A Letter from Texas
W. Carl Ketcherside
[Page 129] |
Our readers have had to be very patient with me. I am engaged in a direct frontal assault on our factional attitudes, and this requires a good deal of repetition. Many of the brethren find it very difficult indeed to acknowledge that fellowship in the Lord Jesus Christ is not contingent upon being right about such matters as cups, classes, colleges, the millennium, or instrumental music. I'd like to get on with the exploration of truly major issues confronting us in the modern theological complex, but we will gain little by running off from those whom we love. You cannot lead others when you're out of sight.
I regularly receive letters from those who simply cannot see how we can all be one until every person on earth reaches absolute agreement (with them) on "the issues" as they refer to the motley horde of ideas over which we have been splintered into hostile parties. The futility of such an approach as they recommend is apparent when we realize that if we suddenly reached a state of concord on every troublesome issue today, we would divide over other issues tomorrow. The current issues are not all the same as those over which our fathers split asunder. New conflicts over interpretation arise in every generation. They are spawned by our philosophy.
I have steeled myself never to become discouraged or to be impatient with brethren who are "slow of heart to learn."
Regardless of how often I am asked the same questions I want to be kind and considerate in my reply. I endured a great deal of mental agony and engaged in prolonged soul-searching before I was able to throw off the factional yoke and reach the position I now hold. I want to be as forbearing with others as God has been gracious unto me. For that reason I am never upset by such communications as the following which was signed by two brethren in Texas.
We are of the opinion that you'll only create more division because you insist on lumping together such things as individual cups and Bible classes with instrumental music. The first two are merely matters of opinion, while the last is in the realm of faith. How can you fellowship the Christian Church in its error? Why don't you face up to things as they are and answer these questions in your paper?
Does not the Bible teach that instrumental music is a sin? "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." Is not the big difference between us and the Christian Church their lack of respect for the authority of Christ? Will God ever accept the worship of those who claim to be sincere but do not follow the pattern He has laid down? If not, how can you accept it?
You talk about loving everyone, but what about those who reject the word of God and insist upon having their own way? Has God ever tolerated such people while they persisted in keeping that which was a sign of their rebellion? These are things we want you to meet squarely, and until you do, we'll conclude that your teaching on fellowship will not stand up when tested by the Bible.
I have never met the brethren who
[Page 130] |
Our readers who have matured in their thinking to the place where they no longer confuse community with conformity must bear with me in this issue while I again deal with a matter that has become an emotional fixation because of its involvement in debates and arguments of the past. The two brethren who have been kind enough to write have expressed the sentiments of a good many thousands who are caught up in the throes of the factional spirit without even realizing it. I simply will not desert them without seeking to aid them to attain to a clearer knowledge of the will of my Father for His whole family, as I understand that will. I do not say this boastingly, for none of us have anything of which to boast.
All of our factions, without exception, find it easy to be charitable toward those who oppose what they have. And all of them refuse to recognize those who have what they oppose.
Brethren who use individual cups can be very gracious and condescending toward those who insist upon one container. They readily agree to accept them as brethren if they will not be contentious and make a test of fellowship out of their views. But those who contend for one container cannot be of this mind toward the others because, as they view it, they have added something "to the pattern."
Those who have classes are very amiable toward those who do not have and steadfastly insist they will not make a test of fellowship out of the matter, but the reverse is not generally the case. Those who use instrumental music do not proscribe those who do not, but the latter excommunicate them.
In every case those who oppose what we have are "antis" and those who have what we oppose are "liberals." With one exception every party in the restoration movement is regarded as "anti" by others; and with a single exception every party is regarded as "liberal" by others.
Let me illustrate. Suppose you list in order every faction among us starting with the most ecumenical "Disciples of Christ" at the top, and placing the most reactionary "Church of Christ" on the bottom. The one on the bottom would regard no one else as an "anti" but all as "liberals"; the one on the top would regard no one else as a "liberal" for all would be "antis." All of us are both "antis" and "liberals" to some others, unless we are the tip of the beak on one end or the last tail feather on the other. I use this metaphor because our mixed-up mess is "for the birds."
Our good Texas brethren think I will create more division by "lumping together such things as individual cups and Bible classes with instrumental music." They
[Page 131] |
Note carefully that these brethren label as in the area of "opinion" those things which they employ, and in the area of "faith" those things which they oppose. So does every other faction! What is one man's opinion is another man's faith. The brethren who have instrumental music class it with opinion. They do not say every one has to use it, they only affirm their right to do so. They do not bind it upon others. Those who contend for one cup make multiple cups a matter of faith and deny that anyone has the right to use multiple containers. They seek to bind their usage upon all.
If you would list a hundred things which have troubled us through the years, and submit these to a hundred preachers, with the request that they catalog them under three headings--Matters of Faith, Matters of Opinion, Matters of Indifference--no two papers would be alike. It is downright silly for thinking men to perpetuate the farcical myth that we can unite the believers on any such a basis. Our practice of it has made us the most tragically divided religious movement on the contemporary American scene.
On what grounds do my Texas brethren assert the prerogative of defining for any other person or party what must be regarded as a matter of faith and a basis of separation from other saints, and what may be regarded as a matter of opinion and a basis of tolerance. Since they propose to speak where the Bible speaks, what scriptural authority can they cite which will appoint them as lords over my conscience? Is not my faith personal? Are not my opinions, by their very nature, personal? Shall I not stand or fall to my own Master?
Our brethren in the non-instrument "Churches of Christ" would salute me as a hero if I came up with a formula for ironing out all of the divisions in the non-instrument ranks. But they want to stop there! All of us in the family of God are opposed to division, but we are not opposed to all division in the family of God. We want everyone to become one only up to our party!
The non-instrument brethren would like to freeze the status of the kingdom of heaven at the 1906 level. But unless we go back to our first fracture and heal it, we will always be divided, regardless of how much patchwork we do on the feathers of our separate wings. We developed a false philosophy under the tension of our original cleavage and it has continued to split and sunder us. It will plague us until we divest ourselves of it and cast it "to the moles and the bats."
I plead guilty to the charge of the Texas brethren of placing all of our family squabbles, from first to last, in the same category. With me they are neither matters of faith or matters of opinion. They are simply questions for discussion in the spirit of love and continuing brotherhood. We ought not to have separated over any of them. I'm sorry they had to arise and I'm grieved at the trouble they have caused, but I shall not sever myself from a single one of my brethren over any of them. We are saved by faith, and only that which pertains to our salvation is related to "the faith once delivered." These things are no part of the faith.
The faith which I am to have to myself--my personal conviction--as to the propriety of this thing or that, is a wholly different matter. A man can be judged on the basis of his acceptance or rejection of the faith, but I dare not judge a brother on his acceptance or rejection of that faith which I am told to have to myself. God does not make one's attitude toward the use of instrumental music, or cups, or classes, or the millennium, a condition of acceptance with Him, so I shall not make them a test of fellowship with me. It is just that simple!
[Page 132] |
All of this points up the undeniable fact that no man is a "liberal" or an "anti" because of where he stands, but because of where we stand as we look at him. The most extreme "anti" to one is the most flagrant "liberal" to another!
My answer will not please my questioners. I do not believe there is any such thing as "the Christian Church." Neither do I believe there is any such thing as "the Church of Christ." These organizations are not churches at all. They are parties or factions which grew out of the tensions of a nineteenth century movement which was "a project to unite the Christians in all of the sects."
There is only one church. There never was but one. There never will be but one. The church is not a human organization but a divine organism. It is a divine creation and God only created one church. Man can no more create another church than he can create another God.
The church includes every saved person on the face of this earth. All of these are Christians but they are not all in "the Christian Church." All of them are in the one body but they are not all in "the Church of Christ." The church of our Lord existed before our restoration movement. It is still greater than that movement or any other movement. The Texas brethren confuse the body of Christ with the "Church of Christ" which advertises its meeting-places in the Saturday edition of the Fort Worth newspaper, or in the yellow pages of the telephone directory. I'm just not that sectarian. My hope is not in a signboard but in a Savior!
Wherever my father has a child I have a brother. God only has one family and all of his children are in it. I am in it with them. Some of them are still in spiritual diapers, and some are trying to wear clothes too large for them. A lot of them are running around in "intellectual rompers" who ought to start acting their age. God even has some retarded children, but they are a part of the family and we have to bestow more time and abundant honor upon them. So long as they are His and I am His we're in this thing together.
I can no more "fellowship the Christian Church in its error," than I could fellowship the Church of Christ in its error. I am in the fellowship with every child of God on this earth, and I have found that I've got a lot more brothers than I once thought I had. Fellowship is not something you extend but something you experience. It is not seeing everything alike, but sharing in a common life, the life of the Holy Spirit. Fellowship is a state into which we are called and not a grace which we dispense (1 Corinthians 1:9). Certainly I am in the fellowship with "brothers in error." There just aren't any other kind of brothers, not even in Texas.
[Page 133] |
Of course the Bible does not teach that instrumental music is a sin. If it did there would be no controversy over the matter among honest and humble slaves of Christ. Few of us indeed deliberately trample underfoot the plain teaching of our dear Lord. Although I know thousands of brethren who attend where instrumental music is employed in conjunction with the public expression of praise, I cannot at this time think of a one of them who would insist upon it if the Bible taught that it was a sin.
The truth of it is that, instead of the new covenant scriptures teaching that it is a sin, they say nothing about it. Those brethren who oppose it do so upon the basis of their deduction. From scriptures in various settings and places they formulate a basis of interpretation and using this as a working postulate they conclude that the introduction or injection of instrumental music would violate the intent of God. Since they believe that their postulate is valid and their logical construction derived therefrom is correct they cannot condone the use of the instrument. I share their view and, therefore, it would be a sin for me to introduce instrumental music into the praise service of the saints in violation of my conscience.
However, other brethren read the same scriptures and draw from them a divergent conclusion. They are as honest and sincere as I am. They love Jesus as much as I do. How shall I act toward them? I cannot demand that they violate their conscience and confess something to be a sin when they do not believe that it is. But brotherhood and fellowship are not conditioned upon their seeing it like I do. We were not begotten by "my postulate" but by "our Father." I am not told that I must love instrumental music, but I am obligated to love my brethren-- all of them--and this I do. Now if I think more of my reasoning and deduction than I do of my brethren, I'll sacrifice brotherhood to my deduction. The reverse is not true. Through brotherly love I can retain both my brethren and my personal conviction. This I am resolved to do. It is merely a matter of priorities.
Of course, it isn't always easy to take "the high road" because there are some pretty sectarian brethren who use instrumental music and they want to measure your love for them by your attitude toward that with which they play. It is a case of "Love me, love my dog!" All of us have pets and none of us can understand why others don't fondle them like we do. I've a suspicion that heaven will be like some motels--no pets allowed! After the first heartbreak we'll all be happy!
While I do not commend the employment of instrumental music as a corporate expression of praise, I do deplore some of the hackneyed and shopworn arguments which twist the scriptures to oppose it. Our Texas brethren have fallen prey to a traditional approach which is an unjustifiable debaters' quibble. All of us have cut our theological eyeteeth on that running sequence which goes like this:
Faith comes by hearing the word of God (Romans 10:17). The word of God is silent on the subject of instrumental music, therefore, instrumental music is not of faith. But, whatsoever is not of faith is sin (Romans 14:23), therefore, instrumental music is sin.
It is by such mental meandering and circumlocution that it is said, "the Bible teaches that instrumental music is a sin." The Holy Spirit does not generally encircle "Robin Hood's barn" a couple of times, or "beat the devil about the bush," as does this argument, in order to reveal that a thing is sin. The worst feature about it is that it demonstrates a palpable ignorance of Paul's use of "faith."
In Romans 10, the context plainly shows that the apostle is contrasting justification by faith with attempted justification by law (verses 5, 6). The faith is that which accrues from the proclamation
[Page 134] |
In Romans 14, the subject is altogether different. Here the apostle is advocating tolerance of brethren in Christ who differ in opinions. "As for the man who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not for disputes over opinions" (verse 1). The faith under consideration is not belief in Christ, but the personal conviction reached about the propriety of things by one who is in Christ. "One believes he may eat anything, while the weak man eats only vegetables" (verse 2). Such belief neither saves or damns because the kingdom of heaven is not contingent upon it (verse 17).
Since this is personal faith it cannot be imposed upon others but must be private, known but to self and God. "The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God" (verse 22). The Authentic Version reads: "As to the conviction you hold, hold it privately in the sight of God." J. B. Phillips: "Your personal convictions are a matter of faith between yourself and God." The New English Version: "If you have a clear conviction, apply it to yourself in the sight of God."
The faith which saves (Romans 10) must be proclaimed to all; the faith which prompts one to partake or to abstain from certain things must be privately cherished. The first is produced by hearing the word of God; the second by listening to the voice of conscience.
One must never act contrary to his conscience. To do so is a sin. If one doubts that a thing is right he must not act until he is convinced. "But he who doubts is condemned, if he eats, because he does not act from faith; for whatsoever does not proceed from faith is sin." The Authentic Version: "But he who does discriminate stands condemned if he should eat, because it is not from conviction. For whatsoever is not done from conviction is sin." The New English Version: "But a man who has doubts is guilty if he eats, because his action does not arise from his conviction, and anything which does not arise from conviction is sin." J. B. Phillips: "Yet if a man eats meat with an uneasy conscience about it, you may be sure he is wrong to do so. For his action does not spring from his faith, and when we act apart from our faith we sin."
Brethren who confuse the faith of Romans 10 with the personal scruples of Romans 14 ought never to accuse those who use instrumental music of "wresting the scriptures." It would seem that the time is at hand for a lot of men to grow up and rise above the party spirit which has prompted both sides in the past to dream up fantastic and frivolous arguments which serve only to confound the unlearned and crystallize bitterness.
Of course not! Such generalizations are silly, selfish and without warrant. There are thousands in both the Christian Church and the Churches of Christ who have a deep respect for the lordship of Jesus. There are many outside of both of these parties who also do. It is not a question of respect for authority but of understanding. That is why we have so many different kinds of "Churches of Christ." Too many of us equate God's revelation with our interpretation, and conclude that because one is infallible, the other must also be infallible. This does not follow!
The cleavage over instrumental music does not result from lack of respect for the authority of Jesus by either segment
[Page 135] |
There is no need for me to labor this point any further. It is fully covered in pages 113-124 of my book Deep Roots. In the chapter titled "Approach to Authority" I have dealt with the problem as directly related to instrumental music. A great many on both sides of the fence have been kind enough to say it is the most outstanding treatise on the theme they have ever read, but they probably have not read many others. We do hope you will read and study it carefully, for it could settle many of our difficulties at once.
I do not accept worship since it is not addressed to me, but I do try to answer the questions of brethren which are addressed to me. It appears that our Texas brethren entertain the opinion that God has never at any time accepted the worship of those who did not conform exactly to what was written, but they have overlooked one example. When God ordained the passover He was quite specific about the requirements, but the prayer of a righteous man once prevailed over the specifications.
"For a multitude of the people...had not cleansed themselves, yet did they eat the passover otherwise than it was written. But Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, The good Lord pardon every one that prepareth his heart to seek God, the Lord God of his fathers, though he be not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary. And the Lord hearkened to Hezekiah, and healed the people" (2 Chronicles 38:18-20). The Revised Standard Version says, "They ate the passover otherwise than as prescribed."
If our brethren in Texas think that our brothers in the Christian Church are worshiping "otherwise than it was written" they ought to be imitating Hezekiah and praying to the good Lord to pardon every one that prepares his heart to seek God, in spite of his dereliction. How long has it been since any of the non-instrument preachers in Texas have publicly prayed for the Lord to pardon those who have prepared their heart to seek God even while doing "otherwise than as prescribed"? I imagine that they would withdraw from Hezekiah if he did it!
But it is because of the mercy shown by God, even under a legalistic arrangement, that I rejoice that the final judgment will be held in heaven rather than in Texas. I think I'd prefer to risk my chances in glory than in Austin!
Yes, He has! Israel came to Samuel and demanded, "Give us a king to govern us." When Samuel prayed to the Lord, the Lord said to him, "Hearken to the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them." God pointed out that this was only one more in a long line of departures since He had delivered them from bondage.
Samuel plainly labeled it a sin! "You shall know and see that your wickedness is great, which you have done in the sight of the Lord, in asking for yourselves a king." When an unseasonal phenomenon occurred the frightened people said to Samuel, "Pray for your servants to the
[Page 136] |
It is for this reason I shall not cast away His people, nor separate myself from them because of the troublesome things which are espoused and adopted by those who are in Him. I simply refuse to recognize the walls and barriers which men have erected to partition off God's children into factional compartments.
1. I challenge them to remove all of our controversial issues (instrumental music, institutionalism, cups, classes, colleges, the millennium, etc.) from the sphere of tests of union or communion among the children of God, and return them to their only proper province, that of grounds for continuing discussion among brethren in the bonds of sacred fellowship.
This will require no change of congregational procedure, and no adoption by any person of anything contrary to conscience. It will mean no endorsement of what anyone else practices, but will simply leave every saint to stand or fall to his own Master.
2. I challenge them to genuinely practice what they have always professed and to make congregational autonomy an active principle instead of a political pawn. This means that every congregation of saints on earth will be tree under the Lordship of Jesus to study the revelation of heaven for themselves without fear of attack or reprisal from any other, regardless of divergent views.
3. I challenge them to renounce public partisan debate with factional gladiators as a means of trying to achieve oneness and to substitute meaningful dialogue in an atmosphere of courtesy and humility as equals in their need of the grace of God.
4. I challenge them to inaugurate a sharing program with all men of good will in all of our parties, inviting such brethren to address them, and receiving the benefit of insights above and beyond the factional level.
5. I challenge them to cross over partisan barriers in combining as children of God to effect greater impact upon the grave problems of their several communities. Let brethren from all branches of our restoration heritage meet in mutual respect for one another to discuss how best to grapple with the forces of decay which threaten us all. Hunger, famine, nakedness, dope addiction, alcoholism, prostitution--these are not related to divergent views on instrumental music or the millennium. Things which threaten us all can better be fought together.
6. I challenge the brethren to really "let brotherly love continue," and to "love the brotherhood" as God sees it, and not as we have viewed it through the jaundiced eyes of partisan prejudice. We can be one in Christ and no one give up any truth he has ever held. Regardless of what it costs us to have the unity of the Spirit the cost of not having it is much greater. Let us resolve in this generation to recapture the vitality, the validity, and the unity of the restoration ideal.
We do not reject Jesus when we renounce the wars and feuds which our fathers kindled; we do not deny the Spirit when we denounce the factions and parties which we have inherited. If peace must come, let it come through our efforts. Let it begin now!
"Let us then pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding" (Romans 14:19).