Authority of the Word

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 129]

     This is the text of an address delivered at the Fourth Annual Unity Forum, conducted at the West Islip Church of Christ, Long Island, New York, July 3-5. Previous forums were held at Bethany College, Milligan College, and Southeastern Christian College.

     In presenting this little dissertation on the authority of the word of God, to those of my brethren who are gathered for this occasion, I feel like a doctor called upon to read a paper on the symptoms and proper treatment of stomach ulcer, in the measles ward of a children's hospital. There is nothing at all wrong with developing the theme, but it is not directly related to the ills which we suffer and provides no remedy for our current condition.

     I say this in spite of the fact that all of our vocal diagnosticians are loud in their insistence that it is an "attitude toward authority of the Bible" which is at the bottom of all of our troubles, and makes us the most divided, strife-torn and fragmented religious movement on the contemporary American scene.

     Those of our brethren who think that the fruit of the vine which Jesus blessed was fermented, and to employ unfermented liquid in the Lord's Supper is to trample underfoot "the divine pattern" and count the blood of the covenant wherewith we were sanctified an unholy thing, say it is a question of attitude toward the authority of the scriptures which divides us.

     Those who think that we must distribute the drink element in one container and that individual cups are an innovation introduced among us by the machination of Satan to deceive the very elect, say it is a question of attitude toward the authority of the scriptures which divides us.

     Those who think that the precepts of heaven must be taught in one undivided assembly, and that division into classes upon the basis of age, aptitude or ability constitutes a grave infraction against heaven and a sin against the eternal purpose of God, say it is a question of attitude toward the scriptures which divides us.

     Those who think that the current method of financing our best known propaganda tool, Herald of Truth, by mailing money to a congregation in Texas, is part of a deep conspiracy to rob other congregations of their autonomy, say it is a question of attitude toward the authority of the scriptures which divides us.

     Those who think that funds collected and deposited in the corporate treasury of the congregation can only be expended in behalf of those whose names are duly enrolled on one of our rosters, and who regard any use of such money to alleviate the misery and squalor of the world about us as "the social gospel," say it is a question of attitude toward the authority of the scriptures which divides us.

     Those who think that the corporate praise of a community of saints must be

[Page 130]

rendered only by the vocal cords in congregational participation, and that any accompaniment on any type of mechanical instrument is a defiance of the dogmas and decrees of heaven, say it is a question of attitude toward the authority of the scriptures which divides us.

     What is the result of this simplistic rationalization and silly repetition with parrot-like monotony of the statement that, "It is a question of attitude toward the authority of the scriptures which divides us?" The answer is all too obvious. We have splintered the majestic household of God into conflicting tribes, constantly on the warpath against their own brethren, hailing with almost unbridled glee every bloody scalp dangling from the poles which support the scattered factional tepees.

     Every child of God among us, without a single exception, is regarded as a sectarian by some and an extremist by others. We are all "liberals" and all "antis" at the same time, not because of where we stand, but because of where others stand as they view us. Every brother and sister in this gathering is both a sectarian and a hobbyist. A sectarian is one who has something we oppose; a hobbyist is one who opposes something that we have. All of you have something that others oppose; all of you oppose some things that some others have.

     We have tied the restoration movement into a huge Gordian knot, with divisions over missionary societies, instrumental music, centralized control, colleges, orphan homes, national radio and television programs, leavened bread, unleavened bread, the manner of breaking the bread, fermented wine, individual cups, Bible classes, uninspired literature, evangelists, hired ministers, the pastor system, the marriage of divorced persons, speaking in tongues, divine healing, foot-washing, the hour of meeting to eat the Lord's Supper, and a host of other things too numerous to mention, as they say on auction sale bills.

     How shall we extricate ourselves from this labyrinth which we have created? Must we thresh out every angle of every wrangle before we can realistically recognize each other as brethren? Must we argue to a standstill every action of every faction before we can have the satisfaction of a combined effort in any department of service to a world writhing in crisis? Must we debate until we wear one another to a frazzle, and then wear the frazzle off, before we can join hands in any kind of project?

     I reject this immature approach created by a childish attitude toward the problem of schism. After hundreds of others in ancient Phrygia had worked their fingers to the bone trying to untie the original Gordian knot, Alexander the Great came, and with one keen stroke of his sword cut through every snarl and tangle in the rope. And that is the only sane and sensible way for us to approach the mammoth and monumental muddle we have made of this movement which began as "a project to unite the Christians in all of the sects."

     I deny emphatically that we are divided because of a disregard for the Lordship of Jesus or because of wilful disrespect for the authority of the sacred scriptures. I do not deny that there are those in the religious world who deny the right of the scriptures to govern life and conduct, nor do I deny that there have arisen within the ranks of the restoration movement men who have rejected the scriptures as the revelation of God's will. But I do deny that this is the basis of our fragmentation and factionalism.

     Those who use unfermented grape juice in the Lord's Supper, accept Jesus as Lord, which is the reason they partake of the Supper. Those who use individual cups love Jesus every bit as dearly as those who pass one container to an assembly. Those who employ Bible classes are not seeking by this method of investigating the word of life to crucify the author of those words and put him to an open shame. Those who take part of that which they have jointly contributed as a body and use it to feed starving children in the ghetto, or to reach alcoholics in a coffee-house min-

[Page 131]

istry, are not denying the claim of the Son of God over their lives.

     The brethren in Texas who arrange the details relating to Herald of Truth and receive contributions to make it possible, are not engaged in one vast conspiracy to wrest the kingdom from the hands of Jesus and manipulate it for their own prestige. Our brethren who use instrumental accompaniment in conjunction with voicing their praise to our common Father are not apostates from the truth, or irresponsible rebels who deny the right of Jesus to reign over them!

     It is absurd and asinine for our aspiring and perspiring theologians to perpetuate the farce that men who have been born of water and of the Spirit, who read the same scriptures, sing from the same hymnbooks, partake of the supper of the Lord on the same day of every week, and seek earnestly to imitate the life of Jesus in their daily walk, reject the authority of Jesus and the Bible. What is the problem, then, if we read the word of God with equal reverence? Why are we divided?

     Of course the answer is not always simple and it is made more complex because we allow our traditions and emotions to get entangled in it. But there is one thing basic to it. We are not divided over the authority of the scriptures at all, else we would not appeal to them, even in debate. We are divided over our deductions from the scriptures, and this is a wholly different thing. Revelation is what God has said; interpretation is what men think he meant by what he said. Revelation is perfect. It is the unfolding of a divine and infallible mind. Interpretation is imperfect, because it is the application of a human and fallible mind to what God has revealed.

     We do not approach the sacred scriptures, or anything else, with a mental vacuum, or an intellectual void. We must go in the only way we can, caught up in the human predicament, the heirs of our own environment, the victims of our own limitations and shortcomings, and of the indoctrination of others. Our teachers were imperfect in knowledge, and their students are no different.

     We examine the word of God upon the basis of our pre-suppositions. These have been formed by a compilation of isolated and remote scriptures. They grow out of an examination of God's action in specific cases, from which we construct our generalizations. These make up our philosophy of interpretation of the word of God which we regard as authoritative. But the problem comes when we confuse our philosophy of interpretation with the basis of authority, and seek to bind it upon others as the divine will.

     Let us take the question of instrumental music as an example. Our brethren who defend their right to use it do not flaunt the authority of Jesus. They are trying to serve him as diligently as those who do not use it. Both sides appeal to the same Bible, and even quote the same passages. It is silly to assume they have no respect for the authority of that which they quote as authority. What is the difficulty? It lies in the divergent philosophies with which they approach the question.

     One postulates that whatever is not specifically authorized in the scriptures as an expression of worship is forbidden, and its introduction or employment constitutes a sin against the authority of Jesus. But where does the Bible say this? Nowhere!

     The other postulates that whatever is not specifically forbidden in the scriptures as an expression of worship may be allowable and permissible, provided that it does not violate some other clearly stated principle of divine revelation. Where does the Bible say this? Nowhere!

     Both of these rules of interpretation attempt to measure what God has said by something he did not say. Each is a pair of spectacles donned by men to aid them in reading the word of God. Each contains lens ground according to criteria which have been deemed to be correct. But spectacles are put on before men start reading. In both cases men have searched the scriptures in an en-

[Page 132]

deavor to understand the basis of authority and they have selected and tied together various scriptures which seem to substantiate and lend credence to the position they have adopted. But they are still spectacles and not the word of God. That they may help us even as do spectacles, goes without saying, but we need to be careful lest we fall into the error of thinking we can best exemplify the spirit of God's Word by arguing about the respective merit of our spectacles.

     Both rules are conclusions resulting from deductions and these deductions are themselves attempts to interpret the scriptures in order to determine a proper basis for interpreting the scriptures. Thus they actually stem from an attempt to peer behind the scriptures--to look through them by looking into them--and understand the intent and motivation of God, although using as tools in the process his various acts and words. We have fostered schism by imposing our deductions upon our brethren, and by laying down the law instead of living up to love.

     Our problem is not that we do not speak where the Bible speaks, or remain silent where the Bible is silent, but that we approach the speaking and the silence from different positions, neither of which is dictated by the Bible. But why do we need a philosophy of interpretation at all. Why not just go straight to the Bible without interpretation? The answer is the same as if someone asks, "Why not go straight to the moon without fooling around with space capsules and vehicles? If it is there, just land on it and forget all about the expensive in-between stuff." The reply is that we cannot do this because we are human beings. An angel might make the trip without the tedious process, but we cannot. And neither can we obtain God's meaning without thought vehicles as do rational creatures. Our brethren have been "just obeying the Bible without interpreting it" for years and we have more than two dozen faithful churches now which have nothing to do with one another!

     Does this mean that it was a sin to divide God's family over instrumental music? It means exactly that! Our fathers were wrong in fracturing the saints into rival parties, pro or con, over such a matter. Regardless of "who split the log" in the factional terminology of yester-year, I unqualifiedly affirm that he who makes a test of fellowship, or a term of union and communion, out of an opinion such as this, is guilty of formulating another creed. Whatever a man must believe in order to be in my fellowship is my creed and it takes precedence over the cross of Christ.

     I refuse to be guilty any longer in heaven's sight of perpetuating a narrow, bigoted and arrogant attitude, which can only continue to splinter us until we divide ourselves out of existence as we have already divided ourselves out of effective influence in many areas of the world. Our brethren do not deny the authority of God's word. They simply resent our self-appointment as a supreme court to interpret it for them. They insist upon reading it for themselves without benefit of clergy--even "our clergy." They can distinguish between the revelation sent down from heaven and the explanations handed down from Texas. They are willing to be governed by theocracy but not by partisan editorcracy. We need to quit playing God with one another and start praying to God for one another.

     The monotonous repetition by all of the sectarian champions in the restoration movement, of the statement, "It is a question of attitude toward the authority

[Page 133]

of the scriptures," has served no real purpose. It has been turned into a schismatic slogan and a conflicting cliché. It has become a rug of many colors, woven by factional looms, and used as a cover under which to sweep every responsible attempt to bring order out of our chaotic condition. It has served to erect walls and barriers behind which men may hide to snipe at their brethren who ride by in different party vehicles.

     Why is it that those who chant loudest and longest about the authority of the scriptures, ignore what those scriptures plainly teach about the sin of "setting at nought a brother"? Why do they misrepresent those scriptures by quoting what God said about our relationship to unbelievers and applying it to our relationship to other believers? In view of the fact that the scriptures unvaryingly condemn all division in the family of God as sinful, how does it happen that we could not be more divided if the scriptures commanded it?

     I know not what course others may take, but my own course is clear. I shall receive all whom God has received, and upon the same basis that he received me. Wherever my Father has a child, there I have a brother, and if I can get to where he is, I will demonstrate my love for him. I shall ignore the artificial walls which men have erected to separate and segregate themselves from others. Love makes walls transparent which once were opaque, and because of it one can see brethren on both sides.

     To me, the majestic kingdom of heaven is manifestly greater than any of our groups, and greater than all of them put together. It transcends any movement sparked by men, even the restoration movement. God has children on this earth who never heard of Alexander Campbell or Barton Warren Stone. The sheep of God are still a scattered flock. No partisan corral holds them all. It little matters whether they ever hear me speak or not, it is the voice of the Shepherd which calls them out!

     I am united with all of my brethren in that unity of the Spirit which, in its human aspect, must always be unity in diversity. Some of my beloved brethren use one container, and others individual cups; some have many classes for study, and others have none; some contribute to orphan homes from their treasury and others do not; some support Herald of Truth and never see it, some refuse to support it and never miss seeing it; some use instrumental music and do not advertise it, some do not use it and advertise their place of meeting with signs proclaiming "Vocal Music."

     I have brethren who claim to speak in tongues, and others who have difficulty with English; I have brethren who believe in divine healing and go to the doctor; and others who believe in doctors to whom their wives cannot get them to go. No two of God's children are alike, any more than my own were alike, but I love them all in their unlikeness as I loved my own in theirs. If there are those who hate me I love them also. If they are good enough for the Father to receive, they are not too bad for me to accept. I shall allow them to stand or fall to their own master, and shall not try to dominate their thinking or lives. His love is an umbrella for all of us, and my love, although too meager, is at last great enough to embrace all who are with me under that umbrella. I have found that the umbrella which God created is a lot larger than the one I once helped to manufacture, and I feel a lot happier now that I can sit on the love seat and allow God to sit on the judgment seat.

     I believe that God exists. I believe that he has communicated to man what is essential for man's wellbeing. The idea of a non-communicative God is incongruous. I also believe that the divine communication is contained in the sacred scriptures. It is a wee bit ridiculous to think of a person who would accept this as factual and then deny the authority of the scriptures. And I have found few of our brethren indeed who do not recognize the authority of the Bible over their lives.

     We are not divided over the place of God's word in the divine order. All of

[Page 134]

us freely confess its importance, and regard it as containing our rule of faith and practice. We are divided because we ceased to love our brethren as much as we loved our ideas and interpretations. By making it appear that they did not respect God's authority when they disagreed with us we were able to rationalize our divisive spirit and justify our exclusivistic attitude.

     When we start loving men because they are in Christ and not because they are in conformity with us, we will transcend our differences and be able once more to walk in peace. We will never see every point alike. There will always be differences, but they will be occasions for discussion and not excuses for division. This raises several questions and I would be derelict in my duty if I did not pay some attention to them.

     1. Will this not place us in fellowship with brethren in error? That is the only kind of brethren with which any of us will be in the fellowship, for there are no other kinds of brethren. None of us know it all. We are all in error on some things, and if anyone denies this he is in greater error than anyone else. But one need not embrace the error of another in the family of God any more than he needs to become cross-eyed because a brother in his physical family suffers from this affliction. We are in the fellowship through an act of God by the Spirit and we can no more choose our brothers in the Lord than we can choose our brothers in the flesh.

     2. Is not one condemned who brings another gospel, or perverts the gospel of Christ? Certainly so, but our divisions are not over perversions of the gospel. Our brethren have all obeyed the gospel. That is what makes them brethren. The gospel is the good news of justification by faith in Christ Jesus. It consists of historical facts, seven of them in all--the life of Jesus, the death of Jesus, the burial of Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus, the ascension of Jesus, the coronation of Jesus, and the glorification of Jesus.

     All of our brethren accept these facts and the implication of them for their lives. When the apostle wrote about the perversion of the gospel he had in mind the tacking on to these facts of circumcision as an additional term of admission to the grace of God. One might practice circumcision, or he might deplore it, and still be in Christ. "In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which works by love." But anyone who made either circumcision or uncircumcision a test of acceptability into the fellowship perverted the gospel of Christ.

     It is those of our brethren who are so trigger-happy in gunning down everyone who does not conform to their legal demands who are really in danger of perverting the gospel. If I tack on to faith in the Lord Jesus which works by love, any additional criterion of loyalty such as a special position on music, missions or the millenium, or on cups, classes or colleges, then I preach another gospel, another means of access to God, for I confuse his grace with the favor of the faction.

     Our problems are generally not related to the gospel at all, but to matters of doctrine. The gospel is the seed by which we are begotten. The doctrine is the bread of heaven upon which we feed after we are born. Some of our doctors and dietitians cannot distinguish between conception and digestion, and they think that every time some one makes a mistake in judgment they should collect his birth certificate. Since theirs is the worst error of all they should turn in both their birth certificate and their spiritual driver's license.

     If God's children are not free to make mistakes they are not free at all, and anyone who denies this has already made a big mistake. But mistakes in judgment or understanding do not cancel the family relationship. When we were little, and misunderstood the directions of our parents, they did not return us for a refund, or put us out in the woodshed until we learned better. In spite of the fact that we exasperated them and got on their nerves, they kept us around in the hope that our association with such nice folks as themselves would eventually

[Page 135]

straighten us out. That is what love does!

     I think that we are very unfair. We are even a little dishonest. We tell people that our only creed is Christ until we get them in, and then we lower the boom on them and drag out of our toy box all of the other things which they must believe in order to play ball with us. We've got more fine print in some of our unwritten creeds than a Philadelphia lawyer could discover in a crooked insurance policy. This enables us to bring people in at the front door on one basis, and throw them out of the back door on a score of different reasons.

     If we want to deal justly, we should type up a list of a hundred or so items of controversy among us, and when someone comes forward to confess his faith in Jesus, we should hand him the list and ask him to check off the ones with which he concurs. If he gets the wrong ones, or misses some of the right ones, we should flunk him and refuse to baptize him until he can graduate in our catechism program. It is not right to baptize a person and label him as a sectarian or an "anti" before he can get his clothes changed and get out of our dressing-rooms.

     3. But can two walk together unless they be agreed? Of course they can. You walk with your wife, do you not? If a man comes to me and tells me that he and his wife have lived together for thirty years and never had a disagreement, I know that he will lie about other things, too, if he gets a chance. Perhaps there has been no other passage twisted, contorted and wrested more than Amos 3:3. The translators appointed by King James could hardly have realized what a club they were furnishing to men of a divisive spirit, with the rendering, "Can two walk together except they be agreed?"

     This in no sense conveys the idea of the original. In my book "The Twisted Scriptures" I analyze the entire context of the woefully misunderstood question as well as the purpose of the prophet. The word "agreed" is from a Hebrew original which means to arrange beforehand, to make an appointment, to agree to carry out a joint enterprise. Amos is showing that he is in Samaria because he had an appointment with God. The time had come to blow a trumpet of warning, and it was agreed that Amos was the one to blow it. He asks the question, which is the first of a related series, "Can two walk together unless they have made an appointment?"

     Amos was not providing a text for advocates of unity based upon conformity. He was talking about two agreeing to walk together, and not about two walking together because they were agreed. Two people might make an appointment to walk together to discuss their differences. But the use of this passage, jerked rudely from its context, points up one of the more serious aspects of the factional spirit. It destroys integrity and causes men to resort to unscrupulous means to bend the sacred scriptures to justify the very division among his children which God condemns.

     There is not a faction in the restoration heritage whose members all agree. Those who are vocal in their demand for separation from others on the basis of usage of individual cups, Bible classes, or instrumental music, disagree with one another on a score of things. They walk together in partisan acceptance although they may disagree on the qualifications of elders, birth control and contraception, going to war, divorce and remarriage, the work of evangelists, the nature and function of the Holy Spirit, and a host of other things. The only thing on which there must be agreement is the arbitrarily selected and elevated item which gives existence and status to the sect. If honest divergency were allowed here the factional balloon would burst and fall to the earth in that inglorious disgrace which it deserves.

     There is no unity except unity in diversity and all of our factions exhibit undeniable proof of it. They all practice it and they all deny it! This is the only place where they openly achieve uniformity. But God will judge men who elevate other things above the cross and demand that their brethren bow and kow-

[Page 136]

tow to such a partisan standard, and he will judge those of us who perpetuate such a sectarian division in our more enlightened day. It is because of this that I renounce the whole mixed-up mess and messed-up mix of our silly divided state.

     If the ideal of the restoration movement was to go back beyond all of the sectarian fractures which resulted from exaltation of human opinions and interpretations, and recapture the simplicity and oneness which characterized the primitive family of God, I propose to go back beyond all of our own sects and schisms, factions and fractions, parties and politics, and take my stand for the original foundation of the restoration movement. I am tired of the sham and hypocrisy that causes us to build our own little worlds in which to mill around because we are frightened to go into the big world which he made.

     If the restoration principle was valid for a divided Christendom, it is valid for a fractured restoration movement. I do not have time to wait for my brethren to quit floundering around in the swamps of strife, and start for the shore. I am standing on that shore now and I intend never again to be dragged back into the muddy quagmire of partisan debate. I shall help all of my brethren, not just some of them. I love them all, and whether they agree with me or not has nothing to do with it. We are blood brothers, brothers by the blood of the Lamb, and nothing will ever again negate the power of the blood in my life.