A book with such an odd title as "The Twisted Scriptures" may need an explanation, for no faithful Christian, including the author of this book, believes that "Twisted" is one of the characteristics of the holy Scriptures. The author is referring to the way some people treat the Bible. They do not use it as much as they abuse it. The author likened the way some people wrest the Scriptures to a sign in front of a machine shop that read, "All manner of twisting and warping done here." The author is saying that this is what too often happens to the Bible in pulpits and classrooms across the land.
That holy Scripture would be twisted and warped like a rod of iron in a smelting shop is bad enough, but when it is done to defend and perpetuate division among believers the evil is compounded. That is what this book is about. It lays bare not only "the horrid evil" that schism among Christians is, to quote an angry Thomas Campbell when he wrote of being "sick and tired" of partyism, but it exposes the sectarian spirit that seeks to enlist the Bible itself in support of dividing the Body of Christ over the opinions and doctrines of men.
This means that this book is really about hermeneutics or Biblical interpretation. Beginning in the late 1980's there has been more concern among Churches of Christ/Christian Churches about the way the Bible has been interpreted. A call for "A New Hermeneutics" has made its way into some of the more seminal books, especially by our younger scholars, as well as in workshops, lectureships, and the papers. The material in this book, originally written in 1965, anticipated this concern by more than two decades in that it recognizes that many of our problems, including a fractured Restoration Movement, are related to the way we have interpreted (or misinterpreted) the Bible, particularly the New Testament.
This book, however, is not a call for a new hermeneutics as much as it is a plea for a reasonable and responsible handling of Scripture that goes back to the best minds of our heritage. It is evident that the author would not insist upon a new hermeneutics, but would settle for the "Rules of Interpretation" laid down by Alexander Campbell, which do not allow the Bible to be warped and twisted for the sake of either party politics or party doctrines.
Carl Ketcherside would not mind being called a "Campbellite" insofar as Biblical interpretation is concerned. One only needs to read Campbell's seven rules to see that our people by and large have either been ignorant of such rules or have neglected them. They are the only hermeneutics we need, old or new. If we but heeded the wisdom of Campbell's Rule 1 it would go far in "untwisting" some of our handiwork. It reads: "On opening any book in the sacred Scriptures, consider first the historical circumstances of the book. These are the order, the title, the author, the date, the place and the occasion of it."
Campbell goes on in Rule 3 to lay down a hermeneutical principle that is as needed in our day as much as it was revolutionary in his: "The same laws of interpretation which are applied to the language of other books are to be applied to the language of the Bible." That is, the way we interpret a letter from a friend is the way we should interpret one of Paul's letters. Or the way we study European history is not all that different from the way we study Biblical history. Campbell was uneasy with subjective, mystical, allegorical, and existential approaches to the Bible. In this study Ketcherside follows in the tradition of Alexander Campbell.
Campbell's Rule 7, which he called "indispensable," is especially evident in Ketcherside's approach to the Bible. Campbell was far in advance of his day when he formulated this incisive hermeneutical rule: "We must come within the understanding distance." He is saying that we must have the heart as well as the mind to understand. We must want to understand what the Bible says. If we are "within understanding distance" we will not manipulate Scripture to make it mean what we want it to mean. And we may have to distinguish between what it meant (then) and what it means (now). The heart and conscience must be arbiters as well as logic, rules, and principles.
This approach to Scripture is evident now and again in Ketcherside's writings, causing him to formulate what might be seen as new rules. These lines from his publication Mission Messenger (1965, p. 177) are an example:
These sacred scriptures, like any other communication between rational beings, are subject to interpretation and application by those who read them, and one criterion of accuracy in both areas is whether our view formulated by study is conducive to the reduction or increase of tensions among the disciples of Christ.
Notice how closely he follows Campbell's hermeneutics. The Bible is to be interpreted "like any other communication between rational beings." And how can one test his accuracy in interpretation? If said interpretation aggravates dissension between brethren and causes further division and does nothing to ease tensions, then it is suspect. That is because we are standing beyond understanding distance. We are not interpreting the Bible in a way that is consistent with the purposes of the Bible, which is to promote peace and brotherhood. If it satisfies the mind, it neglects the heart. Any interpretation that is in conflict with the Spirit of Christ must be rejected, however "logical" it may be otherwise.
This book is liberating in that it helps one to be a Christ-person rather than a party-person. It is rooted in the grace of God and the Spirit of Christ. It names sectarianism for what it is, a sin against God, and how shameful it is to use God's word to foster factionalism. It encourages one to turn away from the wooden and lifeless use of a few select proof-texts, which are themselves warped and twisted so as to fit some party line, to that view of the Scriptures that our Lord spoke of when he said, "They testify of me" (Jn. 5:39). This book shows us that there is a big difference between seeing our party in the Bible and seeing Jesus in the Bible.
Carl Ketcherside could finally write such a book as this only because he too was liberated from the party spirit. He was once a "wing commander," to use his term, of a little sect within the Restoration Movement. He was "on call" to debate those issues that were unique to his party. He had a narrow, sectarian view of unity and fellowship. The change came when he was alone one wintry night in a little Church of Christ building in Belfast, Ireland. Long weary of sectarian strife, he turned to the promise in Rev. 3:20, and for the first time in his life actually invited Jesus into his heart.
From that night on he embarked upon what he called his "Pilgrimage of Joy" which led him to become, as he put it, "a peacemaker instead of a piecemaker." He committed the second half of his life to restoring peace, unity, and love between people long separated by the scourge of schism. Multiplied thousands whose lives he touched through his long years as an editor and lecturer are thankful for what happened that night in Belfast 40 years ago. As he himself put it, when Christ enters sectarianism has to leave.
Out of that experience he often summarized his plea with two affirmations. The first was that we have no right to make anything a condition of fellowship that God does not make a condition for being saved. The second was that wherever God has a child we have a brother or sister.
The following lines from the first chapter of this book are not only vintage Ketcherside, but they also reveal the spirit of the man. They also underscore what responsible hermeneutics is all about, new or old:
It is ridiculous to quote the scriptures to justify factionalism when they were given to forbid it. No honest opinion, no sincerely held doctrinal view, can ever be made the ground for rejection of one of God's children. It would be absurd for God to warn that the party spirit would debar from inheritance of the kingdom, and then make provision for the party spirit and enjoin it upon us.
--Leroy Garrett