The Stumblingblock

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 97]

     "It is demonstrable that many of the obstacles to change which have been attributed to human nature are in fact due to the inertia of institutions and to the voluntary desire of powerful classes to maintain the existing status."--John Dewey.

     A goodly number of our readers will consider that this issue of our paper represents a sheer waste of time. They are interested in the history of God's community as we have been tracing it, but they are not greatly concerned with the contemporary struggles of the heirs of our early nineteenth century restoration movement. I happen to be one of those heirs by adoption, having been first rocked in another reformation cradle. I am interested in what is happening to us.

     It is our good fortune to be cast into an age of religious ferment and upheaval. Ponderous ancient structures such as the Roman and Anglican Establishments are seething, writhing and struggling within. The Protestant parties are re-aligning themselves all over the world. It would be difficult for any people like ourselves to insulate themselves completely from this stirring of minds, in spite of a century of monasticism brought about through fear and a mistaken sense of how to show loyalty to our Lord.

     We began, you know, as "a project to unite the Christians in all of the sects." We have ended up more divided than those whom we sought to unite, and generally believing that there are no Christians in the sects. Thus we lost our purpose and forgot our goal, and frenziedly attacked one another over our varied deductions, conclusions and interpretations. The very revelation which we heralded to others as a means of unity became the battleground upon which we shivered into factional splinters.

     Moved by a false philosophy which we developed in our initial fracture we have continued to fragment ourselves into belligerent parties of "loyal brethren" until many have concluded our state is hopeless and have resigned themselves to slogging along the schismatic path until death brings relief. But this is a mistake. Conditions are going to improve. There are signs apparent that the trend is rapidly developing.

     For example, in South America, our brethren of various segments have held amicable meetings. In Texas, representatives of both sides of the unfortunate cleavage over what is dubbed "institutionalism" have held meaningful dialogue sessions. The response to these from brethren everywhere demonstrates that there is a great reservoir of good will among the saints. Thoughtful and perceptive brethren in all of our parties are beginning to evaluate anew the reasons assigned for our factional divisions. They are finding many of them inadequate and unscriptural.

     There is one obstacle to even wider

[Page 98]

recognition of that fellowship which is found only in the person of Jesus. That is the use of instrumental music. In letters which I now receive from all over the United States this issue is raised over and over.

     It is very easy for me to see why this particular problem seems so important to many of the brethren. In the first place, this was the issue credited with responsibility for our first division. It is very doubtful that the factors leading to the breakdown of our relationship can be so simplified. Every indication is that personal, cultural and psychological reactions also played their part. However, our traditional and historical position has led to the assignment of instrumental music as the basic cause of our original separation. It has been exalted by both sides to a prominence which it really does not deserve.

     Secondly, the means taken to resolve the issue in its inception, have contributed much to its current status. Deep antagonism and bitterness were aroused, ridicule and invective were indulged. Partisan debates filled with acrimony, insinuation, and false accusation, became the order of the day. Suits followed in the civil courts and were carried to higher tribunals on repeated appeals. (You can read this history in my book "The Path of Peace"). No people can engage in such actions without being scarred and left to suffer from deep trauma.

     Complicating the picture even more is the fact that the problem has shifted from a rational to an emotional plane. The instrument is tangible. It can be seen. But it has become the visible symbol of an intangible set of values. The values are worthy and valid but the instrument is not and never can become an adequate representative of them. To exalt it is but to demonstrate the littleness of our own thoughts and lives.

     To those who oppose it, the instrument is viewed as an indication of rebellion against the sovereign authority of Christ. They would as soon see Satan declaiming from the pulpit as to see an organ on it. To them, the instrument is accepted as undeniable proof that the pledge of allegiance to the King has been renounced and the fort surrendered lock, stock and barrel, to the legions of torment.

     To those who defend its use, the instrument is regarded as a visible proof of their liberty. They would as soon see Old Glory hauled down from its mast and trampled underfoot in the mud, as to silence the instrument. They have congratulated themselves so long that they are more free from the sectarian spirit than "the antis," whom some of them fear, and others secretly despise, that they would regard any concession not as an expression of love for brethren, but a wholesale surrender to the enemy.

     A little thought will show how easily we have permitted ourselves to be betrayed into allowing a material thing to become our criterion for spiritual qualities. We have all been a little childish. I know some brethren who use instrumental music who are not free men in Christ. They are legalistic, egotistic, and shackled by their own littleness. On the other hand, I know some brethren who are opposed to the use of the instrument who are conscious of the true meaning of grace and are magnanimous in spirit. This proves nothing except that a material instrument can never become a yardstick of liberty or freedom in Christ.

     By the same token, I know of God-fearing, Christ-revering, Bible-loving brethren in congregations where the instru-

[Page 99]

ment is used, even as I know of some brethren who are worldly, carnal and sensual, in congregations where its use is deplored. The absence of an instrument in the meetinghouse is no guarantee of Christ in the heart.

     It is tragic that we have allowed an attitude toward a thing to blindfold and lead us into the party spirit which is condemned as a work of the flesh and a symptom of spiritual immaturity. That we have done so is amply evidenced in the letters that I receive and the forums that I conduct.

     Preachers from the non-instrument segment continuously write to ask why I do not attack the shortcomings of "the Christian Church" as I do those in "the Church of Christ." Almost invariably they will admit that what I say about "us" is justified but they want me to get after "them" also. It is difficult for them to realize that with me there is no longer an us and them, but only a we. I no longer belong to the "us party" as opposed to the "they party."

     The sad thing about the letters is that "they" reveal what is wrong with "us". Instead of going to work to purge ourselves from evil attitudes which we admittedly have, we want to be sure that others are placed in the same guilt spectrum as our selves. Some of the brethren querulously ask, "Isn't there anything wrong with them? Why don't you write about their faults like you do ours?" We forget the priority rating of Jesus, "Take the log out of your own eye first!"

     One of the questions, frequently and almost plaintively asked by preachers who defend the use of the instrument, is this: "Brother Ketcherside, which group do you consider more charitable and interested in fellowship, your brethren or ours?" This is very revealing. It shows that even though I do not make the use of the instrument a test of fellowship, these are inclined to make its non-use a test. Indeed, I predict that when the time comes that non-instrument brethren no longer make use of the instrument a test of union or communion, those who use it will sometimes make its non-use a test.

     In answer to this question, I always ask, "What do you mean by 'your brethren or ours,' since I thought that those who are charitable in fellowship regarded all of us as brethren together, and members of the same family?" These brethren are like the apostle Peter, "After all, the way you speak gives you away" (Matthew 26:73). The fact is that some non- instrument brethren are quite open and charitable, while some instrument brethren are quite Pharisaical and exclusive. The reverse is also true. Both groups have some they would like to swap off. All of us need to be on guard that we do not fall under the same condemnation as the critics of Paul. "They make up their own standards to measure themselves by, and judge themselves by their own standards" (2 Corinthians 10:12).

     We must be realistic. We have a problem. We cannot solve it by an idealistic, dream-world approach. We did not create the division, we inherited it. This heritage brought with it all of the overtones of suspicion and distrust engendered in a feud in which our fathers hacked each other to bits before the eyes of a skeptical and amused generation. Nothing pleased the sectarian world more than to see those who set out to save them from their strife and to unite them, end up in a bitter brawl which splintered them into rival clans filled with hatred and envy.

     It is apparent to thinking men that we must go back and heal this original fracture, or we will remain a divided movement. It is not enough for each side to bind up its own wounds and sew up its own rents, while we continue to present the spectacle of two factions, each claiming to be the one body. In such a predicament we will not be able to present a valid plea for unity to a world seeking for such a plea. We will always be subjected to the pragmatic question, "If your proposal will work, why don't you first demonstrate it by uniting the forces in your own movement? Then we will examine it."

     The time is past for partisan front-men to swagger back and forth on the forensic platform and yell, "Who split the log?" The real question before the house now is, "Who has the courage to put it back together?" The age of demagoguery is over. The time for constructive action is at hand.

     In my own examination of our history I repudiate the attitudes and conclusions of both sides. This does not mean that I censure our fathers for acting as they did. They were sincere men. They did the best they knew. If I had lived in their day and time I would have reacted exactly as they did. Indeed, in a different generation than theirs, for a long time, I followed as meticulously as possible in the factional footsteps of my ancestors. I memorized their arguments, defended their historic attitudes, and valiantly maintained their traditional partisan walls and barbed wire fences. I no longer do so!

     I have resolved that no skeletal hand reaching forth from the tomb will shackle my thinking or stifle my speech. I refuse to perpetuate the old fratricidal wars or try to prove my faithfulness to the Father by ruthlessly attacking his other children. My loyalty is not to my dead progenitors but to the living Christ. And just as I cannot be saved by the deeds of my fathers, so I refuse to be damned for adopting and perpetuating their mistakes, when I know better.

     I am convinced that those brethren who introduced the instrument over the solemn protests of many brethren did a grave wrong. I am convinced that those who contribute to our contemporary division by maintaining it over continued protest in many areas, do a grave injury to the cause of fellowship in Christ Jesus.

     But I am equally convinced that those who made of it a test of fellowship and separated from their brethren over the issue, also made a tragic mistake, a crucial error, from which the cause suffers until this very day.

     Let me state again that in the atmosphere then extant the course was almost inevitable. But in the greater light now available and with full knowledge of the fruits of their decision, it can be seen that the creation of two parties, pro and con, was sinful and wrong. If it became necessary to meet in different places the fabric of brotherhood should have been kept inviolate and the fraternal spirit unquenched. No one should have "set at nought his brother" over an instrument.

     But it was done, and now we have two parties, both of whom love the Lord and revere his word, but who are cast in the role of enemies rather than as children of the same Father. What shall we do? What can we do? There are several alternatives.

     We can continue to attack each other in the pulpit and press, and by means of radio and other communications media. And we can still challenge each other to partisan debate and repeat over and over the same antiquated arguments and threadbare propositions.

     There are several things wrong with such a procedure. It has not produced unity in the past but has only widened the chasm between us. It has served to crystallize the party spirit and consolidate the factional attitude. It has been tried a hundred years and has proven to be a failure. Moreover, it has lost any rele-

[Page 101]

vance in an age when the very foundations of Christianity and the social structure based upon it are threatened. It has no real appeal to enlightened and perceptive students who recognize it as a destructive and divisive tool.

     Or, we can simply ignore each other and build up our partisan establishments in cool disdain for one another. This approach is suspect because it is the easy way, the shallow and superficial way. But it is not the way of brotherly love to which we are undeniably committed by our Lord. It is not the way of Christ! And it offers no real solution for it is the way of evasion. It is dishonest!

     Our problem has been intensified because it has been thought that the only mode of settlement was by surrender of one party to the other, a cold-blooded either/or proposition. Either those who use the instrument must give it up and confess that they have sinned, or else those who oppose it must be convinced it is right and adopt it. Until one side or the other gives in or gives up, they are doomed to batter and bruise each other in an attempt to reduce someone to submission.

     However, the real hope does not lie in the surrender of one party to the other, but in the surrender of both parties to Christ. Then the Holy Spirit can actively work in both to bring them to the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. It is useless for one side to talk about lack of respect for the authority of Jesus as long as we are in schism. While we are separated from one another none of us is in full subjection to Jesus. We are walking contrary to the divine purpose, plan and peace. We are living in contradiction to the very prayer of Jesus for our oneness.

     Nothing can be clearer than that the Holy Spirit condemns all division among the children of God. It is carnal and a work of the flesh. It is sinful and scandalous. It is a projection of Satan. No man who is not a peacemaker can be called a child of God. No man respects the authority of Jesus while he passes judgment upon, or despises his brother (Romans 14:10).

     Surrender to Christ does not eliminate the problem of the instrument. It will be there as intensely as before. But such surrender places the instrument in proper perspective. It makes the family relationship more vital and valuable than any peculiarity of those within it. When Paul wrote about eating meat and esteeming days, he did not remove the meat or the days. He simply showed that a brother was worth more than either. "Do not let the food that you eat ruin the man for whom Christ died." That for which Jesus did not die can never become as important as one for whom he did die. And Jesus did not die for a piano.

     Not too long ago, a fellow-editor who is sincerely questing for union, made a suggestion to those who use the instrument in his area, that if they would forego its employment in the Lord's Day morning service at least, it would make it possible for non-instrument brethren to meet and break bread with them. He made his appeal on the basis of Romans 14 and even agreed to accept the role of the weak brother. While this sounds very gracious it falls far short of the scriptural approach.

[Page 102]

     First of all, it reveals that the instrument is not the real problem at all, but a woeful misunderstanding of worship and fellowship. Some of us have long known that this is the root of most of our trouble. The word of God says nothing about "five acts of worship." That is a term coined in Church of Christ traditionalism. Although a good many Greek words are translated worship, the term is never once applied to anything we do when we gather on the Lord's Day. And the expression "the worship" of such notoriety on our signboards is not even in the scriptures.

     To assume that we must all sing in order to worship corporately is without scriptural warrant. No one can show that the early saints ever engaged in congregational singing. It is simply not in the scriptures. One can show that when the whole community of saints came together in one place, one man had a hymn, another a teaching, another a revelation, another a tongue, another an interpretation. A case can be made for singing a solo but there is no precedent for congregational singing.

     To postulate that because brethren do something while they are singing which makes it impossible for me to join in the singing, and therefore, I cannot even participate with them in what they do that is right and commendable, is ridiculous. The brethren could "worship acceptably" if they did not have singing on Lord's Day, and I could "worship acceptably" without joining in the congregational singing if they did have it.

     It borders a little on the absurd for men who profess to be learned in the scriptures to talk about the instrument "corrupting the worship," and this to such an extent that they cannot even break bread with their brethren. Perhaps no greater demonstration of the sectarian attitude could be imagined.

     I do not believe that Romans 14 was intended to provide a spiritual "bargaining issue" or "horse-swapping" position. It is commendable if a brother exercises his right not to do certain things out of deference for my personal conviction. But I have no right to demand that he do so as a condition of union, communion, or brotherly recognition. He is my brother whether he defers in love to my conscience, or does not. And I shall walk in love toward him regardless of how he considers me.

     It is high time that we undo the factional error of our fathers by removing instrumental music from the category of a test of fellowship. It never should have been elevated to such a position in the first place. We only prolong error by allowing it to remain there. This says nothing about the right or wrong of the thing. It requires no alteration of one's views about its merits. It simply declares that brotherhood in Christ Jesus is more important than one's view about this matter.

     This will free us to combine our efforts and work together in those areas where instrumental music is not a factor. There are many such areas. They require the best of all of us. The instrument will still be a matter for discussion but not for division. We ought to be able to unite at least up to the point where the problem begins. Because of the traumatic effect of my proposal, especially upon those who oppose instrumental music, I suggest the following considerations which may make the task of reconciliation easier for them.

     2. Both those who defend and those who oppose instrumental music do so upon the basis of deduction. The new covenant scriptures say nothing about the validity or invalidity of such music. One group deduces that it is justifiable, based upon a philosophy of interpretation; the other deduces that it is wrong, based upon a divergent philosophy of interpretation.

     Each philosophy grows out of a presupposition. These presuppositions are formulated by collating and interpreting isolated passages. We are divided, not over what God has said on the subject, for it is admitted by all that he has not specifically spoken upon the issue, but over what we believe is his will based upon our understanding of the nature of God and the general tenor of revelation.

     3. Each side, therefore, approaches the scriptures with an interpretative bias, and it is this bias for which there is no specific authority in either case, which holds us apart. It will not do to say we do not interpret the scriptures for this demonstrates ignorance rather than loyalty. Any communication of ideas from one rational mind to another must be interpreted by the recipient. This is as true of the thoughts of God conveyed by divine revelation as of our own thoughts.

     Those who indulge in the absurd notion that they do not interpret the scriptures, reveal the fallacy of their words by their own actions. They preach sermons, deliver expository addresses, print journals and write books to explain their position on the scriptures. No one appears more silly than the man who engages in long harangues on the scriptures to prove that he does not interpret the scriptures.

     4. We must reject as childish and immature the notion that we cannot be in the fellowship with what we quaintly call "brethren in error." This would make it impossible for God to be in fellowship with any of us. It would destroy all fellowship on earth. We are all brethren in error, although not all in the same error. God does not endorse our error in receiving us, nor do we endorse error when we receive one another. No one ever endorses that which he personally disavows.

     It is true that someone is in error regarding instrumental music. Since not one of us is infallible, we may all be in error regarding some aspects of it. But such error does not mean that either of us will be damned merely because we are mistaken about some of God's requirements of His children. If it were otherwise there would be no use for heaven. There is a difference between deliberate rebellion against the Father's will and an honest error about meanings or deductions. And such deductions can never be made conditions of union or communion among saints, for such tests are themselves opposed to his divine authority.

     5. The use of instrumental music does not negate our relationship as brothers. If a congregation does not use instrumental music, and some who are members leave to associate with those who do use it, they do not cease to be children of God. They are still my brethren--brethren who do not agree with my personal convictions about the status of instrumental music.

     The problem of the instrument will be settled, so far as fellowship is concerned, when we truly implement and duly regard the concept of congregational autonomy. Note that I said, "as far as fellowship is concerned." The right or wrong of using instrumental music will not be settled, but the question as relates to fellowship will have been answered. If a congregation of my brethren reaches a decision to use the instrument, they must be allowed to stand or fall to their own master.

     They are not subject to me. I am not a pope, a diocesan bishop, or a brotherhood regulator. I cannot impose my views upon them. I cannot crack the whip of dogmatism over them. I can tell them why I do not condone their decisions or share in their interpretation, but having said this, I have done all that I am obligated to do. I must regard them as brethren and revere them as such even though I cannot respect their decision for myself. It would be wonderful if we could find

[Page 104]

some simple solution. Someone will say that all that is required is for brethren to give up the instrument and we will be at peace. Only the very naive and provincial believe this. The fact is that the real tension would just begin. The question would still remain as to which of the many non-instrument groups they would join. You see we have more than a score of different "Churches of Christ" all of which are composed of "the loyal brethren" and which have nothing to do with one another. There are more than a dozen diverse kinds in some cities.

     Moreover, if both sides maintained their past attitudes they would only divest themselves of the instrument to divide over something else. Men are divided in their hearts before they are divided openly. They must get their hearts right in order to have peace. It may be argued that those who cannot treat each other as brethren in spite of the instrument probably will not do so without it.

     1. I repudiate all factionalism and partisan division among brethren as being contrary to the will and purpose of my Lord. I think it was a critical error to divide the family of God into warring camps over instrumental music. I reject the validity of that schism. I am no longer a member of an "anti-instrument party." I will never become a member of a "pro-instrument party." I am through with all partisan political alliances, once and for all, now and forever.

     2. I shall retain and defend my personal convictions about instrumental music and all other controversial issues. I shall not be frightened, cajoled, bullied or bought into surrender of my principles. I am a free man in Christ and I intend to remain free. I shall respect the right of all my brethren to make up their own minds, and have their own faith, on any of our controversial issues. I will commend what I can and refuse to commend what I cannot, but I will not violate their freedom nor allow them to violate mine.

     3. I will go among all of my brethren when invited, regardless of our differences, and share insights with them. I will not be directed by some earthly headquarters as to where I can and cannot go, nor will I be subject to the orders of any hierarchy in those areas where I am answerable only unto my Lord. Wherever I go I shall endeavor to be a peacemaker, not a sower of discord. I shall try to strengthen and improve all of my brethren. But I will not go anywhere as the front man for any party, nor will I go upon condition that I reject any of God's other children. I am not for sale to any faction, sect or splinter group. I belong to Christ.

     4. I will not arrogantly demand that my brethren give up what they have, or alter and amend their procedures as a condition of my coming among them. I will allow them to be answerable unto God for what they do and I shall be answerable to God for what I teach while among them.

     The way to unite is to unite! The time to unite is now! We never should have become a divided movement. We dare not remain one. Unless someone ignores our artificial walls and barriers they will grow higher and thicker with each passing year. All that is necessary to prove that they are fragile and useless is for someone to go through them all as if they were not there. And to the one who does so they will not be there. They are not there for me! I regard none of them as valid. My brethren are on both sides of all of them.

     I offer no propositions, make no bargains, enter into no conditional treaties. If you are in Christ Jesus we are in this together. The only side I am interested in is the spear-wounded, blood-flowing side. That blood made us one. I am resolved that, for my part, it will keep us one.

     I do not have time to wait for factional leaders to beat each other into sub-

[Page 105]

mission and to give the rest of us the all-clear signal to resume fraternization with all of our brothers and sisters. I cannot sit in the bleachers of life and wait for his Holy Spirit to overtake those who are frantically fleeing from Him under the mistaken notion that the exhibition of His fruits will be displeasing unto God and disloyal to Christ.

     I am in the brotherhood, the whole brotherhood, the universal brotherhood. I am a part of the new humanity, not merely of a narrow clique within it. I have renounced the code of the clan for the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, which alone can make me free from the law of sin and death. While brethren argue and debate about how they can ever be one while some use an instrument and others do not, while they strive and clamor for advantage, I shall ignore their assaults and love them all. The pitiable and paltry problems which seem so much greater to them than the brotherhood of the cross, have been for me washed down the drain of the ages by the crimson stream that flowed from his crucified body. I am free from their blight.

     It little matters to one who loves all of his brethren how any of them regard him. It is only the factionalist whose petty thinking pleads for toleration from those whom he regards as stronger, or seeks a means of persecuting those who are weaker. It was Thomas Babington Macaulay who wrote in Sir John Macintosh's History of the Revolution (1835), "The doctrine which from the very first origin of religious dissensions has been held by bigots of all sects, when condensed into a few words and stripped of rhetorical disguise, is simply this: I am in the right and you are in the wrong. When you are the stronger you ought to tolerate me; for it is your duty to tolerate truth. But when I am the stronger I shall persecute you, for it is my duty to persecute error."