but angels are not human beings. Or, should we state that in reverse?

     Because we are human we even have to seek for a means to understand what other humans are trying to say to us. The Constitution of the United States is written in rather plain and unadorned fashion but the Supreme Court has been trying to interpret it almost since the day it was written. Even among the trained and scholarly men on the bench there is seldom a unanimous consensus. Undoubtedly this results from divergent philosophies of interpretation but without an approach to understanding there would be no understanding attainable at all. How much more must we utilize our rational powers to understand the will and purpose of God.

     We do not question but what God could have so constructed us that he could have imposed the divine will upon us and forced our automatic and involuntary response to it, but to do so he would have had to make us less than human. The granting of the right of choice meant the possibility of making the wrong choice. The creation of rational beings meant they could act irrationally. The divine

[Page 119]

will is not imposed but the thoughts of the divine mind are exposed, for that is precisely what revelation means. We are forced to deal with these thoughts for they are a part of the body of truth. Coming from God they cannot possibly be in any other category. But we must face them as human beings, and in all the mistakes and frailties to which such beings are subject. We must encounter a divine communication without divine insight. Revelation is divine, but interpretation is human.

     We must recognize the sovereign right of God to speak to us, to direct us, to demand obedience of us. But we must also realize that while his lordship is exercised in perfection, our understanding and execution of his will are not perfect. We must be always seeking and searching for the ideal. We can never count unto ourselves that we have arrived. It is because of this that grace and mercy are so precious unto us and our hope lies in our love for Jesus, our commitment unto him, and our willingness to do his will. Being human, we will out of our abiding affection for him, formulate a course of procedure for our lives based upon our understanding of his revelation.

     One is not necessarily a rebel against the authority of Jesus because he cannot in good conscience concur with my postulate relative to the understanding and interpretation of that authority. He may be honestly striving to know and do the will of God to the full extent of his present knowledge and ability. If so, we have a great deal in common, for that is precisely my status also. Neither of us will gain anything for the common cause of him whom we both serve by assuming that the other is dishonest, stubborn or rebellious. In both cases such would be a false assumption. We will find it far more profitable to grant the integrity of one another and use this common ground as a basis for mutual aid and research.

     We will also find it helpful to constantly remind ourselves of the difference between God and ourselves, a very necessary distinction which is frequently overlooked by those who engage in judging their brethren. Nothing else is more positively condemned by God's word than such judging, and yet no other sin is more frequently committed by those who claim to respect that authority. Unless we wish to be tried as "gods" and measured by a yardstick of perfect knowledge, infallibility of understanding, and unreproachable conduct, we had better quit playing at being God with our fellows, for with what judgment we judge we shall be judged. We are literally "writing our own ticket."

     This brings us to an evaluation of the two divergent rules of interpreting the authority of Jesus Christ for our lives. Both of these rules are pre-suppositions. No one is so ridiculous as to say he can read either of them in the sacred scriptures. Both attempt to measure what God has said by something he did not say. Each is a pair of spectacles donned by men to aid them in reading the word of God. Each contains lens ground according to criteria which have been deemed to be correct. But spectacles are put on before one starts reading. In both cases men have searched the scriptures in an endeavor to understand the basis of authority and they have selected and tied together various scriptures which seem to substantiate and lend credence to the position they have adopted. But they are still spectacles and not the word of God. That they may help us even as do spectacles, goes without saying, but we need to be careful lest we fall into the error of thinking we can best exemplify the spirit of the Word by arguing about the respective merits of our spectacles.

     Both rules are conclusions resulting from deductions and these deductions are themselves attempts to interpret the scriptures in order to determine a proper basis for interpreting the scriptures. Thus they actually stem. from an attempt to peer behind the scriptures--to look through them by looking into them--and understand the intent and motivation of God, although using as tools in the process his various acts and words.

[Page 120]

     We will be asked, "Is not one of the rules safer then the other?" In plain language this is meant to enquire "Isn't it better not to do a thing which may prove to be wrong than to do something which no one can prove is right?" This sounds good at first thought, but the moment you shift ground from dogmatism to safety you forfeit the whole argument based upon absolute authority. Safety is a relative term. Followed to its ultimate along a certain tangent it will result in doing nothing, because if one does anything he takes a chance. Men have been killed on almost every kind of job, or have been killed on the way to work. The safest thing, then, would be never to take a job, or, if given one, never go to it. Certainly one could never become an apostate who never accepted Jesus, and any person who does accept him might become an apostate. Shall we conclude it would be safer never to accept Jesus and eliminate the risk of apostasy?

     Safety lies within the realm of human judgment but divine authority does not. One should accept and implement in his life what he conscientiously believes divine authority requires whether it appears safe to do it, or not. Careless and superficial thinkers will jump to the conclusion that we are here affirming that conscience is a safe guide, but the truly thoughtful will see that there is a great difference. Conscience is a monitor, or arbiter. It is no more the source of authority than a referee is in a football game, or an umpire is in a baseball game. If challenged, each must make appeal to a source of authority which all must recognize and accept or there can be no game.

     Let us now come directly to our present state in the restoration movement. Let us face up realistically to the cleavage resulting from our initial division. We were once a united movement making a terrific impact upon the sectarian realm. We are now divided. We were brothers before we divided, we are brothers still, children of the same Father. What holds us apart? The answer lies in two divergent rules to govern our attitude and approach to the authority of Jesus. All of us recognize Jesus as the Son of God, all acknowledge his authority in heaven and upon earth. All of us seek to do his will, all want to please God, all crave to be with him forever. We are not divided over whether Jesus has absolute authority for all claim him as the Lord of life. We are not divided over whether the new covenant scriptures constitute a revelation from God, for we accept that as factual.

     Our problem lies in the realm of human judgment as to how that revelation which we regard as an expression of authority must be applied in our lives. We have two well defined pre-suppositions for approach to. the authority of Christ. These have not been given by his authority. The appeal to scripture for substantiating either of them is an appeal to the tenor or spirit of the word. They have been compiled through our deductions and formulated by our consciences, the rules appeal to us as being a valid approach for ourselves to the authority of Jesus.

     Our past attempts to bind our deductions upon each other have been wholly unsuccessful. Our debates in which we have sought to define and defend our presuppositions as valid, and to convert all of our brethren to acceptance of them have proven to be futile. They have worsened rather than helped our condition. In this sad state of affairs many have despaired of our ever being able to recapture even a semblance of unity and have resigned themselves to the task of building up our various sects and parties with the hope that God will understand and take into consideration their ardent and unfulfilled longings for brotherhood. While I sympathize with such discouraged persons I do not share either their resignation or pessimism. Our division is a scandal and a shame and I shall not fold my hands and conclude there is nothing to be done about the sin of our own sectarianism. I intend to do something about it in both word and deed.

      But what can be done to restore a sense

[Page 121]

of brotherhood and oneness? Are we not staggered, stymied and stalemated? Have we not reached an impasse which provides no alternative except to cut and slash away at each other as rival factions until we force the surrender of one party or kill each other off? Suppose our real problem isn't the instrument, is it not true that as long as we have these divergent approaches to authority we must continue our fratricidal feuding? These are the questions asked by the sectarian in heart.

     I have no doubt that the same questions in substance were asked by Jews and Gentiles at the time when Jesus was born. How could the circumcised be received in their insufferable arrogance by the uncircumcised? How could the uncircumcised be accepted in their foreignness to the covenants of God by the covenant people? There just simply was no answer. And then it happened! Here they were--raised up together and made to sit together in heavenly places. The circumcised still had their circumcision, the uncircumcised were still uncircumcised, but they were made nigh by the blood of the cross, they were members of the same body and partakers of the same promises in Christ by the gospel! Study those last five words.

     We are all of us already in Christ. We are there by the gospel! We are in Christ by his authority expressed in the dynamic of the good news! Whether we justify the use of instrumental music or oppose it we are in Christ and we are members of one body. We may not understand all God approves and God may not approve all we understand, but we are all members of God's family by the new birth. We have formed two parties (and more) but we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body. Our unity lies not in what we accomplish but what God has accomplished for us.

     But what about our divergent rules or principles for interpretation? Let us place them in proper perspective. Let us remember they are "ours" and not necessarily "His." Let us not bind our deductions upon others farther than their own knowledge commends acceptance of them. But is not one of these correct and if so are not all bound to accept it and be governed by it? No one can be governed by something which he does not personally believe is correct. You cannot govern other free men by your own standards of correctness. But go back and study the two principles again and do so without bias. You may reach the conclusion that each is only partly correct. The authority of Jesus is absolute, but no human theory of it based upon deductions from the scripture need be so.

     There is every evidence that both schools of thought realize that they cannot practically apply their rules in an absolute degree. Those who postulate the exclusiveness of silence are constantly called upon to explain and justify the things which they have adopted without specific mention or authorization. Those who accept the theory of the permissiveness of silence are ever seeking to lay down laws of restraint to control their membership. Both groups have engaged in mental gymnastics and semantic performances which entertain only their own members while amusing outside observers. Thus far both have been fairly successful because of the widespread indifference and ignorance of the masses. Both resent specific questions as to application of the rules, preferring their acceptance in generalities without examination. Both are in for stirring times in the future because of increasing intellectual status which will probe the fiat of the "infallible interpretation" of the party.

     What can be done now to heal the gaping wound of a hundred years standing? There is much to be done. The first thing is to restore the right of every individual to go to the Word of God for himself without benefit of clergy. The second is to make effective the function of congregational autonomy. This means that if a congregation of God's children decides to use instrumental music their right to make such a decision must be

[Page 121]

respected even by those who deplore the judgment exercised in reaching it. Those who choose to use the instrument do not give account to those who do not) but to the Lord. Men must be allowed to be answerable to him who is worshiped and not to other worshipers.

     We dare not destroy men for whom Christ died over our views about instrumental music. Brethren who cannot see this issue alike and who worship in separate edifices because of their convictions should still regard each other as brothers. They should work together in such projects as do not require compromise or abdication of conscience. They should call upon each other in public meetings in spite of their differences, and should labor to narrow the chasm and reduce the tension between themselves. One need not sacrifice his personal attitude toward a thing to have brotherly love for one who does not share his views about it.

     For reasons which appear to me to be good and sufficient I am opposed to the use of instrumental music in the public praise service of the saints. I shall not here detail the reasoning upon which I have reached that conclusion, but it will suffice to say that my position is more nearly that taken by J. W. McGarvey than any other person in the restoration movement. I realize that my position presents some problems to those who use the instrument when I go among them but I cannot compromise my personal conviction based upon my understanding merely to please men or to be popular, and I will not do so. Those who receive or welcome me must do so as I am, for I refuse to sail under false colors, or put on the mask. All of our factions have enough Pharisees and hypocrites without me contributing another to the number.

     Occasionally, good brethren seek to soften the shock of my presence by introducing me with the words, "Brother Ketcherside prefers singing without the instrument." This actually does an injustice although I never allow myself to be bothered by it. My feeling on the matter goes deeper than mere personal preference. It has been reached after a great deal of prayer and research and is not a mere question of opinionated infatuation with an idea or attitude. My view is consonant with my goal and with the means by which I shall attempt to attain unto it.

     But I shall steadfastly refuse to impose my views about this, or any other matter in the same category, as a test of fellowship or condition of brotherhood. No one is my brother because he does not use instrumental music, no one ceases to be my brother because he uses it. The only instrument through which I am related to my brothers is the cross of Jesus, and I shall allow no other instrument devised by man to break up the relationship created by the instrument designed by God to bring us together. When men forego the use of the instrument as a consideration tor the feelings of those who cannot in good conscience condone it, I rejoice at the demonstration of their brotherly concern, but I would never impose this as a demand nor demonstrate an unbrotherly lack of concern for those of my brothers who do not think of it, or would not do it if they did.

     I doubt that we will ever settle the problem by one side giving up the instrument, or the other side adopting it. Perhaps such a course would not settle our difficulty any way. It might actually intensify our troubles for a long time. But we can overcome the sin of schism right now. We can do it by declaring that we will not set up our philosophy as a measuring-reed for loyalty to Jesus. We can do it by refusing to permit instrumental music or anything else to keep us from loving our brothers, or from sharing and associating with them and helping them. We can do it by bringing both groups together for prayer and Bible study, perhaps on Wednesday nights. If the instrument is a stumbling block, forget about singing in these meetings. You do not need to sing every time you meet to pray or study. We will begin to grow together when

[Page 123]

we begin to associate together. Let's take steps now to end this senseless feud which our fathers began a hundred years ago. No one need give up a single conviction about the right or wrong of anything to share with others and treat them with a sense of decency and respect. No one thinks it is wrong to pray and study the Bible with others. Then here is something all of us can do together! If we do this we will demonstrate to the world that men who differ can be brethren. Why should a little handful of people meet for midweek study in one house while a few blocks away another little handful do the same thing--and all of them members of the same family? Rise above the littleness, intolerance and bigotry of the past. Act like mature men! We've been acting like children long enough! We have it within our power at this very moment to turn the tide of strife, sadness and sorrow which has dogged us as a people for a century. We can exhibit our oneness in Jesus and no one surrender a single truth he has ever held. Have you the courage and the vision to really face up to the prayer for unity of all believers as uttered by the Son of God--Jesus Christ our Lord?

     Our problems of division in the restoration movement are not the only schismatic demonstrations among those who believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God. Historians have accorded one split the dubious honor of being titled "the great schism." It occurred in 1054 when Pope Leo IX of Rome and Patriarch. Michael Caerularius of Constantinople excommunicated each other at the same time. The result of their reciprocal act was the East-West cleavage manifesting itself in the antagonistic Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches. On December 7 of last year the successors to these usurpers of divine prerogatives took steps to heal the wound. Pope Paul VI in Rome and Patriarch Athenagoras in Istanbul each read a document voiding the excommunications.

     I do not attach the same significance to this action as do many other observers. I am always glad when dissident factions make up after their quarrels, and I rejoice when my neighbors resume talking over the back fence after nine centuries of throwing their ecclesiastical garbage across it into the yards of each other. Unfortunately for those whose optimism is so unbounded, I cannot forget my history lessons, and I do not equate a mending of a big tear in the garment of the aging "mother of all sects" with the donning of a freshly laundered robe of righteousness by the chaste virgin espoused to Jesus. What interests me most is the changing climate which makes it almost essential that even rifts of long standing must be repaired by those who would speak with any hope of being heard by our modern world. Perhaps the impact of this will gradually seep into the consciousness of some of my brethren who are still talking to themselves and mistaking the echo of their own voices for a general "response".

     I thank God that I am a priest of God in my own right. No pope or patriarch can bind or loose anything for me. Only the chosen envoys of Jesus can do that and I can read their words for myself. I am not bound by the actions of my fathers nor the attitudes of my contemporaries. A hundred years ago our fathers denounced each other and excommunicated one another, making a test of fellowship out of something which God did not make a condition of salvation. Now I must personally face up to their action. I must decide for myself whether I shall be bound by their conclusions based upon a philosophy of interpretation by which they sought to implement the authority of Jesus. I must determine whether I shall continue to walk in the circumscribed sectarianism which resulted from their conflicting principles.

     I know not what course others will take, but as for myself, let it be known that I have voided in my own heart the decree of excommunication made in the bitterness of partisan strife a century ago. I refuse to go to my grave and to the judgment, while "setting at nought my

[Page 124]

brothers" over their views related to cups, classes, colleges, music, methods or movements. I am no longer brainwashed into believing that we can serve God in the restoration movement by each party putting factional salve on its own festering wounds or trivial abrasions. We will continue to be divided until we return to the place where we first defended schism as the way of righteousness and restore a genuine sense of brotherhood. I have spanned that chasm in my own soul and I invite the frightened cowering devotees of the cult of conformism to cross back and forth upon the same bridge. Then and only then, can you speak to an ecumenical world about unity based upon restoration.

     In my heart I have banished the fears and phobias, the hates and hypocrisies; the despair and disillusionment, of ten long decades of mutual animosity. I do not deprecate the work of my sires. They did the best they knew how to do. But I will not perpetuate their mistakes in my own life nor hand on a heritage of habitual heartache to my children or my children's children. I shall love all of my brethren while realizing the imperfections of us all. I shall not confuse any approach to an interpretation of authority with the authority of my Lord. One thing I know and that is, he has placed me under obligation to nourish and cherish all of my brothers. On this point of authority there can be no question! It is not based upon silence but upon repeated assertions of the One who died for the sins of all of us.

     Neither the use of instrumental music, nor opposition to it, has been made a condition of salvation by my Father in heaven. For that reason it will never be made a test of fellowship by me upon earth. I deplore its introduction and its present employment, both in purpose and in manner, but if it is to be made the ground of acceptance of one another, it will have to be by those who use it, for I refuse to reject them. They will have to constitute an instrument party, for I will never create an anti-instrument party. They are God's children. They are my brothers. I love them all. I will never allow any opinion or interpretation of mine to void my relationship with any of my brothers in Christ. To do this would be to deny the plain authority of him to whom I am committed as the Lord of my life.

     (Editor's Note. This is one of a series of articles which will run through 1966 and be gathered into a bound volume titled "Deep Roots". This volume will be delivered on March 1, 1967. Because of its importance we are taking orders in advance, payable on delivery, at the pre-publication price of $2.49 per copy. We urge you to order as many as you want in advance of publication).