Facing the Issues
W. Carl Ketcherside
[Page 1] |
Since 1957, when I wrote the first article entitled, "Thoughts on Fellowship," I have been urging brethren to set up dialogue sessions across lines and to discuss the fact that we have allowed carnality and immaturity to divide us until our witness as a unity movement has been negated and destroyed. Now we are seeing attempts being made to bridge chasms and span the gulfs. We stand upon the brink of what could become a historical breakthrough in the history of the restoration movement.
Although numerous meetings are being held in our day I will confine my remarks to one particular attempt, because it will tend to be more publicized than any other. It has been obvious for sometime that gradual changes are being made in the thinking of orthodox Church of Christ men, and that some of these brethren are becoming uncomfortable with their own attitude in an ecumenical atmosphere. When Reuel Lemmons wrote an article in Firm Foundation, in which he expressed the thought that the time had come for non-instrumental brethren to explore their thinking with representatives of Independent Christian Churches, James DeForest Murch wrote him asking how the matter should be implemented.
It was suggested that each select six brethren who would meet in Memphis and converse together about the divergencies, and become better acquainted. This meeting was characterized by a real spirit of fraternity and amiability. It was thereupon agreed that fifteen men from each group would meet in Saint Louis to continue joint exploration, and that the meeting remain on an invitational basis. At the Saint Louis gathering positional papers were presented and discussed, and all was done in a very brotherly and encouraging attitude.
In view of the fact that my name was publicly injected into both gatherings, and that I have no means of making my own position known except in MISSION MESSENGER, I am going to ask your gracious forbearance while I comment at length upon such a time of concern for all who love our Lord Jesus Christ in the Churches of Christ and Christian Churches. Since thousands of our readers do not receive Firm Foundation, I am printing in full herewith an editorial by Brother Lemmons, which appeared in the issue of his journal, dated September 30, 1969.
[Page 2] |
Faith or Opinion
By Reuel Lemmons
For three days, September 18-20, in St. Louis, Mo., 15 preachers and elders from among churches of Christ met with a team of fifteen brethren from the Independent Christian churches, in an effort to further explore possibilities of the two main bodies of brethren having a common heritage in the Restoration movement coming closer together. Those from among churches of Christ were Frank Pack, J. W. Roberts, Raymond Kelcy, Norvel Young, Bill Humble, Jimmy Allen, Tom Olbricht, Earl West, Harold Hazelip, Jay Smith, Hulen Jackson, Hardeman Nichols, Robert Bell, Eldred Cayce and this editor.We believe such meetings are productive of much good. Conscientious and sincere brethren who are willing to grapple with the issues and who are really concerned over any division among the Lord's people always do good when they become better acquainted and when they understand each other better. This was a blunt meeting in which issues were faced squarely, and yet one in which brotherly love and consideration for each other were evident.
The real issue between the two groups, as it has always been, is the issue of faith versus opinion. This was clearly brought out. There are several other grounds upon which there is disagreement other than instrumental music, but this issue illustrates the two divergent views concerning faith and opinion. We believe that the exclusion of instrumental music is demanded by faith; they believe it is a matter of opinion.
We tried to show, and we believe we did show, from the scriptures that such issues belong in the realm of faith. An action of faith is an action having as its motivating force the word of God. Singing is a good example. An action of opinion is an action having as its motivating force the mind of man. Inferences drawn from careful study do not qualify as opinions. Instrumental music is a good example of an action which admittedly stems from the mind of man, and which is not based upon inferences drawn from study. Therefore: faith does what God commands; opinion ventures anything God has not specifically prohibited.
The Bible is filled with both practices. Actions of faith are always commended. Actions of opinion -- where human judgment is interposed as an extension of the divine command have been severely condemned. We believe we can show that God, who never changes, has, in both the Old Testament and the New, placed his approval upon actions of faith and his disapproval upon extensions beyond faith into the realm of opinion. In this respect opinion becomes presumption, and presumptuous sins are more serious than is implied by simply using the word "opinion."
Let us consider some examples of presumption beyond faith. For example, Nadab and Abihu (Num. 16) were commanded to offer incense as a sacrifice of praise. They were to burn it with fire from the altar. God did not specifically prohibit strange fire. What God commanded they could do by faith. When they ventured into opinion they were destroyed.
There were various sacrifices commanded in the Old Testament. The plain command of God concerning each sacrifice made it possible to offer those sacrifices by faith. God did not have a "thou shalt not" law eliminating every other possible sacrifice. The very commandment which specified a certain sacrifice excluded all others.
Hamburger would pervert the Lord's supper, not because God has said, "Thou shalt not use hamburger," but because God's plain prescription concerning the elements of the supper circumscribes the limit to which we can go and still observe it by faith.
We cannot accompany prayer with incense by faith. We cannot accompany the gospel with added elements in teaching -- by faith. We cannot accompany giving with a raffle by faith. We cannot accompany the Lord's supper with hamburger -- by faith. Why would one think we can accompany the praise service with instrumental music by faith?
We believe a valid argument can be made on the authority of God in areas of silence. And the Holy Spirit thought so, too. In Heb. 1:5 the Spirit argues that Christ is superior to angels and the single argument that he made was that God was completely silent on the superiority of angels. The silence of God established the superiority of Jesus. Again, in Heb. 7, the priesthood of Jesus is proven to be different from that of the law on the sole basis of the fact that "the law spake nothing concerning priests" from the tribe of Judah. And still again, certain brethren who troubled the church in Acts 15 in an attempt to accompany Christianity with circumcision "to whom we gave no such commandment" were severely rebuked. These men were going beyond the commandment, but they were not violating any "thou shalt not" law.
Repeatedly we hear both inside the church and out of it, the challenge "Where is the verse that says you can't use it?" Is nothing a sin unless there is an explicit law against it? Those who want to gamble or sprinkle babies or practice open membership or pray to Mary can say "Where is the law against it?" Really, if we must find a specific prohibition for everything, before it can be sustained as a position of faith rather than opinion, there is actually no such thing as perversion in the absence of specific prohibition.
We walk by faith. Without faith it is impossible to please God. Faith cometh by hearing the word of God. What we do in praise to God must be done by faith. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. We can easily sing by faith, but we seriously question whether we can play by it.
[Page 3]Such meetings as the St. Louis meeting should be held all over the country. The two groups have too much in common not to try hard to solve their few differences. There was not, and should not be, any attempt at compromise of truth on either side. It is only through the sincere study of the word that we can ever hope to come to a unity of faith. And a unity of faith is what we must come to if we please the Lord. It behooves all of us on both sides of the issue to face up to the necessity of locating the issue in either faith or opinion. Just simply to express the opinion that it is in the realm opinion gets us nowhere. We are attempting to set forth in this article our reasons -- from the Bible -- for placing this issue in the realm of faith. If it is in the realm of opinion these reasons must be shown false and other reasons -- from the Bible -- set forth to put the issue in the realm of opinion. This simply must be done before we can come to a unity of faith. We did not get in our present condition overnight, nor will we get out of it overnight. We have little sympathy for unity efforts that seek to sweep under the rug real differences and simply refuse to face up to them. Such efforts are doomed before they start. But when brethren who love the Lord, and who are sincere in their love for each other, sit down together to really grapple with the issues that divide us, as did these men in St. Louis, then there is hope.
Although the Hilton Inn, where the meetings were held in Saint Louis, is less than a five minute drive from my home, I was not in attendance at the discussions. The brethren who use instruments could not invite me; those who do not would not invite me. I no longer belong to any kind of a party founded upon either the "pro" or "con" of the instrumental question. I represent no sect or segment in the religious realm, and since the problem of the fellowship was settled for me at Calvary, nineteen centuries ago, nothing that is said about it now will settle anything for me in the twentieth century.
I personally know most of the brethren from "the two main bodies" and I respect and regard them all as God's children and my brothers. I have no concern at all for "the two main bodies of brethren having a common heritage," or for any of the lesser bodies. So far as I am concerned there is only one body, even as there is only one Spirit and one hope. There never was but one body of brethren in Christ, and there will never be another. All who were present at Hilton Inn are in that one body which God created. If they are in anything else it is by their own creation, and it is sectarian. None of them were inducted into the one body because they endorsed instrumental music; none of them were adopted by the Father because they opposed it. I receive them all as brothers exactly as he received them all as children.
This does not mean that I oppose brethren from various parties coming together to discuss their religious hangups. Contrary to that, I rejoice exceedingly, and have pleaded for this very thing. I commend our brothers, Lemmons and Murch, for their concern and willingness to do something to remedy our shameful schismatic state. I am especially grateful to Brother Lemmons for demonstrating how the Spirit can use and transform us in this age. When I first began to go among the very same men who were at the Hilton Inn, our good brother wrote me up for going among what he then called "rank digressives." He predicted that if I had my way "the digressive element" would capture us all.
I am thrilled that these men are now "conscientious and sincere men who are willing to grapple with the issues." Really these brethren have not changed on the issues, or in their attitude toward them. Brother Lemmons has changed, and those who love him as I do are overjoyed at that fact. Perhaps my brother will deny that his attitude has changed. He may not even know that it has. The Holy Spirit can change us from one degree of glory to another and we might not recognize it, or give him any credit for it. But let us not quibble over such things. It is enough that we all be grateful that those who were once "rank di-
[Page 4] |
Let me not seem critical in review of some things, for if I engage in "blunt writing in which issues are faced squarely," I want brotherly love and consideration to be as evident in this little journal as it was in the conference room. The editorial will do a great disservice if it leaves the impression that "the real issue between the two groups, as it has always been, is the issue of faith versus opinion." That is not the case at all! The brethren who use instrumental music make a clear distinction between faith and opinion. Many of those who were present teach in Christian colleges. I have visited their schools and spoken in chapel to the student body. Without exception all believe that "in matters of faith there should be unity, while in matters of opinion there should be liberty."
The real issue is not faith versus opinion. The real issue concerns who shall be the infallible interpreter of scripture for other men, and who shall determine what is a matter of opinion for the consciences of other "conscientious and sincere brethren." This is the unenviable position which Brother Lemmons is forced to occupy by reason of the philosophy of Church of Christism. He must rule that what he has that other men oppose is a matter of opinion, but he must also rule that what other men have which he opposes is a matter of faith. He must be the official arbiter for the consciences of others.
Take the problem of Bible classes, for example. A lot of wonderful brethren think the Sunday School is "interposed as an extension of the divine command." Brother Lemmons roundly rebukes them for claiming it is a matter of faith. He calls them hobbyists. But when brethren who have the instrument contend that to them it is a matter of opinion, Brother Lemmons rebukes them also, and says it is in the realm of faith. This is the real issue and it was not clearly brought out in Saint Louis, nor will it be brought out in any future meeting of the brethren unless they forget and invite me to attend. It will be clearly brought out then!
Our good brother believes that he showed all in attendance that the issue related to instrumental music belongs in the realm of faith. Apparently his arguments sounded more convincing to his ears than to others, because they still all use the instrument and consider it is a matter of opinion. Brother Lemmons says, "An action of faith is an action having as its motivating force the word of God ... an action of opinion is an action having as its motivating force the mind of man." It really isn't that simple. All that God says is addressed to the mind of man. There never has been a disclosure of revelation that was not subject to reason and interpretation.
There are three spheres in which the mind operates -- knowledge, faith and opinion. And when an eager student of God's word investigates all that God has said, and forms an opinion based upon his over-all concept of God's will, concerning a matter which is not clear to him, it is God's word which motivates to that conclusion as a working hypothesis for himself, although not so for another. It isn't all quite as "black" and "white" as a lot of people think it is.
Our good brother seeks to escape from an anticipated noose by postulating that "inferences drawn from careful study, do not qualify as opinions." It is ap-
[Page 5] |
Are inferences identical with knowledge? Are they identical with faith? If they are either, why call them inferences? If they are not, are they left in the realm of opinion? Does not one opine that a thing is correct, based upon a consideration of factors involved, although there is no clear statement of fact? Is this not inference? Since our brethren universally hold that, "In matters of faith unity; in matters of opinion liberty; in all things charity," where does that leave matters of inference, or deduction? In the realm of charity? If so, let's start practicing love in spite of our inferences.
Our brother exhibits a failing common to men accustomed to laying down laws for others who do not engage in "careful study." He defines a thing arbitrarily, and then attacks his definition as if he were dealing with the thing itself. He defines opinion as "human judgment interposed as an extension of the divine command." He says that such has been severely condemned. Yet, in another editorial (May 4, 1965) he wrote, "There is plenty of room for diverse opinions in the church. The fact that we are Christians does not rule that out. Diverse opinions are often good. And in opinions there should be liberty."
If "an action of opinion is an action having as its motivating force the mind of man," and if "actions of opinion where human judgment is interposed as an extension of the divine command have been severely condemned," then how can there be liberty of opinion? I think that, in the final analysis, our brother would be forced to the position that the only opinions for which there is liberty are his own. No one else is entitled to an opinion, for to exercise an opinion would be to "make extensions beyond faith into the realm of opinion." Let us trust that he will not evade this by saying one is at liberty to hold an opinion if he never expresses it or acts upon it. That would condemn Brother Lemmons for having Bible classes and individual cups, both of which he says are in the realm of opinion.
Our brother equates opinion, as he defines it, with presumption, and adds that "presumptuous sins are more serious than is implied by simply using the word 'opinion.'" Surely he realizes that every word translated "presumptuous" or "presumptuously" in the word of God has inherent in it a sense of pride, arrogance, or rebellion. Does he imply that our brethren who sincerely think that instrumental accompaniment in conjunction with their praise service is justifiable, are acting in insolent defiance of the will of heaven? I know some very humble saints who assemble where an organ is played. I also know some very arrogant ones who do not. I doubt that an opinion about instrumental music constitutes a presumptuous sin, even though brethren may be mistaken about it. Brother Lemmons needs to know the difference between rebellion and a mistaken view.
It is amazing how much a lot of sermon outlines are indebted to Nadab and Abihu. But honestly now, do they really fit into this situation? Brother Lemmons got them mixed up with Korah, Dathan and Abiram. He told the story of Nadab and Abihu, and cited Numbers 16, which relates to the other case. This was an honest slip but it shows what happens to editors. I know, because it happens to me a lot more often than it does to Brother Lemmons. In any event, Nadab and Abihu offered unholy fire before the Lord, under a legalistic system where nothing common or ceremonially unclean was accepted.
[Page 6] |
These priests, whether drunk or sober, did not distinguish between that which was holy and that which was unholy, and thus did not teach by example. They died for their failure. They were in rebellion against God. But we are no longer under a legalistic system. We are under grace. Does our brother think that God is going to burn all of his children who love him and respect him, and seek to serve him acceptably and with godly fear, even though they may be mistaken about some element of their praise? Will fire come out and destroy them all? May they not believe that God has sanctified to his use their praise, and that it is no longer common or unclean?
Even under the law Aaron and the others continued to serve with Nadab and Abihu until the Lord smote them. They did not anticipate what God would do and start beating his other servants. On what grounds do our brethren today play God with their brethren and start cutting them off in advance of the judgment of God?
For years I have been waiting for some of my brethren to get beyond verse eleven in Leviticus 10, and tell about Eleazar and Ithamar, the brothers of Nadab and Abihu, but they never do. Nadab and Abihu suit their needs. But Eleazar and Ithamar also made a great mistake and disobeyed a direct command on the same day their brothers were killed. It is recorded in the same chapter. And Moses became very angry. These young men were to take the goat of the sin offering into the sanctuary and eat it there. It was specifically appointed to them as a thing most holy, so they could bear the iniquity of the congregation and make an atonement for all the people before the Lord. It was a positive command.
But upon this day they did not even bring the blood into the inner part of the sanctuary, and they did not eat the flesh of the sin offering as they had been commanded. Moses instituted a search for the goat and learned that it had been burned contrary to the law. He was highly incensed and jumped all over them. But Aaron pleaded that the things which had befallen the family that day had caused so much sorrow of heart that they were not in the proper frame of mind to eat the holy things, and did not feel that God would accept their services if they did obey the command.
"And when Moses heard that, he was content." Is this a case of situation ethics? Did human values transcend specific precepts? Did mercy rejoice over judgment? Why do we never hear about Eleazar and Ithamar and the forgiveness granted to them in spite of their violation of a command? I must mention one more thing. Our brethren bear down heavily upon the statement that Nadab and Abihu "offered unholy fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not." But George Bush, one time Professor of Hebrew and Oriental Literature at New York City University writes, "This, by a figure of speech called meiosis, is probably equivalent to saying, 'which the Lord had pointedly forbidden."' If careful study should sustain Professor Bush it will certainly shoot a big hole in some well-worn sermon outlines.
It is true that God commanded certain sacrifices and established a ritual under the Mosaic economy. Those who arrogantly rebelled against it were severely punished. But it is also true that not every one who failed to keep the due order was killed, because there is a difference in being rebellious against God's requirements and being mistaken about them. Nothing is clearer, even under the
[Page 7] |
In the days of Hezekiah a great many of the people ate the passover, "otherwise than it was written." The record says, "But Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, The good Lord pardon every one that prepareth his heart to seek God, the Lord God of his fathers, though he be not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary. And the Lord hearkened to Hezekiah, and healed the people" (2 Chronicles 30:18,19). Since the things written aforetime were written for our learning, perhaps this was written to show what leaders of the people, like Brother Lemmons, ought to do when their brethren prepare their hearts to seek God, but worship "otherwise than it is written."
Why does our brother not follow the example of this godly king? Does he think that God is less likely to hearken to such prayers under the economy of grace? It is true that it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God, but it may be worse to fall into the hands of dying brethren who specialize only in the people God slew without ever breathing a word about those whom he spared. If the situation was as bad as our brethren paint it under the old covenant how did anyone ever muddle through?
Forgive me for saying so, but I think the hamburger in the Lord's Supper bit has run its course. Certainly it would "pervert the Lord's Supper." The two elements in the Lord's Supper are specific symbols of the body and blood of the Lord. To add a third ingredient would serve to confuse the purpose and design of the Supper. But, right, wrong, or neutral, playing an instrument does not pervert the purpose and design of the singing, which is to praise God. If it did so, it would have been as true under the old covenant dispensation as under the new. In mature discussion of our present problem, grown-up brethren might well leave the childish "pork and beans" and "hamburger" argument at home. It in no sense parallels the situation and is introduced to bolster a presupposition.
A good many brethren feel that after the Memphis meeting the brethren who oppose instrumental music went home to "shore up" their argument on "the authority of God in areas of silence." At Saint Louis, Brother Lemmons gave the results of the research. It was alleged that in Hebrews 1:5, "the Spirit argues that Christ is superior to angels and the single argument that he made was that God was completely silent on the superiority of angels." Note that "single argument."
This statement is as full of fallacies as a sieve is of holes. In the first place, on the basis of logic, the superiority of one person cannot be established simply by silence about the superiority of other persons. The very best you can argue from this is equality. If God was silent about the superiority of the Son, and silent about the superiority of the angels, one would have to depend upon sheer conjecture to determine the superiority of one over the other.
But the argument of the Spirit is that God bestowed upon the Logos a title which is indicative of rank, and the very fact of its bestowal indicated superiority over all who did not receive the title. The Holy Spirit argues from a positive angle while Brother Lemmons argues from a purely negative posture. If the army authorities designate a man "Commanding General," it is not the fact that they do not say anything about the other soldiers which proves his superiority, but the conferring of the title.
It seems incredible that a student of Hebrews I would state that the Holy Spirit used "a single argument" to show the superiority of Christ. Actually, he used seven arguments. He affirmed the authority of Jesus on the following grounds: (1) Reception of a more excellent name, verse 4; (2) Superior relationship, verse 5; (3) Reverence demanded, verse 6; (4) Nature, verse 7; (5) Coronation, verse 8; (6) Authority granted, verse 13; (7) Type of ministry, verse 14.
Even more revealing, in the light of
[Page 8] |
Our good brother is just as mistaken about Hebrews 7, where he goes to show that "the priesthood of Jesus is proven to be different from that of the law on the sole basis of the fact that the law spake nothing concerning priests from the tribe of Judah." That was not the sole basis of proof at all. The priesthood of the Son, which was after the order of Melchizedek, was different than that of the law because, while the head of the legal priestly tribe was still in the loins of an ancestor, that progenitor was already paying tithes to Melchizedek (verse 7).
It differed in that the priesthood under the law had "a legal requirement concerning bodily descent," while the Son was made a priest "by the power of an indestructible life" (verse 16). It differed in that priests under the law were not inducted into office by an oath, while the Son was (verse 21). It differed because priests under the law were prevented by death from continuing in office while the Son has a permanent priesthood. The argument that the law said nothing about the tribe of Judah in conjunction with priesthood is not an argument for the authority of silence, but simply for the confirmation of silence. It was only one in a sequence of arguments.
But Brother Lemmons has now switched sides. In the case of instrumental music he argues that he cannot accept brethren who use it because the scriptures are silent on it, but in the case of the priesthood he argues that Jesus was to be accepted as a priest in spite of the silence of the scriptures. I have no doubt that the Jews put up the very same argument to reject Jesus as Brother Lemmons does to reject his brethren.
I confess that I am a wee bit leery of "the law of exclusion" and even more so of its application and interpretation by finite brethren. A lot of good humble people think that when someone talks learnedly about the law of this or that, it is a definitive rule spelled out in so many words, and if you know where to look in the statute-book, you can run your index finger down the page, and there it is in black and white. They do not realize that these "laws" are mostly in the minds of preachers, filed away with a clutter of generics and specifics, ready to be aimed at any unwary soul who commits the frightful error of differing with them on any point of deduction.
Most of the brethren are of the opinion that "we speak where the Bible speaks, and remain silent where it is silent," so when they hear one of us speaking, they automatically think it is the Bible speaking. But such terms as "the law of exclusion" are not in the Bible, and if we are going to call Bible things by Bible names, we will have to lift that one out of the slot. In other words, the law of exclusion excludes "the law of exclusion."
This does not generally bother brethren who contrive laws with loopholes to govern conditions, and then go off on a talmudical tangent and compile a lot of precedents which are a part of our tradition. Actually, of course, we do not have traditions. Only the sects have traditions, in our case it is "just the way we have always done it." It is sanctified by our practice and that keeps it from falling or being tossed into the barrel where traditions are stored, to be dragged out when needed, and when scripture is lacking.
The only thing that can really be proved about instrumental music from
[Page 9] |
Too, we dare never forget that what we have in the new covenant writings grew out of contemporary problems in the day when they were written. They are heaven's response to life events, and there may have been historical and cultural problems in the world of Ephesus and Colossae which made any statement about instrumental music irrelevant and immaterial. A lot of good brethren think this was the actual case. The point is that our final discovery of God's revealed purpose may not yet have been made. The last word on our understanding of this facet may not yet have been written. None of us know all there is to know about the matter, and that is probably why we differ.
Our brother next refers to the conference regarding circumcision which was held in Jerusalem. Certain disciples from Jerusalem had gone down to Antioch and taught the Gentile brethren that unless they were circumcised according to the custom of Moses they could not be saved. Paul and Barnabas challenged them and it was arranged for a deputation to visit the apostles and elders in Jerusalem and ascertain their feelings about the matter. It resolved in a decision of the apostles, elders and the entire congregation to send chosen men back with Paul and Barnabas to personally confirm a letter which was addressed to the Gentile saints in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia.
According to the King James Version, the letter began, "Forasmuch as we have heard that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment" (Acts 15:24). Our brother fastens upon this as one proof of his thesis on "the authority of God in areas of silence." But the word for commandment is one which means "to set forth distinctly," and then, "to enjoin, order or instruct."
In this instance it simply means that those who went down to Antioch and stirred up the furor did so without a commission from the brethren in Jerusalem. If Brother Lemmons is not careful he will be establishing the authority of the church and we will then be in trouble with Rome. The New English Bible rendering is, "We have heard that some of our number, without any instructions from us, have disturbed you with their talk." The Authentic New Testament reads, "Since it has come to our attention that some of our number, to whom we gave no such instructions, have been confusing you with their statements."
Since our brother introduced the Jerusalem conference, let me ask why the Saint Louis conference did not follow the pattern set at Jerusalem? That conference ended in a compromise and thus avoided forming a "circumcision faction" and an "uncircumcision faction." Unity was maintained in spite of some deep problems. It was agreed that Paul and Barnabas would go among the Gentiles and not advocate circumcision for them, while James, Peter and John would go to the Jews and insist upon their circumcising their children and keeping the customs of Moses (Acts 21:21). On this basis the right hand of fellowship was given.
Why did the brethren at Hilton Inn not give each other the right hand of fellowship, and agree to allow each congregation of saints to be free under God to approach him as they understood the
[Page 10] |
If the brethren in apostolic times could live in fellowship with some congregations insisting upon circumcision for their constituency, and others taking an opposing stance, surely we can, for the sake of unity in the blood-bought body of the redeemed ones, live without fragmenting over such things as a congregational decision to accompany their singing with the strains of an organ.
There is some indication that brethren are coming together to spar for a factional victory. They are not really seeking truth because they think they already have it. It is possible that continued association will cause them in the distant future to forsake their defensive posture which makes them regard one another as rivals and brotherly enemies. If they do they can then start listening honestly to one another. At present they are bandying around the same old slogans and arguments with which they have bombarded each other ineffectively for years.
It would be regrettable indeed if the non-instrument brethren approach the dialogue with a pontifical attitude as if they were the infallible interpreters of God's will and all the other brethren can do is to capitulate and bow to the ultimate and inevitable. It would be regrettable for the instrumental brethren to do this also, but I understand that they are not insisting that we see the matter as they do to be in the fellowship of the reconciled. They are not coming to the meetings to bind their practice upon others.
There is something about the "easy answer" attitude which has been bred in us by Church of Christism, which causes a lot of the brethren to feel that they are a superior breed and can look down from the brow of Olympus upon lesser mortals. This kind of tragic arrogance causes them sometimes to get up and go through childish "sermon outlines" in an attempt to vanquish others who may have a doctoral degree in Biblical study. While they earn and deserve the compassion of real scholars they occasionally congratulate themselves that they have won a victory simply because others choose to ignore them. Even a horsefly may think it has conquered a horse if the tolerant animal does not swat the pest in the first five minutes with a well-aimed switch of its tail.
Brother Lemmons agrees that the brethren have much in common and few differences. He is right in pleading for a sincere study of the word of God. All of us need that, and sincere study will lead us to see that God never did authorize division as a means of settling differences among brethren. It is condemned every time it is mentioned by the Spirit. But our brother is confused if he thinks that unity of the faith demands absolute agreement upon music, methods or the millennium, or on cups, classes or colleges. Thousands of good brethren are in the faith and are one in Christ Jesus, who disagree upon these and other matters. They will never agree upon all of them while this world stands!
Did not most of these brethren hold their present views when they embraced the faith at baptism? Did not the Father accept them into the faith as his children while they were holding such views? If God could welcome them into the family circle with their varied and mistaken views, on what ground can Brother Lemmons later reject them for the same views? Is anything more required of me to accept a man as my brother than is required of the Father to accept him as a child?
[Page 11] |
It is true if all come to agree that instrumental music is in either the realm of faith or opinion we will all be one on that issue. All of us agree we should unite on matters of faith. All of us agree we should not divide over opinions. At the present time Brother Lemmons holds the opinion that instrumental music is a matter of faith, while Brother Murch holds the opinion that it is a matter of opinion. They are obligated not to divide over their opinions, so they must work together until honest brethren finally decide whether it is a matter of faith or a matter of opinion.
Why does not the "much in common" have as great a power to hold us together as the "few differences" have to drive us apart? Are we guilty of the factional spirit so that a few differences mean more to our divisive hearts than the many mutual concerns? Are we victims of the Satanic will to divide? Why can we not at least work together up to the point of difference? Must we splinter the trunk of the tree because the topmost branches point in different directions?
Our brother is right in pointing out that we will not get out of our condition overnight. We will never get out of it unless we allow the Holy Spirit to crush the party spirit in our hearts. Our schism will be healed in many places. It will require a little more integrity and a little less fear of men, and we can labor together in many areas. At least one of the brethren invited by Brother Lemmons has already been speaking to Christian Church gatherings and recognizing those present as his brothers. And he sings while they are playing the instruments. I know because I was there.
If this brother had gotten up in Saint Louis and told the brethren that he was through making a silly test of fellowship out of the matter and would have advised them to follow suit, it would have jerked the magic carpet out from under the whole group. But it is probably best to let the brethren go through with their speeches, dreary as the experience may be, so they will be able to save face "down home." We have played politics so long now in the Church of Christ that we would not want to quit abruptly and kill it with withdrawal symptoms. In any event, I know a whole lot of brethren in the Independent Churches who do not practice what they preach, and a whole lot of them in the Church of Christ who do not preach what they practice!
There is a difference between throwing a mantle of love over our brethren and sweeping our differences under the rug. Brother Lemmons wants to reject the brethren first and then discuss how we can get them back together. I propose to receive the brethren first and then seek to resolve our problems. Our fathers sinned when they divided over instrumental music, and I shall not be guilty of perpetuating the sins of the fathers. My brethren are more important to me than our issues. Jesus did not die for a particular position on instrumental music. He died for men! I do not propose to "destroy a brother for whom Christ died" by my views on any of our issues. Man was not made for music, but music was made for man!
Brother Lemmons recommends more such invitational, semi-secret, closed-door sessions be held all over the country. While there are many undesirable features about such gatherings it is probable that it is about all that can be done by the participants in our present party-ridden, fear-driven state. Some of us have long since thrown off the yoke of factional bondage
[Page 12] |
This prompts me to say that while I am glad the brethren are conversing together as they did at Saint Louis, it is possible that they are twenty years too late to have any real bearing on the restoration movement. The new generation, the restless ones, are no longer hooked on the issues discussed at Hilton Inn. They do not suffer from the hangups and neuroses which wreaked havoc on the restoration movement of the nineteenth century. The "real issues" do not concern whether a child of God can play a piano in a priestly structure on Sunday, or use Sunday School quarterlies in teaching a class.
The "real issues" which throb and pulsate through the incisive minds of the "jet set" in all of our camps have to do with denial of common human dignity to minority groups in our midst; the morality of war in the nuclear age when civilians are shot far behind the lines, maimed, blinded, and their intestines blasted out; the hypocrisy which builds huge temples made with hands in which to worship God, while people suffer from hunger and malnutrition a few blocks away; the blatant pretense of loving our Father while hating and despising his children.
Meetings like the one in Saint Louis will act as a purgative for the hostility which men nourished up inside by their years of partisan attack and debate, but whatever decision is reached will have a hollow ring. It will not be nearly so important as the principals would like to make it appear. It is as if Rip Van Winkle had aroused from twenty years of slumber to call a conference to discuss the implications of the British Stamp Act, or as if a few Roman Catholics and Lutherans met at a Holiday Inn to read papers dealing with the morality of eating meat on Friday.
History did not stop and wait for our brethren who "fell out by the way." And history will not wait for them to catch up, even though they are now riding together in the same chariot, arguing and reading papers to one another as they come. We are in the Space Age and we face problems of such magnitude that they make our little internecine squabbles of the past appear like a dispute over which brand of paper cups to use in the meeting of the local Parent-Teacher Association.
If you have read this far, you are to be commended for your patience, but I crave a little more of your generosity while I again enunciate my personal position. I shall make nothing a test of fellowship which God has not made a condition of salvation. Whether my brethren use instruments of music or not, whether they are pre-millennial or post-millennial, they are my brothers. I will work with them, share with them and help them as they will allow. I will love them regardless of how they treat me. I will not return evil for evil if I know it.
All of those who gathered in Saint Louis are my brethren. Nothing they conclude about their issues will affect my regard for them. My faith will not be decided at the Hilton Inn. It was decided long ago by him for whom there was no room in the inn. "My hope is built on nothing less, than Jesus' blood and righteousness." Wherever my Father has a child, I have a brother. It is just that simple!