The Progress of Reform

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 177]

     "The good cause of the restoration of a pure speech and of the ancient institutions, I am happy to inform you, from our recent accounts up to the close of the last year, is plead with increasing success and prosperity in very many portions of this highly favored land."

     These were the words of Alexander Campbell written from Bethany, Virginia in February, 1838, and addressed to James Wallis in Great Britain. Mr. Campbell was writing about the impact of the restoration movement upon the divided forces of Christendom. Now, almost 130 years later, I can employ the same words to describe the influence of a growing movement for renewal upon the splintered and fragmented body of restoration heirs.

     Almost ten years have gone by since I published the initial series of articles entitled, "Thoughts on Fellowship." When these first appeared I was very unpopular. As was to be expected the original opposition came from members of the faction with which I had been identified and whose cause I had so often championed in public debate. I gave my attackers full space in the paper and published an uncensored version of all they wrote. The only objection I ever received was because I replied. The replies revealed that the factional spirit is unscriptural, vulnerable and wholly indefensible. For several years other groups kept silent, hoping that our pleas would die like every previous one had succumbed, while battering against the iron gates and stone walls of the partisan monasteries. But when chinks were made in the barricades an occasional knight sallied forth. A prominent theologian from Abilene Christian College chose as his field of combat the Gospel Advocate, and when I was forbidden the right to reply to him in its columns I published his article in full, and replied point by point in our little paper.

     Then an editor in Texas was pressured into assailing me, but again I published all of his articles and my replies and even printed the whole correspondence exchange between us. These have now entered into the literature of the disciple brotherhood in bound volumes. Those of us who have grown up in the non-instrument wing of the shattered restoration movement know what happened in past years to those who dared to challenge men who "appeared to be somewhat." The silence which now reigns in the papers with reference to the plea for renewal through recovery is more significant and portentous than many of the articles contained in them.

     I would not want my readers to forget that I have repeatedly published an offer, and once a challenge, to appear on the platform of George Pepperdine College, Abilene Christian College, Harding College, David Lipscomb College, or Florida

[Page 178]

College, to present my views on fellowship, and submit to questioning by a blue ribbon panel selected by the authorities, or to grilling by the whole audience. To this very day a profound silence reigns. Not one word has been received from the administration of any of these institutions. The offer still remains in effect.

     Perhaps the reason for the silence is found in the words of a Texas preacher who said, "If Carl Ketcherside ever speaks at the Abilene Christian College lectureship we'll have a revolution on our hands, because three-fourths of our people in Texas already believe what he advocates. The difference is that he is not afraid to say it out loud." Our brother is wholly correct in his last assertion and I trust that he is right on his estimate of sentiment.

     In spite of attempted occasional boycott, insinuation and innuendo, the cause of reform is growing. This is seen in a score of happenings. For instance, brethren involved in building the most expensive edifice they have ever undertaken in the United States, no longer make a test of fellowship out of personal conviction concerning the use of instrumental music. They now share in "the fellowship of giving and receiving" with prominent leaders in the Christian Church. Meanwhile, editors of orthodox "Church of Christ" journals still urge their readers and congregations to contribute to the same project.

     Some men from all of the parties can now engage freely in dialogue sessions across all lines, although those from centers such as Nashville still have to hedge themselves in with protective statements which can clear them with brethren back home in case of emergency. There are congregations in a number of areas now where brethren from various segments can exchange pulpits, and in which free men in the Christ are planning joint projects to exhibit openly that unity which transcends diversity of opinions and methods.

     I find myself ever more frequently appearing in company with brethren of note on the platform. A good example was the last Southern Christian Convention which was arranged by our brethren in the Independent Christian Churches. A brother from Harding Graduate School (who has since transferred to Abilene Christian College) and myself, were speakers at the same meeting.

     Even more revealing are the letters from students and faculty members in some of the colleges, and from preachers, who assure me of their prayers and best wishes. Many of these are not yet in a position to declare themselves publicly. This is not an exhibition of cowardice at all but a simple recognition that the tides of prejudice have not yet all ebbed out. I do not think it is necessary that they work as I do, and I think they are wise in being expedient.

     The fact is that literally hundreds of brethren now realize that it was sinful to divide the precious family of our God over divergent views regarding instrumental music, the millennium, Herald of Truth, orphan homes, colleges, Bible classes, individual cups, etc. They will be happy when this motley horde of "issues" is returned to proper perspective. These men have no thought of changing their views on these matters, or of relinquishing their personal convictions, but they want to cease "playing God" with the brethren. They are sick and tired of having to perpetuate division which they did not perpetrate merely to stand in good with those whose unlovely dispositions have often been the real cause of division. Our thinking brethren everywhere are beginning to see that differences are simply concerns for discussion and not causes of division. They are problems in the fellowship and not problems of fellowship!

     1. The Greek word for fellowship is koinonia, and there is no single English

[Page 179]

word which is its exact equivalent. It connotes mutual sharing or joint participation, since it stems from the word koine, which means "common." Koinonia refers to that which is held in common, and in the new covenant scriptures it is the sharing of the common life created by the indwelling Spirit of God. Every person on earth in whom the Spirit abides is in the fellowship with every other such person in the universe.

     Thus it is called "the fellowship of the Spirit" (Phil. 2:1; 2 Cor. 13:14). Fellowship is not something we extend or withdraw, but it is a state into which we are called. "God is faithful by whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord" (1 Cor. 1:9). The New English Version gives the best translation, "What we have seen and heard we declare to you, so that you and we together may share in a common life, that life which we share with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ" (1 John 1:3).

     2. Harmony is not essential to fellowship but is a goal of those who are in the fellowship. We do not achieve harmony in order to be in the fellowship, but because we are in the fellowship, we seek to achieve harmony. There is not a passage in the apostolic doctrine commanding harmony which was written to bring the saints into fellowship. Every such passage was written to those who were in the fellowship and because they were in it. We suggest that you study Philippians 2:1,2; 1 Corinthians 1:9-13; and 2 Corinthians 13:11. We are not in the fellowship because we walk in peace, but we walk in peace because we are in the fellowship.

     3. Fellowship is not the endorsement of another's position or views. Fellowship is a state into which we are called by God through the Good News of Jesus Christ. We enter it by the proper response to that News. Every sincere believer who is immersed upon the basis of his trust that Jesus is God's Son and the Messiah, is in the fellowship in spite of his ignorance or warped opinions about many other things. Endorsement is an act of individual will in which one approves or supports the opinions or acts of another when he agrees with or concurs in such opinions or acts.

     We endorse a lot of things done by people with whom we are not in fellowship; we are in the fellowship with people who do a lot of things we cannot endorse. God certainly did not endorse a lot of things done by the saints in Corinth, but they were in his fellowship (1 Cor. 1:9).

     In Galatians 2:9 Peter is said to have given the right hand of fellowship to Paul, but in verse 11, Paul withstood him to the face because he was to be blamed. I do not think that anyone would be so rash as to say that they were no longer in fellowship. No congregation of believers on this earth is composed of those who completely endorse one another's views, interpretations, or ideas. It is for this reason that each faction has to arbitrarily agree upon some item on which there must be agreement as a criterion of fellowship and acceptance. And whatever that thing is it becomes the creed of the party.

     4. Fellowship is not contingent upon unanimity of opinion and has no real relation to it, although the twisted factional mentality seeks to establish such a relationship. The unity of the Spirit is based upon community, not conformity. The only unity attainable by thinking men is that of diversity. The unity of conformity must first reduce men to robots. It belongs to the wax museum and not to the temple of God. Jesus did not die for puppets nor allow himself to be murdered for manikins.

     In Romans 14 we learn that there were varied opinions in the early church. These were not allowed to become the basis of rejection. "As for the man who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not for disputes over opinions" (verse 1). "One man believes he may eat anything, while the weak man eats only vegetables." Paul effectively spiked the creeping creedal conformity which has so often blossomed forth in all of its inglorious tendencies in modern Church of Christism. The

[Page 180]

entire chapter is a stirring apologetic for unity in diversity. It stands squarely athwart the path of every partisan journalist in our day.

     In our time one who ate anything or everything would be called a sectarian or a liberal. The one who restricted himself solely to vegetables would be an anti, an extremist, or an ultra-conservative. To Paul, who rejected such asinine labels, they were children of the same Father or slaves of the same Master. "To his own master he stands or falls." It is ridiculous for one slave to try and throw out another whom he does not own because he will not eat meat--or because he insists on singing "Jesus is all the world to me," while someone else is pounding out the beat on a piano.

     A considerable number of our brethren have been suffering from a Messiah complex, and they are anxious to save God from any undue worry, by taking care of as much of the final judgment as possible in advance. Every factional leader on earth begins by giving Jesus a shove and squeezing down in the throne as his authorized mouthpiece and representative. It is no problem to push the brethren around after you have shoved Jesus to one side. It will be a great day when all of us learn that Jesus has no prime ministers!

     5. Equality in the attainment of spiritual knowledge is not the foundation of fellowship. This is obvious when one realizes that in spite of his ignorance he has been accepted into the fellowship of the Father and Son. Jesus would be very lonely if he eliminated all of his "brothers in error." If we must wait until our knowledge equals that of the Father before he can receive us into his fellowship we have a long period of detention on the outside. Fortunately God accepts some fairly superficial characters, as almost any good mirror will reveal, and the apostle says, "In a word, accept one another as Christ accepted us to the glory of God" (Romans 15:7).

     The family of God consists of babes and children as well as young men and fathers. These who are born of the water and of the Spirit are not born in a state of maturity. Some of them develop rather slowly and some are dwarfed from malnutrition and from being beaten over the head by their guardians. God has some children who are deformed because of being hastened to delivery before the period of gestation was completed normally. Not all of the saints enjoy perfect vision.

     We must not forget that the Christian life is a walk and we are not going to heaven in a clump or cluster. We are strung out along the highway, but it is not necessary that we keep up with one another. It is only necessary that we keep in the Way. If the trumpet sounds while we are crippling along because of our blisters, God will find us. His arm is not shortened that it cannot save!

     Life in Christ is a growth and all growth demands change and alteration. Not all children reach the same height. Some of our brethren are following Procrustes instead of Jesus. That mythical highwayman set up a bed on the main road and forced every traveler to lie upon it. Those who were too long had their legs cut off; those who were too short were stretched to the required length by pulleys. The perceptive reader will not need to be told whose height was used as a criterion of measurement.

     There was a considerable latitude in the primitive community of saints. Take Corinth for example. There were some of the brethren who did not know there was one God. "But not everyone knows this. There are some who have been so

[Page 181]

accustomed to idolatry that they even now eat this food with a sense of its heathen consecration." Others did not accept the idea of the resurrection. "How can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead?" But Paul did not divide them into a "Resurrection Church of Christ" and an "Anti-Resurrection Church of Christ."

     Instead, he said, "Of course we all 'have knowledge' as you say. This knowledge breeds conceit, it is love that builds. If anyone fancies that he knows, he knows nothing yet, in the true sense of knowing. But if a man loves, he is acknowledged by God." I sometimes wonder if Paul was rubbing it in on the "know-it-alls" in the congregation, by pointing out that they claimed to know a lot, but they didn't even know how to treat brethren who differed with them, and that is about one of the first things God wants us to learn.

     He did not tell the knowing brethren to separate from the ignorant Christians or to come out from among them as if they were pagans or unbelievers. His admonition was, "Mend your ways; take our appeal to heart; agree with one another; live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you."

     1. When I learned that the factional attitude which prevailed among the restoration heirs was a work of the flesh, a sin against God, and a sign of immaturity and carnality, I did not leave the brethren with whom I had been associated and go join another group. I simply repudiated all factionalism but I did it from where I was by accepting and welcoming all of my brethren. I stayed where I was and loved them where they were. I no longer recognize as valid any of the artificial walls which they had thrown up. I paid no further attention to the tests of union and communion devised by any group.

     2. When I went among brethren I did so simply to share my thinking with them, and to share in their concepts. I did not seek to proselyte followers nor to persuade anyone to my way of thinking. I had already learned that I could love those who differed with me as much as I could those who concurred in my views and I did not worry about "lining them up." To me, a Ketcherside party would be as disgraceful as any other. I never asked any person to alter his methods to pamper my personal feelings. I considered every invitation from sincere saints as a door opened unto me of the Spirit.

     3. I urged every person who advanced in learning not to leave the brethren with whom he had always labored to go join the faction which had taught him a new truth. This would only serve to remove the leaven from where it was needed and transfer it to where it was not, and it would breed hatred and envy. There have been some instances where brethren felt they were driven out but I have stedfastly refused to urge them to form another faction.

     If every person stays where he is the spread of factionalism will be stopped cold at its present level and that level will gradually decline under the benign influence of the Holy Spirit. One of the most gratifying things that has happened is to see men who have grown in knowledge beyond their factional constituency, remaining with the brethren who have supported them in the past.

     4. Now there is a vast army of the concerned ones and these are distributed among all of our factions. They will act as leaven for peace and we shall within our generation see a tremendous change of attitude. Brethren will repudiate the false propaganda that purity of doctrine can only be maintained by separation from other brethren. Many will help to build bridges across the chasms which Satan has created. There are still pockets of partisan venom. There are some men who are purveyors of hate against breth-

[Page 182]

ren. There are journals whose editors confuse the partisan status quo with first century Christianity. Other editors ride the factional merry-go-round and try to wave first to one side and then to the other. But these will gradually forfeit any real influence and those papers which drum up issues so they can project themselves as the defenders of orthodoxy will soon be seen in their true light.

     As for myself, I would have it plainly understood that I intend to make no test of fellowship out of either the pro or con of a position on instrumental music, centralized control, colleges, orphan homes, national radio and television programs, the right to own television sets, leavened bread, unleavened bread, the manner of breaking the bread, fermented wine, individual cups, prayer coverings for women, Bible classes, uninspired literature, foot-washing, speaking with tongues, or any other of the "issues" which periodically raise their disturbing heads and breathe their fetid breath in our faces. Our real problem is not with those who claim to speak in other tongues, but with preachers who claim to speak English and are still talking in unknown tongues.

     I have a firm personal conviction on all of these things but I will not impose it by force or coercion upon others. I'll express my view and listen to brethren who differ with me and go on my way rejoicing. If a man is good enough for God to receive he is not too bad for me to accept. I am sick and tired of our whole sad, sorry and gruesome sectarian mess. I never intend to be a party to its promotion again, so help me God. I shall never be used as a cat's paw to pull partisan chestnuts out of the factional fire. And as Patrick Henry said, "If that be treason, make the most of it!"