Answering the Buzzer

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 101]

     George G. Beazley, Jr., is the ecumenical officer of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). He is also my brother in Christ. It is as a brother, not as an enemy, that I write this. In The Christian for February 14 of this year, appears a news item entitled, "Beazley 'Lashes Out' at Attacks on Ecumenical Groups." It provides quotes from a regular report to the churches called "The Beazley Buzz."

     In the January issue of his report our brother reveals that for the first time in his life he believes ecumenical institutions "are in real danger of being destroyed." His newly-developed fears match my long-held convictions. Not being an ecumenical officer and having no organization to defend or protect, I am not perturbed. Our brother has a right to be frightened. He is president of the Disciples Council on Christian Unity, and chairman of the nine-denomination Consultation on Church Union.

     A great many brethren who are antagonistic to the Disciples' wing of "the restoration brotherhood" have accepted it as a foregone conclusion that COCU would be pushed through like a pro-football team on a quarterback sneak through a bunch of high school freshmen. They

[Page 102]

have found it hard to swallow in question forums when I have suggested that they not get heart failure in happy anticipation of being able to say, "I told you so!" There are some fairly sectarian attitudes toward "the sectarian attitude" of the Disciples of Christ.

     At the same time, the latter have thought of me as a kind of Neanderthal throwback, a sort of reactionary fuddy-duddy, out of tune with the Now generation. They have spoken positively of the "ongoing Spirit," and have sought to make it appear that the Holy Spirit planted the idea of ecumenical institutions in their minds and they are just carrying out the will of God in promoting them. This doesn't really bug me. I've spent a lifetime with good folk who sincerely think that anything they dream or drum up is the will of the Spirit. And the Spirit is given credit for some pretty "hairy experiences."

     Brother Beazley is a little wild in his thinking--I think! He asserted that the destruction of ecumenical institutions would kill the Christian unity movement and leave the church "not the church our Lord brought into being." It is talk like that which turns off those who love Jesus and the One Body. Our brother is a victim of that institutional virus which always creates a feverish state and influences one to speak incoherently and irrationally. I know! I was afflicted with the malady for years.

     The fact is that the real Christian unity will not be affected one whit if every ecumenical institution on earth curls up and dies. In some cases, it could be a help. Christian unity has enough problems without being swaddled in institutional red tape and conventional gobbledygook! Christian unity is not a federation of sects, a confederation of parties, or a pantheon of congregations, each worshiping its own image. It is individual, and a creation of the Holy Spirit. "You are one body, and all of you are individually members of it." That is what the Holy Spirit once said, and I doubt he has changed his mind since he became "ongoing."

     Brother Beazley needs to re-study the apostolic letters to see what kind of church "our Lord brought into being." I am interested in his concern to restore that church. I had been led to believe from some rather intensive reading that a goodly number of brethren couldn't care less about really perpetuating it. Our brother is in a strategic position to bring a real witness to the Consultation for Church Union if he is sincere in wanting to preserve the church "our Lord brought into being."

     Our brother "lashed out" at attacks from both right and left. He called upon every Disciple "to become a soldier in the battle to overcome polarization, to attain balance and comprehensiveness and to preserve the ecumenical movement and the institutions which carry it." I do not want to appear hyper-critical but it seems to me that the admonition to overcome polarization may be slightly tinged with poor grace. I do not intend to be sarcastic, but I attended several of the convention sessions when restructure was on the agenda, and it appeared to me as an "outside observer" that some of the brethren from Indianapolis were not worried about polarization if they could ride the program through.

     Really, I think the great problem is that the ecumenical movement arrived on the scene too late. This is one reason I doubt that the Spirit originated it. He is not generally that far off on his timing. There is a great spirit of lassitude toward movements which have to create institutions to sustain and carry them. Men are sick of institutions. They are "fed up to here" with them. At the same time the Spirit of God is cutting through artificial and sectarian barriers like a buttered knife through hot fudge. After letting the brethren demonstrate the futility of human wisdom and planning, God may do a little restructuring of his own and frustrate all of our movements. Since I no longer belong to any sect, segment, fraction or fragment, I can say "Praise the Lord!" There are tremendous values in being a Christian only, after having pretended to be one for so long.

[Page 103]

     Brother Beazley says, "This battle, as you well know, will take place, or is already taking place, in every congregation. As you also realize, no one can engage in it without risk. Unless he is willing to take the risk, no local pastor or lay leader is really giving leadership."

     This is an admission that the brethren are not going to surrender their birthright of autonomy lightly. Our brother says the attempt to infiltrate the congregations with the ecumenical structures is a battle. Apparently there are resistance fighters in every locality. This ought to come as a surprise to a bunch of folk I know who have dismissed the Disciples as a group of apathetic, lackadaisical, devil-may-care compromisers. I am not sure that ecumenical institutions are really worth taking such a "frightful risk" as our brother projects. About all that could happen would be the loss of a job. And sometimes that is a blessing rather than a disaster.

     In any event, I hope the freedom fighters will encourage all of the saints to examine the Word of God, to look to heaven rather than to Indianapolis for salvation, and to make up their own minds about their congregational future. We need more than anything else in this age to get back to a real, genuine, vital, and personal relationship with God through the blood of his Son and the power of the indwelling Spirit.

     There may be nothing particularly wrong about institutions but when men begin to think of them as indispensable to the purpose of God, Ephraim may have to be separated from his idols. There was nothing wrong with trees but when men began to carve them into stocks and confuse them with God they became dangerous. Some of the prophets took the risk of pointing this out and were stoned to death for "really giving leadership."

     Brother Beazley says, "The ecumenical bodies are not without mistakes, some of them serious, but cutting off funds is not the way to deal with mistakes, because local congregations make mistakes too." I disagree with my good brother. He knows as we all do that ecumenical bodies have thrown money down a lot of rat-holes, and when the rats did not dig enough holes, the ecumenical thinkers helped them out of the shortage by digging some of their own. Obviously, a great deal of good was done in some places, but it is also true that every fuzzy-brained cause imaginable has been supported under guise of serving Christ in our world.

     Cutting off funds is exactly the way to deal with repeated mistakes in spending money! Why should I be called upon to invest repeatedly in that in which I have no faith? Why should I turn my hard-earned cash over to an institution to sow to the winds when I am not in favor of the winds? I am going to have to answer to Jesus in the Great Confrontation for the way I use my time, talent and treasure. I will not be able to wiggle out of responsibility by pointing the finger at an ecumenical institution when I knew ahead of time what use would be made of my contributions. The best way to solve the problem of institutional chickens multiplying is not to wring their necks one by one, but to close down the hatchery.

     Our brother equates ecumenical bodies with local congregations and points out that they both make mistakes. He is right on his last observation and wrong on his original equation. There is a great difference. If the local deacons repeatedly use funds for projects that are detrimental they can be removed from office by the very ones who supply the money. But an "ecumenical body" is a long way off from little Pleasant Valley Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) down in the hills. And the folks who supply the oil never get to see the complex machinery and wouldn't know how to turn it off if they did. About their only recourse is to stop sending oil and keep it for their lamps in case the Lord comes sooner than the ecumenical institutions expect him to arrive.

     Perhaps the brethren will think that I should keep my nose out of "their business," but I no longer think in terms of "us and them." I do not beam my love to brethren because they are in the Disciples of Christ, Christian Churches or

[Page 104]

Churches of Christ. I am interested in brethren and not in their structures or corrals. My association with the brethren in Indianapolis and Saint Louis has been fraternal and amicable. They have always been kind and considerate, helpful and understanding toward me. When we have appeared together on forums there has always been a proper respect and dignity manifested.

     But I am persuaded, after much study and personal soul-searching, that I must speak my honest sentiments about the Consultation on Church Union. I think it is a tragic error. I am convinced that it would forfeit every principle for which our fathers fought I believe in Christian unity but "church union" as our brethren envision it is not in God's program.

     In closing, permit me to say that this little review is not in any sense a personal reflection upon my brother in Christ, George Beazley, Jr. He is a personable, erudite and qualified man. His address to the saints simply provided an opportunity for me to set forth my own personal convictions. When Brother Beazley "buzzed" I felt that I should respond to the buzzer. I pray for him as eagerly as I pray for all of the rest of us!