Gospel and Doctrine

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 17]

     "He that takes away reason to make way for revelation puts out the light of both, and does much the same as if he would persuade a man to put out his eyes the better to receive the remote light of an invisible star by a telescope.--John Locke.

     I have resolved that, with the help of God this year, I will attempt an answer to some of the questions posed hy various individuals and addressed to me either in public forums or by private mail. Some of the things which I have been saying appear to be new to many in our generation and require repetition in order that they may be more fully grasped. In undertaking this rather awesome task I hope to avoid any semblance of pretense to any degree of superior knowledge in reference to the matters discussed. My knowledge is limited and the scope of my understanding is restricted.

     But I do have an eagerness to share from my meager store with all whom I love in the Lord. It was Lord Bacon who helped me to see the true purpose of acquiring knowledge. "Some men think that the gratification of curiosity is the end of knowledge; some the love of fame; some the pleasure of dispute; some the necessity of supporting themselves by their knowledge; but the real use of all knowledge is, that we should dedicate that reason which was given us by God to the use and advantage of man." Nothing I write will be dogmatic in tenor. It does not become a servant in the house of a master to try and impose his will upon the other servants. Certainly he should not tyrannize over them. I want never to create a personal following or promote a party parade. It sounds cold and even unloving to say it, but I am not at all disturbed by how men receive what I say. I am not seeking for glory from men nor acclaim from my contemporaries. Above all, I do not want to exploit any other person for glory or gain.

     Although I do not always agree with Will Durant in The Story of Philosophy my dissent does not include this statement, "Every man is to be respected as an absolute end in himself; and it is a crime against the dignity that belongs to him as a human being, to use him as a means for some external purpose." I want to see no one become a religious stooge or pawn. It is sad enough to reduce men to the level of mechanical cogs, but even worse to make them cat's-paws to pull sectarian chestnuts out of factional flames. But perhaps we should get along with the questions.

     1. I have heard here at school that you make a distinction between the gospel of Christ, and the apostolic doctrine. On what grounds do you do so?

     I wish that everything you heard about me at school was as correctly reported as this. Indeed I do make such a distinction because I am thoroughly convinced that

[Page 18]

it is scriptural, and failure to recognize this creates one of the greatest problems confronting us in our generation. It is the ignorance of this matter which is basic to much of our strife and division and I am quite convinced, as was Alexander Campbell, that we will never be able to recapture the real dynamic for unity until we recover this concept.

     I shall never forget what a mind-changing event it was when I first became aware of the significant difference between the kerygma to be proclaimed to a lost world, and the didache to be addressed to a saved people. So long had I been steeped in our mistaken tradition that it was difficult for me to concede my error. It involved too many of my sermon outlines and too much of my past writing.

     But I plunged into research with fervor, half hoping that I could salvage at least a few of the antagonistic messages which I had ignorantly regarded as "gospel sermons." Fortunately, reason and revelation gained the day and I was rescued even from that last refuge of little minds which always say when trapped against the ledge of truth, "Well, I'm not sure it makes that much difference."

     While it has no real bearing upon the right or wrong of my position, I should like to call attention to the fact that it is not an original insight of mine, nor is it in any sense unique. And just here I want to take the time and space to honor another eminent Presbyterian whose profound thinking influenced our own reformation far beyond our general recognition. I refer to Dr. George Campbell, who became Principal of Marischal College and University, in Aberdeen, in 1759, a position which he held for almost forty years.

     When David Hume made his famous and clever attack upon miracles and the supernatural he literally shook the religious world to its foundation. In 1762 Dr. Campbell replied in his treatise A Dissertation on Miracles, and I have read it again and again with appreciation as did Alexander Campbell in his more youthful days. Perhaps Dr. Campbell did not become popular in our land because of his addresses criticizing our American colonies for their revolt. His position was that the colonials should be subject to the powers that be which were ordained of God and should pay their stamp tax. He affirmed that violence and unlawful seizure of goods and pillaging of stores was unbecoming for Christians, even when dressed like untutored savages. That did not go over too well with anyone except the Tories who were frequently tarred and feathered for their dissent, but by the time Alexander Campbell was old enough to study, the revolution was fading into history.

     The last work of Dr. Campbell was a translation of the four gospel records with "preliminary dissertations." It is this translation which Alexander Campbell largely adopted and incorporated in "Living Oracles." In his Preliminary Dissertation Number VI, Dr. Campbell spends thirteen pages investigating the three Greek words rendered "to preach" and the one rendered "to teach." He begins by saying, "My intention is, not only to point out exactly the differences of meaning in these words, but to evince that the words whereby the two former are rendered in some, perhaps most modern languages, do not entirely reach the meaning of the original terms, and in some measure, by consequence, mislead most readers."

     I must limit myself to a mere statement in which Dr. Campbell summarizes by saying, "And if teaching and preaching be found sometimes coupled together, the reason appears to be, because their teaching, in the beginning of this new dispensation, must have been frequently introduced by announcing the Messiah, which alone was preaching."

     Alexander Campbell, with his keen power of discrimination, recognized the scriptural difference between the gospel which was a message to be preached to the world, and the doctrine with which the body of Christ was to be instructed. In the April, 1862, edition of Millennial Harbinger he wrote: "There was teaching, there was singing,

[Page 19]

there was praying, there was exhortation in the Christian church, but preaching in the church, or to the church, is not once mentioned in the Christian scriptures! Paul once, in his first letter to the church in Corinth, said he would declare to the Corinthians that gospel which he had preached to them, which also they had received and wherein they stood. We preach, or report, or proclaim news. But who teaches news? Who exhorts news? We preach the gospel to unbelievers, to aliens, but never to Christians, or those who have received it."

     Dr. Carroll Kendrick, a scholar of both medicine and scripture, wrote in the Gospel Advocate, on page 373, in 1890:

     "There is absolutely neither precept nor precedent for preaching to the church. Preaching the gospel is for the world. Teaching is for the church, and is to be done by a plurality of bishops in each congregation."

     The message addressed to aliens is intended to call them out of the state of alienation, in which they are separated from God, and call them into a state in which they are in fellowship, that is, in which they share the divine life. It is called the gospel, the good news, and those who accept it and respond to it form the ekklesia, the called out ones.

     The gospel is to be announced, proclaimed or heralded to the world. It is to be preached in all the world and to every creature. It is the euaggelion, the evangel, designed for the lost, and its purpose is to announce that divine, love became effective and the Word which was with God and was God became incarnate, and through Him we have become reconciled to the Father. This message is not for the saved. You cannot evangelize saved persons. The new covenant scriptures know nothing of "preaching the gospel" to the saints of God. Such an expression would have seemed ridiculous and unintelligible to the apostles.

     On the other hand, the message to the saved ones is a course of instruction, a didactic curriculum intended to help them grow, develop and mature in the family relationship. It was those who had gladly received the word and who were baptized, who then continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine. Not a single apostolic letter was written to the world. All of them were addressed to congregations of disciples or to individuals who had "set to their seal that God is true." Characteristic is the Philippian letter "to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons."

     The gospel was fully proclaimed on Pentecost. It was accepted and fully obeyed by some three thousand persons on that day. Not a word was ever added to it. Those who came into the covenant relationship did not do so on the basis of a partial or incomplete evangel. Yet this was almost twenty years before the first letter was written which now appears in the sacred canon.

     The gospel is the seed, the sperm, by which we are begotten. The doctrine is the bread upon which the children feed, and by which they grow. Peter declares that we are begotten "not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God which liveth and abideth forever," and then identifies the message by saying, "And this is the word which by the gospel was proclaimed unto you."

     Paul carefully distinguishes between the evangelist who begets, and the teacher who instructs God's children in Christ. "I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you. For though you have ten thousand instructors

[Page 20]

in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:15, 16).

     It is easily demonstrated that not one apostolic letter is a part of the gospel of Christ. Every such letter was written to those who heard, believed and accepted the gospel. To the Romans Paul wrote that he had fully preached the gospel from Jerusalem, and round about to Illyricum, yet much of the apostolic writing was done after the letter was written to the Romans. Certainly the Roman letter was not part of the gospel for in it Paul declared of the world of his day, "they have not all obeyed the gospel." If the Roman letter was part of the gospel none of them had obeyed it for they did not yet have it.

     The letter to the Galatians was not part of the gospel because it was written to censure those who had accepted the gospel and then abandoned it for what they thought was another gospel, but which was not good news at all. The Galatians to whom Paul wrote had been baptized into Christ and had put on Christ. Unless we can distinguish between the evangel to be proclaimed to the world, and the doctrine to be taught to the saints we will serve only to confuse and confound the world and disrupt the peace and harmony of the saints.

     I doubt that one can emphasize the point I am making too much when he considers the ignorance on the subject of those who would be recognized as teachers. It should be one of our goals to place every thought in proper perspective, and to recognize proper distinctions. The apostle prayed for the Philippians that they might "distinguish between those things which differ" (1:10), and if we would lessen confusion in the realm of thought we should strive for the same thing.

     Let me show you why I deem this subject of such grave concern. Our Lord has made our hope of salvation, that is, our being made whole, contingent upon believing the gospel. His chosen envoys were to go into all the world, and proclaim the gospel unto every person. It is distinctly said, "He that believeth the gospel and is baptized shall be saved." If the gospel includes the whole of the new covenant scriptures then one cannot be saved until he hears and obeys every requirement of every letter. If not, he will be saved by a partial gospel.

     This will remove salvation from the realm of faith in the person and identity of God's Son and transfer it to the domain of knowledge of didactical and abstract truths. But all human knowledge is relative and no one can ever be sure that his comprehension has embraced all that is essential to his salvation, and there must ever be the haunting fear that he may have overlooked one fact essential to his salvation.

     The truth of the gospel is that we are justified by faith and have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. It is Jesus who "is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption" (1 Cor. 1:30). We are not accepted upon the basis of our intellectual attainment or upon the degree of knowledge which we possess about matters of doctrinal concern. The scriptures clearly teach that "if any man think that he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. But if any man love God, the same is known of him."

     As long as preachers mistakenly assume that the gospel embraces the entire new covenant scriptures they will brand

[Page 21]

as unbelievers those who truly believe in Jesus but may be mistaken about some point of interpretation in one of the epistles. Such a usage of the term unbeliever is nowhere sanctioned by the Holy Spirit. Unbelievers are those who do not accept the divine Sonship of Jesus. In Corinth there were certain brethren who were suing or impleading other brethren before pagan tribunals or in heathen courts. But Paul makes a clear distinction between mistaken and guilty brethren and unbelievers. "But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers" (1 Cor. 6:6).

     No man is an unbeliever who is in Christ Jesus, regardless of his mistaken views or limited knowledge. Even Paul declared that he only knew in part. He said that he had not attained and was not yet perfect. His recommendation was, that to the extent of their knowledge, imperfect as it was, the brethren should walk by the same rule and mind the same thing (Phil. 3:16). Nothing is more detrimental to the cause of Christ than regarding as unbelievers those who believe in him and earnestly seek to serve Him.

     Unbelievers in the Corinthian context are the unjust, the world of the unregenerate, those who walk in darkness. In 2 Corinthians 6:15 Paul asks, "What part hath he that believeth with an infidel?" Never does he ask what part one believer has with another, even one who is mistaken. There were those of the saints who did not possess a clear knowledge that idols were nothing. Because of their past training, environment and culture, they thought there might be something to an idol. Paul said they did not have a clear knowledge that there was but one God and one Lord. They were "conscious of the idol unto this hour." But they were brethren, although weak, and his concern was that those who had a greater area of knowledge should not cause a weak brother for whom Christ died to perish through their knowledge. There is as much danger of those who have a superior knowledge destroying a weaker brother as there is of a weaker brother destroying himself by his own ignorance.

     When we judge our brethren as worthy or unworthy upon the basis of our own doctrinal knowledge level we deny that there can be any such thing as a weaker brother. Every person must know the same things at the same time, and conformity becomes our goal rather than allegiance to the Lord Jesus. And yet we can no more all think alike than we can all look alike. God has created us with as many divergent intellectual capacities as we have varied physical differences. As Montaigne wrote: "There never were in the world, two opinions alike, no more than two hairs, or two grains, the most universal quality is diversity."

     Horace Mann said, "Do not think of knocking out another person's brains because he differs in opinion from you. It would be as rational to knock yourself on the head because you differ from yourself ten years ago." And Jonathan Swift said, "If a man should register all his opinions upon love, politics, religion, learning, etc., beginning from his youth, and so go on to old age, what a bundle of inconsistencies and contradictions would appear at last."

     The very spirit of the good news is that it accepts man as it finds him. Men who are enfeebled in intellect are adopted into the divine family upon the same basis as the most erudite and scholarly. The everlasting arms embrace both the pin-headed pigmy in the jungle and the president of Princeton University. Henri Frederic Amel wrote, "Do not despise your situation; in it you must act, suffer and conquer. From every point on earth we are equally near to heaven and to the infinite."

     We do not come to God by degrees--college degrees, that is. One need not possess a master's degree to realize that he is a sinner, and until he recognizes this he will never truly know the need of a Savior. The glory of the gospel is that it creates no criteria except an unreserved trust in the righteousness which is from God through faith in Christ Jesus.

     It is incongruous that Almighty God whose purpose from the creation of the universe was to bring together in one,

[Page 22]

all things in heaven and on earth, would devise a plan for doing so which would effectively hinder and thwart the obtaining of the divine objective. And our postulate of unity by conformity to a certain degree of intellectual perception of instruction will defeat God's goal for the universe.

     Unity is possible only through faith. It is a product of the gospel. The gospel is designed to enlist soldiers in a single army in which those who were formerly enemies become a unit in Christ. Its purpose is to enroll students in the school of Christ where each student must grow in grace and knowledge of the truth, and develop to the extent of his personal potential. The gospel is the unitive message, and obedience of its demands brings those who respond immediately into a fellowship of the reconciled.

     One is no more reconciled or redeemed after he has studied scriptures for twenty years than when he arose from the washing of regeneration. He is no more a citizen of the kingdom of heaven when he has learned to read the apostolic letters in Greek, than when he first tremblingly acknowledged his belief that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. It is birth that introduces one into a family, not a knowledge of geometry or philosophy. It is as absurd and asinine to predicate fellowship upon a uniform doctrinal conformity as it would be to refuse to recognize your physical offspring as members of your family until they made a passing grade in first-year algebra. Lop-sided opinions no more disqualify one for membership in the spiritual family than a wart on the nose disqualifies one for relationship in a physical family. I am assuming that in the latter case the person with the wart will not begin insisting that everyone have a wart in the same location, and predicate family fellowship on a wart basis!

     There is not now, nor was there ever, unity upon the basis of doctrinal conformity. Those who call for it the loudest are not agreed among themselves. They argue with the ones whom they receive and debate with the ones whom they recognize. Such a system does not produce Christians, but Pharisees and hypocrites. It proposes a standard for others which those who propose it cannot attain. It is schismatic, divisive, irrational and unscriptural.

     God is not in the business of creating robots. He is not the president of a factory turning out grinning Kewpie-dolls. He has always recognized the uniqueness of individuals, and until we do the same, we are doomed to continue the weary round of strife and cleavage, rending and tearing the one body to bits over our deductions and opinions. On the ridiculous basis of exclusivism there is not a thinking man alive who could have been in fellowship with his own self ten years ago, and who will not have to withdraw from his present self ten years hence.

     Unity based upon a certain level of doctrinal attainment is simply the freezing of knowledge at the contemporary level. It does no honor to truth but sacrifices it to tradition. It makes study a crime and learning a disaster. It glorifies the dishonest as loyal and brands the honest heretics. A realization of this has led me to conclude that until man can distinguish between the gospel which unites and the doctrine which educates the united, we will only perpetuate our follies of the past.

     C. S. Lewis in his Letters to Malcolm made this trenchant observation: "It takes all sorts to make a world, or a church. This may be even truer of a church. If grace perfects nature it must expand all our natures into the full richness of the diversity which God intended when he made them, and heaven will display far more variety than hell. 'One fold' doesn't mean 'one pool.' Cultivated roses and daffodils are not more alike than wild roses and daffodils."

     In his series of sermons on "The Liberty of Prophesying," Jeremy Taylor deals in number thirteen, with the topic of the deportment to be used toward persons disagreeing. Here are his words: "Whoever persecutes a disagreeing person, arms all the world against himself, and all pious people of his own persuasion, when the

[Page 23]

scales of authority return to his adversary, and attest his contradictory; and then, what can he urge for mercy for himself, or his party that showeth none to other?"

     3. The objection has been made to your thinking that you believe one must be right about the gospel but after that you do not care what he thinks about the rest of the Bible. Isn't that a dangerous position to take?

     It certainly would be dangerous to advocate such a thing, but in this case, the real danger lies with those who make such a false accusation. I have observed that those who know the most about what I advocate are those who have never read a word I have ever written. Even preachers operate upon the basis of hearsay and take third-hand testimony without making the slightest personal enquiry or investigation before they join the ancient order of rumor-mongers and the guild of gossip-circulators. I say "even preachers," as if they were a breed apart. I sometimes think they may be the worst of the lot in this respect.

     This really does not bother me one bit. Since Jesus entered into my life and took the "Vacancy sign" from the front door of my heart, threw up the shades so the sun could shine in, and moved into the inner apartment, I am no longer disturbed by what insecure, fear-ridden and guilt-haunted brethren report. It took me a long time to get to the place where I could share in the transcendent bliss which belongs to those against whom all manner of evil is spoken falsely for his sake.

     I admit and confess that such things used to flatten me out and make me feel as low and sticky as an ant in a puddle of syrup, but not any more. Since he has taken over I can rejoice and be exceeding glad. Nothing makes me happier than to realize that those who attack my position have to lie to do it. If what they said was true I would have no inclination to throw my hat in the air and shout, but as it is I can vibrate with joy that is real!

     I do not think one should ignore reports simply because they are baseless and have no foundation. Even one who is on a ladder painting a house, may have to take time from such a beautification project to swat an occasional yellow-jacket. However, he must not make that his chief aim and forget his original avocation. The unfortunate thing about my explanations is that those who read them do not need them, and those who need them do not read them!

     There's another thing that strikes me as being a little peculiar also, and that is that brethren are often more unfair than those who make no profession of faith in Jesus. A lot of brethren are not really concerned with what you say. They already know what you think, and no amount of protestation upon your part will make any difference. As La Fontaine put it: "Nothing is more dangerous than a friend without discretion; even a prudent enemy is preferable." No wonder Martin Luther prayed, "Lord, deliver me from my enemies, but especially from my friends."

     In dealing with the proper perspective of the faith which saves, and the doctrine which feeds, it must be remembered that both are from God, and both are important for the purpose for which they were given. It is important for a baby to be born and delivered into the family relationship, but after birth it is also important that the baby continue to eat and be nourished. But birth is a single act, a one-time occurrence, while eating is a life process. One does not on the day of his birth eat all that he will require for the rest of his life. No one is born a mature person, although he possesses all of the organs essential to being.

     Obedience to the gospel brings us into the family. There is no other way to enter the world than by birth, and no other way to enter into the new creation than by spiritual birth. The gospel is essential to being. And the gospel consists of facts, validated by testimony, which must be believed, in order to transfer one from a state of alienation into one of reconcilation with God. The gospel is a definitive message of historical fact related to the

[Page 24]

Word of God who was made flesh and dwelt among us.

     The doctrine upon which those feed who have been born into the divine family is essential to continued growth and development. But one need not be right about everything God has revealed in order to have life or to share in the family relationship. The reason for this is because the family relationship is not contingent upon being free from all error but upon being in Christ Jesus. It is Jesus Christ, and him crucified, that constituted the apostolic proclamation, and thus constitutes the basis of our acceptance in the beloved.

     There is room in the family of God, as in every other family, for those who may be mistaken about many things. If there were not room for such there would be no family "for in many things we all offend," as James wrote. It is always better to be right than to be wrong. No one should choose to be in error and I do not know of any brethren who do. We should constantly study and diligently investigate in order to arrive at the truth upon any matter of concern. But life does not depend upon a person being right, but upon being in the right person. It is very simple. "He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son hath not life." Life depends upon having the Son and not upon having perfect knowledge or an unfailing memory. And one who is not free to make mistakes is not free at all!

     It is a wee bit silly for preachers to say in one article that I do not care what one thinks about the rest of the Bible, as a certain editor did, only to write in his very next issue, "Brother Ketcherside is one of the most perceptive Biblical scholars among us today." The problem with that brother is not that I do not care about the rest of the Bible, but rather that I do not give the snap of my finger for our traditions which make void the scriptures, by emptying them of their true meaning and content.

     I still insist that if one is right about Jesus he can be wrong about many other things and still be saved, but if he is wrong about Jesus he can be right about everything else and still be lost. Intellectual rightness will not save us apart from Christ, and intellectual error or imbecility will not damn us unless it leads us to deny him and to trust in our own righteousness which we rescue from the garbage dump.

     Jesus is greater than anything that has been written about him. The written word does not exhaust the Living Word. He dwells in the light unto which no man can approach. He only has immortality and no mortal can ever encompass him fully with a finite mind. But we can accept him as the way, the truth, and the life, and we can walk in the way a step at a time, we can be led into deeper truths each passing day, and we can share in the life each thrilling minute.

     But we are as much in The Way when we take our first step as when we take our last, and we are as much in the truth when we accept him in childlike faith as when our expanding spiritual consciousness leads us into deepening realms of thought. One is as much in a river when he steps into the shallows as he will ever be, but he does not truly swim in the depths until he launches out into the deep.

     My answer to my would-be detractors is my own life. It would be vain to profess a love for the doctrine of Christ if I never studied it, or if I ground out only the traditional grist of a party mill, feeding it back into the millstones from simplistic sermon outline books which are as puerile now as when I depended upon them in my ignorance and childhood immaturity. I challenge my beloved brethren who love the Book to read it with unveiled face. I challenge them to discard the lens prescribed and ground for them by our institutional complex, and let the word lead them into a genuine and profound relationship with the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords.

     I want never to worship the Bible. Bibliolatry is like Mariolatry. Mary was God's vehicle to deliver Jesus to the world, and the Bible is God's vehicle to deliver

[Page 25]

the world to Jesus. But there is a great difference between the taxi which takes you to the doctor and the physician to whom you are taken. And it is possible to get so hooked on talking about and discussing the taxicab you might not make it to the doctor's office before the door is shut. I do not want to become so involved with the mechanics of the Bible that I never meet the Great Physician. Some of my brethren end up with a head full of scriptural quotations and a heart empty of Jesus. Your ability to dangle keys on a mental chain will not keep you from perishing in the cold if you do not know how to use them to open the door and enter into the warmth of the house of love!

     4. I was born and reared in Kentucky, where we were taught to have nothing to do with premillennial congregations. Are you implying that we were wrong in thus drawing a line?

     I not only say it is wrong, but I say it is a sin to divide God's glorious family into warring tribes and hostile parties over such things as an opinion about the millennium. Kentucky is a wonderful state. It is the home of Cane Ridge and the locale of the Great Revival. It is the home of Lexington, site of the union of the Christians and Reformers. But the heirs of a noble concept have not measured up to the stature of their fathers, and have served only to split and rive the once fruitful tree of their paternal planting.

     Just because one was fortunate enough to enter the world inside the border of the Bluegrass State provides no ground for ignoring the instructions given by the Holy Spirit to govern our relationship to our brethren in the kingdom of heaven. Brethren in Kentucky, like those of us in Missouri, are under orders not to pass judgment upon one another, and not to hold one another in contempt. We are to "pursue the things that make for peace and build up the common life." The scriptures teach us, "In a word, accept one another as Christ accepted us, to the glory of God."

     There is no such thing as a premillennial congregation. There are no doubt congregations where a goodly number of the brethren hold the opinion that Jesus will return before the millennium, and there might be an occasional one where all of the constituency hold that position. But even this does not make such a group a "premillennial congregation" unless the brethren demand as a condition of membership that you subscribe to this viewpoint as a condition of being accepted. I do not know of any congregation with that kind of creed!

     I have labored with congregations in Kentucky and Tennessee which have been branded as premillennial by partisans around them, and I have been welcomed and received as a brother in the Lord Jesus. My common experience is that those congregations are more open and willing to recognize God's other children than are some of their bitter critics. This may be because they have learned the meaning of grace and discovered a genuine sense of freedom in Christ. Those who become entangled in their exclusive brier patches which they have planted and cultivated are always inclined to attack and snap at others who are not trapped in their doctrinal thicket.

     It is ridiculous to shatter the family of God upon earth over how and when our "elder brother" will return from the far country. If we continue to clobber one another we may all be ashamed when he arrives, and unworthy to greet him. It is not an understanding of the details of his second coming which makes our relationship possible but an acceptance of the fact of his first coming in the flesh. "This is how we may recognize the Spirit of God: every spirit which acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God."

     I am convinced that if one believes with all of his heart that Jesus is the Christ and lives up to the commitment which this involves, he will not lose his reward even if he is mistaken about all that is involved in it. The fact is that I do not know all that God has prepared for me, but whatever it is, I want to be prepared for it.

     Brethren who take the premillennial

[Page 26]

position accept Jesus as the Son of God and the Messiah. Those who take the opposite position accept the same thing. Probably a majority of the brethren have no particular position and do not know what all the fuss is about. Regardless of what anyone thinks or says, God's will is going to be done. Certainly someone is mistaken. In some respects they may all be. But human mistakes will not deter the fulfillment of God's program and need not hinder our participation in his blessing.

     I say "need not" for the simple reason that if I build a party or faction around either position and cause a cleavage in the body I will lose my reward. One might prove to be absolutely correct about the millennium and still come under condemnation if he "set at nought" his brethren. On the other hand, one might be wrong about the millennium and still be saved if he loved all of the brethren and did not try to impose his views upon their conscience.

     It is not necessary to "take a stand" on the thousand year reign in order to get to heaven. The Pharisees among us are always trying to con the brethren into "taking a stand on the issues" under threat of excommunication here and hell hereafter. This is the very essence of factionalism. But all you need to do is to take an unwavering stand for Jesus Christ as Lord of life and "be not moved away from the hope of the gospel." The Revelation letter was not written until near the close of the first century, and by that time thousands of disciples had suffered death and gone to their reward. There is no indication that they had even heard of the millennium, much less "taken a stand" on it!

     No one can prove that a single one of the apostles except John ever heard that the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, would "live and reign with Christ a thousand years." Most of the brethren now, with the whole canon before them, take a position on Revelation 20:4 and then read it back into about everything the apostles wrote and Jesus said. They are equally certain that all of the holy prophets, the Son of God, and the chosen apostles were "millennialists" of their various kinds. It is astonishing how, when men get a certain stance or bias, they can find it on every page of the Bible, staring out at them in the most unlikely places. And all of them become quite upset that others cannot recognize their mental phantoms and wispy ghosts of ideas.

     I am not arguing that there is not a correct interpretation of Revelation 20. I am quite convinced there is! I am not arguing that, since there is a right interpretation, that others are not wrong! I believe they are. Above all else, I do not contend that one view is as good as another. That would be absurd. But what I am saying is that no view or opinion, right or wrong, about the thousand-year reign, is as important as receiving Jesus and God's other children.

     "This is his command: to give our allegiance to his Son Jesus Christ and love one another as he commanded" (1 John 3:23). I know a number of brethren who give their allegiance to Jesus Christ and differ with me about the millennium. And I am not about to deny their allegiance because of our doctrinal differences. I do not compromise my thinking nor sacrifice my position when I labor with brethren who differ with me. We talk about our divergent views in love but I never seek to bind my understanding of the millennial reign upon them. I can listen to their explanations without rancor and with the utmost love, and since I am no longer a factionalist I do not seek to "convert" them. If they cannot concur with me I do not quit loving them. I give no ultimatums and issue no commands or demands. I am no longer playing God with other saints.

     I admit that some of the brethren get a little trigger-happy and want to take me into their particular millennial corral, but I am used to that procedure in every party and it never perturbs me. Since I started writing on fellowship and trying to be nice to all of the brethren, every party has put out the word from time to time that I am weakening and will soon

[Page 27]

line up with them. But I am not that weak. I will never again line up with any group that demands as a price for their love that I hate other brethren. I am through with all of that silly and childish approach to the majestic kingdom.

     It is a sin to fragment into exclusive parties over the question of the millennium, the scripturality of instrumental music, the support of television programs, and all of the rest of the nitty-gritty which we have elevated to such importance that it obscures the divine relationship made possible by the blood of Jesus. The kingdom of heaven is not meat and drink. Neither is it a view of the millennium, instrumental music or individual cups. It is righteousness, joy and peace. These other things when elevated to dogmatic status renounce righteousness, jeopardize joy and pervert peace. No opinion or interpretation of a doctrinal issue should ever separate those who have been called into the fellowship of the Son of God, and none ever will until men in their pride seek to force their fellows to conformity with human wisdom!