The Reason Why

[Page 188]

     In our issue for last month I felt called upon to review an article by my good brother, J. D. Thomas, as he presented it in Gospel Advocate. A sister in Christ who resides in Texas writes to know why I did not reply in the journal in which the article appeared. Since others may wonder the same thing. I will answer the question here for the benefit of all of our readers.

     On January 31, 1963, Brother Thomas had an article in Gospel Advocate under the title, "Brother Ketcherside's New Fallacy." I immediately wrote to Brother Goodpasture for permission to reply in his columns. I received a refusal. I had no alternative but to publish in full in Mission Messenger the article by Brother Thomas and reply to it. All of this is preserved on pages 49-59 of my book, "The Unity of the Spirit," which is now out of print.

     However, I felt moved at the time to try and arrange for public examination of my thesis on fellowship in a manner which would enable Brother Thomas to exhibit to me personally what he believed to be fallacies in my reasoning. I wrote to him on February 3, 1963, as follows:

     My dear brother in HIM:
     Grace, mercy and peace be unto you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. I have read with interest your article in the current issue of Gospel Advocate, en-titled "Brother Ketcherside's New Fallacy." The fact that you do not concur with my views related to the fellowship of the saints in no sense lessens my reverence and respect for you as my brother in Him who died for the misdeeds of both of us. But your intellectual and spiritual stature, coupled with the irenic spirit manifested in your article, emboldens me to make a proposal, which I trust you will accord prayerful consideration.

     Since I am sure that you believe in the right of sincere brethren who present their appeal in love, to be heard, can it be arranged that I come to Abilene for three sessions of two hours each, for public examination of my thesis? If so, I suggest that in the first two sessions I present objectively my position as to unity of the believers for one hour, and then submit to an hour of public questioning by a panel of three brethren, yourself being one and the other two being men of your selection. I further suggest that in the third session, after presentation of my views, I submit to questions (either oral or written) from the entire audience, with yourself acting as chairman of the meeting.

     It would he understood that neither yourself nor Abilene Christian College concurred in or endorsed my views, but simply that as free men we met in interest of truth. I pledge upon my honor, that I will conduct myself with gentlemanly courtesy to all the brethren and if I cannot lessen areas of conflict I will not widen chasms that exist. I will come at my own expense with the only requirement that we give sufficient notice of the meeting through brotherhood papers that all segments of the restoration movement will learn of the meeting and feel welcome. In the interest of fairness and justice, coupled with charity toward all, I am, your brother in the One Faith, Carl.

     Under date of February 9, our brother in the Lord sent me the following letter:

     Dear Brother Ketcherside: In reply to your recent letter inquiring about a public discussion of your present views, I wish to state that, for good and sufficient reasons, I would not be interested in trying to have such a discussion. Sincerely yours, J. D. Thomas.

      I am thoroughly in accord with the view that I should reply in the pages of Gospel Advocate, but the editorial policy which is committed to printing only that side of an issue which represents the view of the power structure in control makes that impossible. If any brother of influence can persuade Brother Goodpasture to allow my thinking on fellowship to be heard I will submit a clear statement for publication at once.

     I have repeatedly requested permission of Abilene Christian College to appear publicly and allow full questioning of my thinking. Another man in the scholastic field personally implored the former president to grant my request. Nothing has ever come of it. And nothing ever will so long as our brethren occupy their present sectarian stance and equate unity with bland conformity.

     On state university campuses student pressures would be exerted to allow those men and women who are enrolled to hear a man debarred purely because of authoritarian whim. But on the Christian College campus it is different. There

[Page 189]

unfairness will go unchallenged while brethren seek to obey the first and greatest commandment, "Thou shalt not rock the boat!"

     But cheer up! We will continue to print both sides of a matter when we think it is important to respond to a brother with whom we differ. It will be our aim to publish his article in full and attach our reply thereto, so that you can read and make up your own minds. This will help you to see why we do not reply to Brother Thomas in the Gospel Advocate or at Abilene Christian College.