Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 21
September 18, 1969
NUMBER 20, PAGE 3b,5-6a

Ketchersidian Fallacies

Dale Smelser

In a previous article we noted the inconsistencies and unscriptural characteristics of the purported love that, according to Ketchersidian philosophy, enables fellowship among diverse religious folk. In this article we shall examine some of the concepts by which a sort of Neo-Restoration Movement would salvage tattered parts of the Old Restoration Movement. "Neo", because it is not interested in restoring the ancient practices, as the "Old" sought, but in establishing a permissiveness it imagines typical of the ancient disciples. Its devotees are unanimous in assessing the Restoration Movement a failure. Perhaps they have been too concerned about the "movement" and not concerned enough for the principle which launched it. A movement, once begun, may wander off in many directions because of the unstable proclivities of its human subscribers. Was this not true regarding the ancient gospel? But to discredit and ascribe failure to the principle of faithfulness to the ancient and confirmed verities of Christ, because people are faithless, is foolish and illogical. The failure is not in concept, but in human weakness. The need for our return to the constancy of that once for all delivered is as valid as I Peter 4: 11.

Free Men In Christ

But to escape the imposition of the conformity (unity) this would bring, there is the anguished protest of some (consider the growing affinity between Sentinel of Truth and Mission Messenger) that they are "free men in Christ." Aren't we all! If some do not say more about it, perhaps they do not have to keep reminding themselves that it is so. If someone's freedom is impaired, it is not the fault of brethren, however dictatorial, but that one's covetous concern about his standing in the eyes of others that binds him; his lust for prestige. A person truly free in the Lord must and will preach his convictions without having to nurse hurt feelings when they are not accepted by others. After all, he is a slave only of Christ and not men. A man can be a little obnoxious crying about his right to be free in Christ while it is obvious that his loss of prestige is what really pains him. The man who constantly complains of pressures to conform is the man who feels the pressure. And the man who is sensitive to it is not free, even though he may rebel against it. His rebellion may be simply a ploy to convince himself he is free. How much of this inner conflict which should be conquered from within is splashed across a suffering brotherhood? Maybe some have fought this battle and are newly free. But let them not think it is something new to the world which they alone possess, simply because it is new to them.

But being free in Christ seems to be equated by some to being free from Christ, or just plain loose. Rather than preaching with all longsuffering to brethren about wrong concepts they may have drifted into, they step out of the ranks and throw rocks at disciples of Christ, deriding the term "church of Christ," and brethren's aim to be just that. And all I mean by "church" is all that "ekklesia" means. After all, Christ did have such. It was constituted of the saved, being the body of Christ, the kingdom, God's house, a spiritual nation, a priesthood, and composed of the children of God — whatever the English term used to render the Greek ekklesia. It was a recognizable and identifiable brotherhood, distinct from all other religious groups, even the counterfeits that would follow (I Tim. 4:1). It was defined by those obedient to a pattern of teaching (Rom. 6:17), as Israel was distinguished by the law, having in it "the form of knowledge" (Rom. 2:20) in that age. For the Lord's ekklesia to exist today it must be likewise distinctive, not a shadowy amalgam of "loose men" in fellowship upon some basis other than Ephesians 4: 4 — 6.

Gospel Vs. Doctrine

To combat this concept, Carl Ketcherside says that this is the doctrine of the apostles, and that such is not to be the basis of fellowship, only the gospel is; distinguishing between the two, making the gospel essential and doctrine optional. To impress that embracing the gospel includes obeying instructions. I asked Carl what the expression "obey the gospel" meant. He replied that this meant baptism, and acknowledged that at least this doctrine was necessary to scriptural fellowship. This is a retreat from an earlier position when he denied that baptism was any part of the gospel, saying that obeying the gospel was simply, "belief of the report made concerning Jesus" (Firm Foundation, June 11, 1963, p.370). However, obeying the gospel has to involve more than being baptized. When Peter refused to eat with Gentiles, he "walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel." Disobedience to pertinent doctrine therein was so significant that "he stood condemned" (Gal. 2: 11 — 14).

Furthermore, God's righteousness is revealed in the gospel (Rom. 1:17), and God's righteousness is that to which we must be subjected in obedience (Rom. 10:3); that which we must work (Acts 10: 35). Hence, in the gospel is revealed all that we are to obey, and all that we are to obey is revealed in the gospel. To disobey these requirements is to stand condemned. So, what Carl calls unessential doctrine is thus necessary to obeying the gospel. If the gospel is the one essential thing, and doctrine another that will be overlooked by God, not the least consequence is the negation of the inspiration of scripture emphasizing the necessity of sound doctrine, viz. I & II Timothy & Titus. Carl is wrong of course, not Paul.

Human Wisdom

As are also many young liberals, brother Ketcherside counsels copious use of personal testimony and disparages quoting scripture. After listening to him testify for forty-five minutes, he did not prove a thing about God's will, and I am sure that Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, and Tiny Tim could have matched his testimony. He disingenuously speaks of the lack of scripture quoting by the apostles, ridiculing the desire for "book, chapter, and verse," pointing out the comparatively recent separation of the text so. As for the apostle's use of scripture, he evidently has not recently read Matthew, or Acts, or Hebrews. As for people seeking scriptural citation as proof, the desire is only to have a thing proved by the scriptures; as Paul did in Antioch when he said, "As also it is written in the second psalm" (Acts 13:33). But, we are told, when Paul went to Athens he quoted their poets. I am afraid however that our modern quoters of human literature are not as careful to make sure that what is quoted is in harmony with God's truth as was Paul. A flighty theological concept is more frequently the aim. Furthermore, they do not seem as anxious to speak to a comparably sophisticated audience today on the judgment to come as did Paul in Athens (Acts 17: 30 — 31). Indeed, use Paul as an example. To Jews and Gentiles he preached "the testimony of God", not the "wisdom of men" (I Cor. 2: 1 — 4).

Congregational Autonomy

As we noted in a preceding article, brother Ketcherside says he opposes instrumental music in assembly worship; that it is without scriptural authority. How can he have fellowship with those who use it and do other things not authorized by the New Testament, and why does he not try to instruct them more accurately? Because he respects their congregational autonomy. That's what he says, honestly. But any autonomy that permits men to establish their own righteousness is not the righteousness of God, and is a denial of the authority and headship of Christ. Nevertheless, Carl and his Independent Christian Church friends believe that congregational autonomy will keep pharisaical infallible interpreters from drawing lines of fellowship. But does it? The Independent Christian Churches have broken fellowship and separated from the Disciples of Christ over restructure. They drew a line of fellowship at autonomy. What gives them the right and required them to draw it there that does not give me the right and require me to draw it at instrumental music in the assembly? They have not found the answer to fellowship yet.

I want to alienate no one. Bringing souls into unity in Christ is the aim of the gospel. But let us not give up gospel requirement to obtain unity. Let us talk and study with one another, argue a bit, and even engage in dialogue if you must, but let us be sure that if and when fractured elements of the Restoration Movement are brought together, that the result is the household of faith, and not a movement gone astray. There is no virtue in being a part of the Restoration Movement, there is only virtue in people being in the church of Christ.

— P. O. Box 95, Zion, Illinois 60099