The Question Box

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 113]

     "Only one thing can give unity in the church on the human level: the love which allows another to be different even when it does not understand him."--Karl Rahner.

     I might have known it would happen! In the July issue of this journal I made the proposal that we remove the use of instrumental music from the category of tests of union and communion, and restore a degree of sanity to a schizophrenic restoration movement whose members have been tomahawking one another in a senseless feud for more than a hundred years.

     It is now apparent that many of the brethren are more adept at making pieces of the body, than of making peace within it. They want the war to continue. They like to judge brethren and engage in the great American pastime of confessing other men's sins. And now I am the target!

     This is not an entirely new experience for me, nor is it the first time that I have been regarded as a Benedict Arnold, or a traitor. In fact, I never recall having given up any narrow factional attitude without being so accused, and since I have given up quite a few of them, it is beginning to sound like a cracked record.

     I am going to share with you some of the questions and my reactions to them, although I do so a little reluctantly. This necessitates a change of plan with reference to the series of articles for this year, but in this fast-moving age an editor ought not to be harnessed to one field when another, which is more fertile, deserves cultivation.

     My chief concern is for our many readers who are not even a part of our restoration movement and heritage. Perhaps they will regard us with a more charitable eye than we have sometimes turned upon one another.

     It is important, I think, that you know exactly what I am suggesting, and just as important that you understand what I am not suggesting. Let me deal with the latter first on the principle that "the first shall be last, and the last shall be first."

     I am not proposing that any person change his mind or alter his views about the right or wrong of instrumental music in the congregational praise service dedicated to God.

     I am not suggesting that anyone must amend his interpretation of any scriptural passage which he thinks is related to this issue. I am not recommending a cessation of discussion about the status of instrumental music. I believe that continued discussion will be wholesome and helpful.

     I am not proposing that any congregation adopt instrumental music. I am not suggesting that any congregation change sides, or swap horses. Instead, I recommend that, at least for the present, where conditions are not wholly intolerable, that we stay where we are and allow the Holy

[Page 114]

Spirit to work in our lives. Any wholesale milling around will only confuse the scene and upset a lot of unstable souls, of which all our factions have more than a fair share.

     Then what do I propose? It is very simple. I suggest a recapture of that spirit of brotherly love which transcends divergent views about the instrument, and which will impel us to associate with each other as children of the same Father.

     I urge only that we change our categorization of the problem. Every faction, without exception, has two boxes filled with traditional issues. One bears the label, "Differences Which Do Not Divide;" the other, "Differences Which Divide." These boxes are our own. God did not create them. He filled neither of them. I propose that we transfer instrumental music from the last-named to the first. That's where it was originally. We did not divide for many years after the instrument was introduced. It was only after we irritated, agitated, aggravated, and rubbed each other raw, that we took the issue from the hope chest and threw it in the war chest.

     The transfer will make it no less a difference. It will be as big one place as another. But it will create a tremendous difference in our attitudes. It will free us from a species of intolerance which has plagued us for many decades. It will create a sharing situation which will release the pent-up energy of the Spirit and actually sweep some mission fields for Christ. It will eradicate the inner trauma which some brethren feel in the presence of others and make for free and genuine recognition of that fellowship which we have in Christ.

     Why do I make this proposal just now? I do so for a lot of reasons which I do not have either the time or inclination to discuss. I am sick and tired of our wrangling around over issues which are glorified and magnified out of all proportion to their value by our fanatical and inordinate attention. With a world threatened by holocaust of such magnitude as to cause strong men to tremble at the thought, we can no longer indulge in the folly of partisan squabbles such as entertained our fathers in the halcyon days of sectarian bitterness.

     I want to get to the gut-issues of our generation and see if Christianity has the potential to face them down and bring them to heel. I want to be where the action is! I want to be in on the happening! The most important thing in this frightened universe does not seem to me to be whether some of my brethren want to blow, beat, saw or pound upon something while the others are singing.

     Obviously the suggestion had to come from someone who is conscientiously opposed to the use of the instrument in the public praise service. And since no one else seemed anxious to push toward the front and offer the suggestion I decided to stand up in our little journal and make the proposition.

     There was nothing brave about it because bravery is courage in the face of fear. I just do not have any fear. Perfect love cast it all out. When I faced up to Jesus and surrendered to him unreservedly, he came in, flooded my soul with light, poured out love in my heart, and gave me a peace that even I do not understand.

     Perhaps we had better get on with the reactions to my little proposal. I've sorted some of them out so you'll be able to get the gist of the questions and my replies. In a case or two, I've combined them from several sources. It really is not important that you know who asked what, nor is it particularly important that I do the answering. What is important is that we all strive for truth. I am still optimistic that truth will separate itself from error and rise to the top like cream on the milk, in spite of the observation of Mark Twain that: "The man who is a pessimist before forty-eight knows too much; the man who is an optimist after forty-eight knows too little."

     True, I was once a rather forward partisan champion, defending the tenets and tests of the faction with which I was allied. It would be a sin for me to introduce or engage in the playing of an instrument in the public praise of the saints. Whether God will regard it as such upon the part of those of his children who have no scruples against it, I shall not presume to judge, in the absence of any specific directive from him on the matter.

     I have renounced all public partisan debate with any of my brethren as having any real hope of promoting understanding or eliminating strife. I think, as generally carried out in our day, debate is a divisive tool which serves only to intensify the party spirit. I have debated the questions of instrumental music, support of orphan homes, theological schools, the clergy system, classes, cups, the status of elders, and a host of other things, but I will not again publicly debate any of my brethren.

     This was not an easy decision for me. I rather liked debating. I grew up to regard my brethren in other factions as rivals and enemies and I was glad to lead the tribe in war against them, under the guise that we were opposing Satan. It was a thrill to jump on my theological steed, ride hard and "head them off at the pass." Since I've been able to distinguish between the devil and my brethren, I would prefer to concentrate my efforts against him and love them.

     Can I say a word about G. C. Brewer, in tribute to his memory? After our first skirmish he suggested that we make a sort of "Lincoln-Douglas" tour of all of the college campuses, and we held our second debate at Freed-Hardeman College. It was a good one. He was very gentlemanly. But we had no further debates. I suspect both of us thought we were "Lincoln."

     One reason I will not debate with my brethren is that I no longer represent any party, group or school of thought. I'm not a front man for any faction nor the champion of any clique. I represent only Jesus and he is not debatable among brethren. I do not want anyone else to represent my views. I do not want to represent the views of anyone else. I shall allow no other man to do my thinking. I will not impose my own thinking on any other man.

     2. Would you make the same arguments against the instrument now as you did in the past?

     I would certainly not make some of them, because they would sound as silly now as they must have then. In looking back over my more ancient debate notes in my file marked "Digressives,," I find, for example, that once I belabored those "that chant to the sound of the viol, and invent to themselves instruments of music, like David" (Amos 6:5). At the time I did not know enough to realize that the context when so applied, would equally condemn eating Grade-A veal chops, stretching out on a couch, or using pine-scented after shave lotion.

     The truth is that both sides in the controversy ought to examine anew their debate notes and sermon outlines and set fire to most of them and start over. The years have produced a lot of chaff and little real wheat in either partisan granary. And this has made for a lot of sawdust and cornflake sermons. No wonder Spurgeon said, "Some ministers would make good martyrs: they are so dry they would burn well."

     No. It lacks the very element you need to make it say what you want it to say. The sentence begins with, "And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, etc." This is not an apostolic com-

[Page 116]

mand regulating public praise. It simply tells Christians how to behave when they are not drunk.

     Ephesus was the site of the temple of Diana which was the scene of Bacchanalian revelry. This included drinking, lewd songs and filthy talk. It also included such sexual excesses it was a shame to speak of them (See verses 11, 12). In contrast with such daily conduct, the grace-sharers were to be filled with the Holy Spirit instead of unholy fermented spirits, and they were to exhibit it in the kind of songs which they sang to each other.

     Careful examination will show that the whole context is set in a framework of daily living, consisting of the circumspect walk, and the proper use of time, because the days were evil. It is a context of the submission of wives, love of husbands, obedience of children, respect for slaves and masters. Our problem is that we postulated congregational singing as God's pattern and looked for scriptures to justify our presupposition. The ones we discovered had to be twisted to fit the shape we wanted. It is likely that we are more indebted to Moody and Sankey than we are to Paul and Peter for our pattern.

     Please understand that I do not condemn congregational singing. On the contrary, I think it is a good thing. I suspect that God likes for his children to get together and sing, just as Nell and I like for our family to do so. I am not sure that the Father gets too much of a thrill out of it when we think we are forced to do it to keep him from being mad at us. The "sing or be damned" attitude may affect him as it would me if the parents of our grandchildren would say, "You straighten up and sing now or we'll whip the daylights out of you." My Book says, "Is any one merry? Let him sing psalms." It's a little hard to be bubbling over with joy when the threat of hell is hanging over your head if you are not!

     4. If Colossians 3:16 does not prove congregational singing, please tell me what it does prove?

     I am not sure it was written to prove anything in the sense in which you use the word "prove." We do not want to fall into the trap which has grabbed some scientists, described by Samuel Butler thus, "The tendency of modern science is to reduce proof to absurdity by continually reducing absurdity to proof." Generally when we turn a text into a prooftext we have already decided what we want it to prove. By a little effort with our mental hammer and intellectual crowbar we can make it fit almost as well as if it had been made for the place.

     Of course, some texts require a little more battering than others, but almost any text can be made to do in a pinch. It helps some if you have gone to school and taken courses in how to warp the scriptures and force them into place. This is one of the advantages of a theological education. The average unskilled bumbler may be inclined to leave a passage in the setting where God placed it, never even realizing that he can lift it out and beat the stuffing out of it and fit it in somewhere else.

     The passage reads, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord."

     We could not possibly fulfill this requirement the way we sing, because we are all singing at once. If you are going to teach another, he ought to listen to

[Page 117]

you. Moreover, teaching is conveying information or instruction. You cannot teach another if he already knows as much about the subject as you do. In our singing, if you don't know the song you cannot teach another, but if you do know it another cannot teach you. Either way you take it, someone is violating the command.

     What would you say if all of the members in an assembly sought to teach one another a lesson by all standing up and shouting the same thing at the same time? Do you think that putting a tune to the words would make a difference? Where we attend, sometimes the bass singers are saying one thing, and the soprano singers another at the same time. I can understand how you might teach if "whenever you meet let everyone be ready to contribute a psalm, a piece of teaching, a spiritual truth, or a 'tongue' with an interpreter," as Paul instructed Corinth.

     But I think we ought to quit trying to fool the public into thinking that we teach and admonish one another, when we put a man up front to wave his arms while we all stand and belt out the words. We all enjoy it I suppose, and I don't want to see it stopped, but we need to quit trying to find scriptural justification for it. There isn't any. If Paul walked in and heard us in high gear and in four-part harmony it would probably shake him. It wouldn't shake him nearly as much as it would if we told him we were doing it because it was what he commanded. He might not get over that shock!

     If you really want to teach in song, I suggest that next Lord's Day, just before you have the Supper, you have some brother with a good voice "contribute a psalm" while you sit reverently and allow the words to seep into the very fiber of your inner being. But to answer your question. Colossians 3:16 is set in a framework of everyday living. It does not prove congregational singing the way we do it. Nothing does. I do not think anything really has to do so! I believe that we may be hung up on the idea that God intended to provide us with a meticulous blueprint, a sort of "pray by pray account" of everything we are to do when we gather, thus leaving no room for spontaneous expression and spiritual freshness. But I am not so sure that the new covenant scriptures were meant to be a printed program handed out by the apostles. I respect these scriptures but I do not think it is an act of reverence to press them into a role which God may not have intended for them to occupy.

     I do not think congregational singing is to be condemned or abandoned just because there is no clear precedent for it. On the contrary, it is a very unifying group exercise and no doubt it is pleasing to the Father. If we were to get rid of all for which we did not have a clear precedent we'd not have a lot left.

     5. Will not your proposition encourage congregations to adopt instrumental music?

     Why should it? The status of instrumental music will not be altered. All I propose is that we regard and treat our brethren who use it as brethren. Is there anything about showing brotherly love that would make brethren adopt instrumental music? Must we keep God's family divided and rent, and treat some of his children with cold disdain, in order to keep some congregations from using instrumental music?

     It is obvious that no congregation will adopt it whose members oppose it, and those congregations whose members see no violation of scripture in its use, and who want it, will probably have it regardless of what I say. My contention is simply that instrumental music has no relationship to our fellowship in Christ Jesus, and it should not keep us from recognition of that fellowship. I am not trying to regulate and control the procedure of any congregation.

     6. If this compromising crackpot idea you have dreamed up is right, why are there not more brethren who are pushing it? Are you the only one who is right?

     I really think that a goodly number of informed brethren have been uneasy

[Page 118]

about our factional position for a long time. Many of them realize that it was a mistake to make an honest opinion about instrumental music a test of fellowship. Some are not as free as I am, and not as vocal about it, but I think they will be glad that someone has brought the suggestion into the open at last.

     However, I never test sentiment in advance, or determine the way the wind blows, before I state my convictions. I am not concerned with lining up with a majority. I am only concerned with being right. I think it is sinful to perpetuate a division which ought never to have happened in the first place. I am resigned to standing alone if need be. I am not worried about the ultimate.

     My study of history convinces me that every constructive idea was branded as a crackpot idea when first enunciated, but after it has been duly considered it is adopted and all are better for it. No traditionalist ever improved upon the status quo. That must be done by nonconformists. Sometimes they are rather lonely at first. However, many more brethren share my present convictions than some of you have even dreamed. We will be able to work together some day!

     7. Where will this thing stop if your views are accepted?

     Hopefully, it will continue to leaven every faction until all of us may exhibit our oneness in Christ Jesus. Perhaps some brother who has led in the fight to make the support of Herald of Truth and orphan homes a test of fellowship will recommend that the issue be completely removed from this category and that local congregations which have divided over this issue start working together across the barrier.

     I should like to see Baxter Loe, for example, make an editorial recommendation in Gospel Tidings that we close the breach in fellowship on the "Sunday School issue" with a genuine implementation of local autonomy on the congregational level. I should like to see Ervin Waters do the same in Outreach with reference to the question of individual cups. Both of these men are good writers and good thinkers. They might be able to help brethren see how foolish and immature we act when we maintain our senseless partisan bitterness.

     I suspect that many brethren in every faction are deterred by fear of being branded as "liberals," but if Jesus could endure being called "gluttonous and a winebibber" by those whom he sought to help, we ought not to worry too much. "The servant is not greater than his Lord." I have to confess that it does not bother me one bit what men may do unto me. So I pray that we shall not stop until we build bridges across all of our divisions and can cross freely back and forth without fear of reprisal.

     I do not really think so. There are some very perceptive and outstanding brethren in Texas, and I love them a great deal for their work's sake, although some of them have been quite bitter about my emphasis on fellowship. I have been made the object of attack upon several occasions where I could not hope to gain permission to reply, but I understand the motivation for this and it does not disturb me a great deal.

     Letters coming to me indicate that many of the brethren are seeing the question of fellowship in a wholly new light, and it is true that my writings have recently been looked upon with much more charity in some areas. Some of the brethren in the places mentioned are in agreement with my position that we should not make a test of fellowship out of an honest opinion about instrumental music, although they are quite opposed to its use in the corporate worship.

     I pray that what I have written will not "widen the gap" for all of us need to find

[Page 119]

common ground upon which to stand regardless of the state in which we live. But whatever happens to me personally I must be honest with God and myself for I would not want to create a chasm between myself and God in order to lessen one between my self and brethren in Texas. Heaven must take precedence over Texas!

     9. Why don't you go on and join the Christian Church and let us alone?

     I know the brother who asked this question. He has been involved in three divisions and is now meeting with a small group of unhappy souls whose outlook is very negative and pessimistic. The strange thing is that these good brethren do not count me as one of them, but I "bug" them simply because I love them and continue to write to them and offer to help them serve our Lord.

     I am sure that most of us are made uncomfortable by those who force us to examine anew our traditional thinking. And it isn't very pleasant, when we have all of our positions, arguments, and deductions, packed down nicely in our box of playthings, to have someone come along and kick the box over. We would like to rid ourselves of such a person.

     But I am not going to "go on and join" anything. I belong to my Lord and that is enough for me. I hold that there is only one church on earth and that it contains all of the saved. I am one of them. I am not the least bit interested in the old religious "shell game" of switching parties. I am afraid our good brother is stuck with me. I refuse to leave and I will not be frightened or driven off. If my brethren cannot stand to remain with one who loves them all, they will have to pack their debate books and "go over the hill." I like it here and I am staying for the duration.

     10. Suppose we agreed to remove instrumental music from being a test of fellowship, where do you think the greatest impact would first be felt?

     On the foreign mission field. We have confused many simple native peoples by transporting our American feuds to their lands, for which they are not temperamentally, historically or traditionally prepared. You have to grow up in the very midst of our mixed-up mess for it to make any sense to you at all.

     In some distant lands, two "Churches of Christ" have been planted, neither of which uses instrumental music. But, because one group is supported by those in the United States who use it, the other group would have nothing to do with them in a Jungle on the other side of the globe. This kind of childish procedure on the part of grown men would be as laughable as it is ridiculous, if it were not for the fact that it helps to fragment a world already bursting at its ideological seams.

     I suggest that we free our missionaries in all factions from party domination and let them work freely with every Christian brother in their section of the world. Let them exchange speaking appointments, hold conferences and lectureships together, share in youth camps, and produce jointly-published reading material and literature in native tongues. In short, let them manifest the unity we have in Christ Jesus in spite of differences.

     Let's have an end to our stupid and infantile attitude, which will eventually make us the laughingstock of the intelligent people all over the earth. We have instrumental, non-instrumental, pre-millennial, post-millennial, one-cup, multiple cups, institutional, anti-institutional, Sunday School, and anti-Sunday School parties (to name a few) in such places as Africa, Japan and South America. In some locations we have taken those who always lived in unity as pagans and separated them into warring tribes as Christians. But our inconsistencies will catch up with us. Our partisan chickens will come home to roost!

     If a man does not have good judgment he should not be sent to the mission field, and if he does have he should be allowed the freedom to use it. Let's stop making puppets out of these self-sacrificing brethren, and cut the sectarian apron strings. It is time to quit regulating their endeavors by our mechanical remote control devices. Instead of calling men home

[Page 120]

because they work and fraternize with other Christians, we should call them home if they will not do so. The mission field is no place to practice sectarian littleness and exclusiveness. We have shivered God's family to bits in the United States and that should suffice without peddling our factional wares abroad.

     With a deep conviction that our divisions are all displeasing to God, and that a brother is worth much more to me than my own opinions and views, I am committed unreservedly to the task of pleading for unity among all segments of the brotherhood until my pen drops from my hand in death. I shall seek to remember always the adage of Louis Brandeis, the eminent jurist, "Behind every argument is someone's ignorance."