Argument from Silence

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 129]

     It has been my intention, God being my helper, to refrain as much as conscience will permit, from direct confrontation with other editors among the brethren. If they differ with my position I prefer to publish notice of their presentation and urge my readers to secure it and read for themselves. I want no rival except Satan and I do not intend to edit a partisan journal.

     Occasionally, however, I feel it necessary to state my convictions in opposition to an editorial, and when I do, I seek to be as objective as possible without being objectionable. I now find myself at the place where I must again disagree with my brother, Reuel Lemmons, editor of Firm Foundation. I propose to say a little about his article "The Music Question," as it appeared in the issue of June 20.

     I would prefer, of course, to have my reply appear in the pages of Firm Foundation, but there is no hope of my "crashing the barrier." The last two articles I submitted were returned with curt and polite notes to the effect that our brother does not intend to provide me an audience where I can exhibit my thinking about the fellowship of the Spirit. He wants to protect his readers from any views on the topic which he does not regard as orthodox, so he has pulled the paper shade over the window. I respect the right of the brethren to read what is said on all sides of an issue without clerical interference. I do not think my readers are so ignorant they must be fed only pre-digested journalistic fare. For that reason, I will again print his editorial in full, so that you may have both positions before you for study.

     Brother Lemmons regards himself as the golden mean between two extremes. Almost all editors feel this way about themselves, but he advertises himself as walking in the middle of the road. This is intended to conjure up an image of a faithful stalwart marching squarely down the white line in the center of the pavement while everyone else is slogging through the weeds and underbrush on the right hand or on the left. This is hardly a picture of reality. Our brother remains in the middle of the road by dashing frantically from one ditch to the other. Occasionally he slips and sticks one foot into the swamp up to his knee. His distracted supporters hardly know from week to week which flag to wave.

     I mention this so that if my reply seems outdated by the time it appears, I urge you not to throw the paper away. Save it, and when the merry-go-round makes its circuit, it will be appropriate again. Brother Lemmons is not wholly to blame for this. He is caught in an editorial vise. He edits a paper for a many-hued party, which he acknowledges is quite inconsistent, so he is forced to develop chameleon-like traits, if he is

[Page 130]

to please all of what he refers to as the "heirs to the Restoration movement." But here is his editorial. Read it carefully.

THE MUSIC QUESTION

     One of the main roadblocks on the path to unity among heirs of the Restoration is, admittedly, the use of instrumental music in the worship of the church. Many feel that this is the main difference between two great wings of the movement. We have repeatedly maintained that the instrument is not the problem; it is a symptom of the problem. The reason why we have two bodies, almost totally out of fellowship with each other is not the instrument; it is a difference of attitude toward the Scriptures.
     Usually when we say this certain liberal writers ridicule the idea, but they are careful not to deal with it. We feel that it must be dealt with and settled before there can be any real hope for closer fellowship.
     Rooted as far back at least as the Protestant Reformation are two attitudes toward the authority of the Scriptures. One holds that where God has not specifically legislated concerning any matter we are free to do as each chooses to do; the other holds that God's failure to allow is tantamount to prohibition. Both groups have the same respect for God's plain and specific commands; it is in the realm of God's authority in areas of silence that we differ.
     There are some areas where all of us respect the authority of God in areas of silence. In the Lord's supper we have unleavened bread and fruit of the vine. Why? Because God's Word says so. Why do we not have ham and gravy on the Lord's table? Because the Lord's failure to allow is tantamount to prohibition. We have only two items because the two items are specified. The very failure to specify anything else we accept as prohibition against anything else. By what reasoning can we exclude ham on the Lord's table and include instrumental music?
     Conrad Grebel, in his book Spiritual and Anabaptist Writings says, "Whatever we are not taught by clear passages or examples must be regarded as forbidden, just as if it were written: this do not..." Detrich Philip in his Enchiridion or Hand Book says, "Many ancient and modern teachers have examined into and concluded...that whatever God has not commanded, that he has prohibited. Hence all worship and service that is not ordained or instituted by an express command of God is wrong."
     We believe this principle to be a righteous one. We do not see how anyone really serious about restoring the faith and practice of the first century church can afford to be presumptuous in any area where God has not authorized us to go.
     The principle has its application in many areas other than the instrumental music area. Because God has not specifically prohibited a missionary society many assume that it is all right to have one. Others feel that since God is silent about a superstructure for the pyramidal organization of congregations into a super church machine it is all right to have one. Others feel that God's provision for congregational church government excludes by its very silence such organizations. To be consistent one would have to apply the authority of God in areas of silence to the instrument question as well as to the church government question. By what logic could one be free in one area not specifically prohibited and bound in another area just as free of specific prohibition?
     And we find among non-instrumental people an inconsistent application of the principle also. Some who would not consider using the instrument because of God's prescription for vocal music and the absence of his command for anything else, will stoutly defend methods of regulating, governing, and controlling the work of the church about which the silence of God is profound. If the silence of God is enough to forbid the use of the instrument why is not the silence of God enough to forbid the creation of other institutions to do the work of the church? If the lack of any Divine directive is grounds for excluding something from our worship why is not the same lack of Divine directive grounds for excluding non-scriptural organizations from our work?
     There are many things other than the music question that indicate this difference in attitude toward the Scriptures. Both sides should be extremely careful in dealing with them. If God's failure to say, "Thou shalt not..." frees us to do as we see best, then there are vast fields of freedom that none of us have dared yet to explore. Practically anything would go, for God has said, "Thou shalt not..." in very, very few instances in the New Testament. On the other hand if we are bound to interpret the absence of a direct command as a prohibition, many of our own projects are suspect.

[Page 131]

     Because of the unwillingness of most heirs of the Restoration to apply with any degree of consistency either interpretation, a large segment of the Restoration movement has given up as wholly untenable the entire Restoration plea and hold it invalid. Before there can be any degree of unity between the elements that remain we must honestly deal with the question of the authority of God in areas of silence.

     Wings are for the birds. I am no longer the least bit interested in being a member of a wing. I am a member of the one body and it embraces every single one of God's precious children. Jesus is head of the body not lord of a wing. Brother Lemmons is not going to contribute one thing toward what he calls "closer fellowship" by merely being "Wing Commander" of an exclusive patty which he mistakenly identifies as the called out community of the Prince of peace. We do not have two bodies, as he puts it. There are two wings, which are sects, both of which mistakenly think they are "it."

     Our brother is eminently correct in maintaining that "the instrument is not the problem." He is seriously off base when he asserts that "it is the symptom of the problem." The real symptom is an article such as our brother wrote. It betokens a grossly mistaken view of what constitutes worship of God, and a childish approach to the majestic fellowship into which we have been called of God. The problem is the same as it was at Corinth, the carnality and immaturity which allows men under the guise of faithfulness to the Father to kill off his other children and to set at nought their brethren as if the scriptures had been utterly "silent" on the matter.

     I think that a lot of perceptive brethren on all sides are getting fed up with the constant drumming on the theme, "It is a difference of attitude toward the Scriptures." Brother Lemmons has been trying to produce harmony by sawing away on this one fiddle-string, and he is out of tune even on it. This accusation is a red herring which has been dragged back and forth across the trail for almost a century, and every time brethren set out on the road to peace, someone brings it out again and they are led off baying into the wilderness until they become exhausted.

     As usual, our brother makes it appear that only "liberals" will deny his thesis. The word "liberal" is a dirty word to readers of the Firm Foundation and it rouses the rabble. Our brother uses it to frighten off anyone from making a reply to his article, or to keep the gullible from reading a reply if one is made. But the tag "liberal" is another red herring, more fishy and smelly than the first.

     I'm no longer frightened by the silly terms brethren use as brands and stigmata. Everyone is a hobbyist to some and a liberal to others. I can bring you a pile of religious magazines in which Brother Lemmons is assailed as a "liberal" and one of them says he "out-liberals the liberals," whatever that means. Any person who does not accept our brother's diagnosis or take his prescription is a liberal. I am not going to ridicule his idea about what is affecting the "wings," but I do say it is simply a rehash of a simplistic and unworkable approach which contains no answer to

[Page 132]

the problem and will only prolong the agony.

     In the first place, he projects an image which is as counterfeit as a three dollar bill. He writes as if there were "two great wings," one of which has a correct approach to the scriptures, while the other has a fundamentally warped idea of interpretation. The idea is that if those who use instrumental music will approach the scriptures as do those in "the right wing" we will have "hope of closer fellowship." Then, pray tell us why those in the "right wing" are more divided than almost any other group on the face of the earth?

     Brother Lemmons is the authority for stating recently that there are more than two dozen segments of the non-instrument wing. Some of these exhibit a greater degree of hostility and bitterness toward one another than do people in the world who are alienated from Christ Jesus. There are more than twenty-five little wings in this one great wing. Indeed, if brethren who use instrumental music all gave it up for "the sake of unity" they would then have to decide where to cast their lot. If they went with Brother Lemmons they would come under fire from one direction as liberals, and from the opposite as hobbyists. They would soon learn that "the authority of silence" is pretty flexible and can be bent around like a licorice rope to justify what you want while condemning what the other man has.

     I deny that our current problem is rooted in "two attitudes toward the authority of the Scriptures." That is just not the case and as long our brother keeps on thinking and writing that it is, he will aggravate and perpetuate the problem while offering no solution. I have, for several years, refused to make a test of union or communion out of a congregational decision to accompany praise with the sound of instrumental music, despite my own personal preference and conviction. I have moved freely among all segments of the restoration movement heirs, sharing with them my insights when permitted to do so, and listening to them when they refused to listen to me. I can speak from some measure of experience.

     My brethren who use instrumental music respect the authority of the scriptures. They love the Bible. They teach respect for it and inculcate a deep and abiding reverence for its precepts. They do not intend to wilfully and maliciously oppose God's will in anything. It is a false accusation against these brethren to say that they do not regard the authority of the Scriptures. It is just not true!

     Brother Lemmons admits that both groups have the same respect for God's plain and specific commands. This means that all equally and cheerfully accept what God has said. They all hear what the Spirit has spoken to the churches. This is interesting! Will obedience to the plain and specific commands make one a child of God? Is one saved if he keeps all of the commands? Does Brother Lemmons respect the plain and specific command not to set at nought a brother? What about his attitude toward the command, "Welcome one another, therefore, as Christ has welcomed you for the glory of God"?

     But he replies, "It is in the realm of God's authority in areas of silence that we differ." Can an honest difference about what God has not said destroy the relationship created by doing what God has said? Can a mistaken view about something not revealed damn one who properly respects all of God's plain and specific commands? Does not Brother Lemmons make God's silence more

[Page 133]

authoritative than his revelation? Who is to interpret and enforce the authority of God in areas of silence? Who is to determine why God did not speak? Who will fill in the blanks? Who will determine for all men everywhere the purpose and motivation of the infinite Father in areas where he has not deigned to command?

     Where does the Bible speak about "the authority of silence"? What book, chapter and verse plainly defines and delineates it? Our good brother affirms that as far back as the Protestant Reformation there have been two attitudes toward the authority of the Scriptures. "One holds that where God has not specifically legislated concerning any matter we are free to do as each chooses to do; the other holds that God's failure to allow is tantamount to prohibition." But these are not attitudes toward the authority of the Scriptures. They are personal attitudes of those who respect the Scriptures. These are presuppositions used as a frame of reference in which to approach and know the will of God.

     These are mental spectacles through which to read, but there is a difference between the spectacles and that which is read by their use. Spectacles are donned before the reading begins. What Brother Lemmons needs to do is to quit accusing sincere brethren of lack of respect for the authority of the word of God and attack their spectacles. Why does he not do so? The answer is plain. He also has spectacles. The presupposition of those who oppose Brother Lemmons is secured from the same source as that from which Brother Lemmons secured his presupposition, that is from human deduction.

     There is no scripture which says "God's failure to allow is tantamount to prohibition." That is a human deduction from what a certain school of thought thinks is taught in the scriptures. God did not say that. The Holy Spirit did not reveal it. Our brethren have rationalized about the implications of certain isolated statements and incidents recorded in the scriptures and have fashioned an intellectual approach or bias, to interpretation of scripture, which they believe is fair and honest, but which they now mistakenly equate as equal to divine revelation. Brother Lemmons' entire thesis is that unless you agree with his presupposition you do not respect the authority of the Scriptures. Other brethren respect the authority of God's Word but they do not think that Brother Lemmons is the divinely-ordained optometrist for the whole family of God.

     This places the matter in proper perspective. A great many brethren respect the authority of God who do not bow to the authority of Brother Lemmons. They love the Word which came from heaven but they do not put the word which proceeds from Texas in the same category. They know the difference between the firm foundation of God which standeth sure, and the Firm Foundation which our good brother edits and which sometimes wobbles. Many brethren do not think that Brother Lemmons can speak for them in areas where God has not spoken to them. It would thrill their souls if Brother Lemmons would be as silent as God is in "areas of silence."

     Our brethren have too long indulged in such trifling in debates. We need to pray for them that they will mature beyond this state. I have no hesitancy in saying that it is not merely the "Lord's failure to allow" which keeps me from having ham and gravy on the Lord's table. A great many brethren believe they can furnish reasoning by which they can exclude ham on the Lord's table and include instrumental music with their praise. They would like to ask Brother Lemmons some questions about how he can oppose instrumental music while freely including some things he already has, and I do not mean ham and gravy. Since I am not in any sense a defender of the use of instruments, even as an aid or an expedient, I will allow brethren who are to handle that phase of the problem.

     Our brother refers to Conrad Grebel and cites a quotation from what he calls "his book on Spiritual and Anabaptist Writings." Brother Lemmons is confused. The quote is from an anthology of Texts printed in the Library of Christian Classics, XXV. It is entitled Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers: Documents Illustrative of the Radical Reformation and Evangelical Catholicism. It was jointly edited by Angel M. Mergal and George Hunston Williams. I mention this because several of my readers I have encouraged to become researchists in The Radical Reformation as opposed to The Protestant Reformation and The Catholic Counter Reformation. Brother Lemmons also makes reference to "Detrich Philip," who was really Dietrich (Dirk) Philips, whose book of 650 pages was issued in 1564 under the title of Enchiridion or Handbook for the Christian Soldier.

     I happen to be a great admirer of Conrad Grebel, leader of the Swiss Brethren. I appreciate Felix Mantz of Zurich, in whose home Grebel launched the Anabaptist Movement by baptizing George Blaurock, January 21, 1525. But Brother Lemmons quotes from these men because he thinks they agree with his views. He would drop them like "hot potatoes" if he knew how they applied the principle which he says is righteous. I have previously dealt at length with our brother's use of the word "presumptuous" in this connection. You will find it in the chapter called "Facing the Issues," starting on the first page of my book Our Living Pattern. That chapter explores fully another editorial in which our brother cites scriptures which, at the time he used them, he felt would justify his position.

     He writes, "Some who would not consider using the instrument because of God's prescription for vocal music and the absence of his command for anything else, will stoutly defend methods of regulating, governing and controlling the work of the church about which the silence of God is profound." This can mean nothing else than that our brother is in the fellowship and working with men who, to use his term, violate "the realm of God's authority in areas of silence where we differ." Why does he continue to labor with these who ignore the authority of scripture in those areas in which "the silence of God is profound"? Our good brother should blush to mention inconsistency in application of principles.

     I challenge him to name those "among non-instrumental people" who will "stoutly defend" their intrusions upon areas of silence. Let the truth be known.

[Page 135]

     He wrote a whole series of articles attacking what he was pleased to designate the "hidden body and poison of error" of Brother Ketcherside. He mentioned my name fifteen times on one page of his journal. But he will never name those to whom he now alludes. They are members of his party. They are allied with the faction for which his journal speaks. They are in his "wing of the movement."

     Will our brother be specific about the "methods of regulating, governing and controlling the church" fostered by our non-instrument brethren where the silence of God is profound? What are these methods? Who is guilty of promoting them? What are the "other institutions to do the work of the church"? Is he referring to orphan homes, homes for the aged, or homes for unwed mothers? Is he talking about the Herald of Truth radio and television programs? Does he refer to the annual conventions (called lectureships) where churches make their displays, present their financial appeals and have a clearing-house for missionary involvements? Is he talking about "preacher training schools" where one congregation becomes a committee of the whole to train preachers for others? Is he referring to the one-man pastor system which we seek to conceal under such innocuous titles as "local evangelist"?

     What are these "other institutions" created by non-instrument brethren? I challenge my good brother and fellow-editor, who has made this public accusation, to clear the air. He is quite open about instrumental music. In the interest of that consistency which he rightly espouses let him now level with us on these other matters.

     Brother Lemmons asks a point-blank question. "If the lack of a Divine directive is grounds for excluding something from our worship, why is not the same lack of Divine directive grounds for excluding non-scriptural organizations from our work?" While he grows gray and becomes aged waiting for an answer to that one from Tennessee or Texas, I would like to ask him a question. "If the endorsement of instrumental music is grounds for your excluding brethren from your fellowship, why is not the creation of other institutions to do the work of the church grounds for your exclusion of brethren from your fellowship?" Do you not argue that both are guilty of violating "areas of silence"?

     Let me tell you the reason why our brother will continue as he does! He is a member of an anti-instrument party. Firm Foundation is a journalistic mouthpiece of an anti-instrument party. The partisan test of the faction is an attitude toward instrumental music. This is the "Jolly Roger" which flies over the party fortress. If you are opposed to instrumental music you are with the "in group." Regardless of your position on war, divorce and remarriage, legalized abortion, social drinking, betting on horse races, racial hatred, or even those three "C's"--cups, classes and colleges, you can stay in. These have nothing to do with loyalty to Jesus. They do not affect your membership in the Lord's church. You can smoke cigarettes until your fingers turn brown, your lungs are seared, you cough your guts out, and have to beg money to buy schoolbooks for your children, but you need not worry as long as you are "sound on the music question"!

     Brother Lemmons will never exclude those who endorse the "many projects of our own which are suspect." Do you know why? Because they are our own. And the "our" refers to the anti-instrument faction. These are "non-instrumental" people who invent instruments to help them in the work of the church but deplore human instruments to help in the worship of the church. The fact is that it is only when you have instruments which you claim aid in worship that you are cast out of the synagogue; aids to the work only cause you to be sniped at from behind the bushes, but you can stay in and worship with us.

     Now let me get on with the real issue. In his final statement, Brother Lemmons says, "Before there can be any degree of unity between the elements that remain we must honestly deal with the question of the authority of God in the areas of silence." This is precisely what Brother Lemmons cannot do. It is impossible for him to deal honestly with this question, and since he cannot do so, he will never promote unity. He is destined to make pieces of the body rather than to make peace within it. He has no formula for unity, no strategy for waging peace. He can only aggravate the sore. He can never provide balm for its healing.

     Brother Lemmons cannot deal honestly with the question because he already has his mind made up. He equates his philosophic approach to scripture with scripture itself. His prescription is God's will and it must be bound upon all. He is the doctor and all others who enter into dialogue with him are patients. Actually there are no areas of silence for our brother. He has filled in all of the blanks. God has spoken in plain and specific commands through the apostles, and in areas of silence through Brother Lemmons. Areas of silence are no longer valid for others because our brother has spoken. The non-instrument brethren are the official interpreters, the supreme court, in areas of silence. If you disagree with them you have lost your case, and any attempt to appeal beyond their jurisdiction will result in banishment, forced exile and ostracism. The organizational Church of Christ has become the "god of the gaps." These are serious charges but I do not think they can be successfully denied.

     There is little real difference in principle between the authoritarian Roman Church and the Church of Christ. Both claim to be the one holy, catholic and apostolic church of God upon earth. The first has an infallible interpreter; the second an infallible interpretation. When the pope speaks ex cathedra, what he says becomes dogma, and when our brethren render the official version of what God meant when he did not speak, it also becomes dogma. One must subscribe to it upon the pain of excommunication. If he ventures near one of our seats of higher learning he is subjected to an Inquisition. Rome has its college of cardinals and we have our cardinal colleges. As a result of our "Great Schism" we even have our Western Church with a sort of holy see in Texas, and the Eastern Orthodox with international headquarters close to Disney World.

     And we can no more produce peace with our present stance among the fragmented heirs of the restoration movement, than Rome can promote unity among what she refers to as the "separated brethren" in the Protestant Reformation. Our only appeal is "Come unto us all ye that are heavy laden, and swallow your consciences as you come!" Our proposal for unity is what is known as the snake and frog proposal. And we are not the frog! We only think in terms of complete surrender--not to Jesus, but to us. Regardless of how you stand with Jesus, if you do not stand with us, you are out. It is the party spirit, not the Holy Spirit, which counts.

     The Church of Christ "wing" repre-

[Page 137]

sented by Brother Lemmons is not a unifying element in the religious world. The other wing is not too much better off in that regard. As proof of the fact that Church of Christism cannot unite the religious world one needs only to remember that it has fragmented our segment of the heirs into a couple of dozen splinters. The question no longer is "Who split the log?" It is now, "Who shivered our timbers?" How can our brother talk of restoring unity between the wings when his own wing looks like a cyclone hit it, and all of the feathers are clobbering one another over the air waves? Can such polemical pinions ever produce peace?

     Then, is there no hope? Indeed there is! In very truth, I have never been more optimistic in my whole life. We are facing the dawn of a whole new day. It will not come as the result of efforts of Brother Lemmons. Leaders of factions will never produce it. They will hinder it. But the winds of change are blowing. There is a new "great awakening" coming, praise God! And just as the previous one produced non-conformists such as Barton W. Stone and Thomas Campbell, so this one will introduce men of stature, men of God, who will transcend our sectarian barriers. In generations to come their names will be hallowed as peace makers even as now they are harassed as heretics.

     But what about "the authority of silence"? It can never be woven into a creed to be used as a criterion for measuring the faithfulness of others. We dare never formulate a theological confessional yardstick enabling us to ask, "Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that the silence of the scriptures forbids the use of instrumental music in conjunction with praise?" Areas of silence can govern only individual consciences. I can never use my conviction in such areas as a means of judging or a ground for despising brethren. I must let them stand or fall to their own master. I must have my conviction to myself.

     I am going to receive my brethren. I am going to welcome them--all of them! I am going to receive them in spite of their hangups over music, spiritual gifts, orphan homes, television programs, the clergy system, educational institutions, cups, classes, colleges, or Firm Foundation editorials. I doubt that I will ever fully endorse the thinking of any other man. I never did, and unless I lose my own mind, I doubt that I ever will. I don't even endorse what I thought ten years ago. Praise the Lord for that!

     Reuel Lemmons is my brother. So is James DeForest Murch. I do not have to go to a unity meeting to learn how to be in fellowship with either one of them. Jesus settled that for me on the cross in a new covenant written on the hearts of men and signed in blood. Nothing that my brethren conclude in a motel session on unity will unsettle it for me. Jesus is Lord over my life and I intend to obey his plain and specific new command, the one about loving one another as he loved us all.

     The way for Brother Lemmons to "honestly deal with the question of the authority of God in areas of silence" is to quit playing God with the lives of other brethren. It is not the authority of God which divides us, it is the authority Brother Lemmons and other preachers seek to exercise where God has not spoken. Let's receive our brethren in Christ, in spite of their presuppositions and mental spectacles, and then we can talk with them the rest of our lives about our differences, not as warring and hostile tribesmen, but as brethren beloved in the Father.

     I do not believe God wants his children to become outcasts, driven off and theologically murdered because of their opinions about the things that we make such great issues. Let congregations of saints who respect the authority of the word determine how they will render their praise, and let the rest of us respect congregational autonomy enough to keep our "whickerbills" out of their business. If they are wrong God will straighten it all out. If I am mistaken in my human weakness as I strive to please the Father, let it be in receiving His children!