"Love, Fellowship, And Ketcherside".
I appreciate the fairness of the editor of The Gospel Guardian in allowing one who is made the subject of direct attack in the columns of the paper to answer for himself. In the December 4 issue appears an article by my brother, Dale Smelser, entitled, "Love, Fellowship, and Ketcherside." I am thrilled that my name is connected with those other two words.
The subject of our brother's thesis is a dialogue session on "current theological questions" in the Chicago area which he attended with several other brethren. He registers his disillusionment with my approach to certain matters, but since he admits to not knowing why I took such an approach, I will not notice his probabilities. I have no inclination to appear unflappable, nor to defend what my good brother calls "the myth of his imperturbability." I intend to be myself, to do my own thinking, to love all of my brothers, and to share my thinking with them as they will permit. But I present no case for my attitude. It must speak for itself.
I appreciate greatly the fact that my brethren — Bob Bunting, Jim Smelser, Grant Caldwell, Gordon Pennock, and Dale Smelser — came to share with us. I love them all. Of course we differ about some things, and these were introduced in our meeting. Since I simply express my own sentiments and do not seek to impose them upon others I am not upset when other brethren cannot concur with my personal understanding. Our differences are subjects for discussion and not excuses for division.
Dale points out that I referred to the brethren as "you boys," and said the expression "did not sound very loving on Carl Ketcherside's lips." (He mentions that brother Pennock is slightly older than myself). Dale is right about this. I apologize. I appreciate his mentioning it in print so I could correct it. This is a real problem to me because we used the word "boys" without reference to age in the hill country where I grew up. It is especially resented now by black people and I have to pray regularly for the wisdom to avoid offense in the black ghettoes where I labor. I have no desire to speak patronizingly to any man, and especially to those of the household of faith. We have enough hang-ups already without my augmenting the problem through thoughtless semantics.
As to my position on love, it can be briefly stated. Our brother is mistaken when he talks about "this idea of fellowship with everyone you can love." I have never advocated such a position. At last I have arrived at the place where I can truly love even my enemies. Not all of these are my brethren. I can love the world of humanity, but I am in the fellowship only with those who constitute "the new humanity." Just as physical birth brought me into a realm where I share life with-all mankind, so the new birth brought me into that domain of the Spirit where I share eternal life with the new creation.
It is this sharing of a common life which is "the fellowship of the Spirit." We cannot extend it or withdraw it. It is a state or condition created by God who is faithful and who calls us into it. We can only share in it. No man is called into the fellowship because he opposes instrumental music or because he endorses it. It is his reception of Christ Jesus as the hope of salvation that makes him "acceptable in the beloved." Most of my brethren in the restoration movement who employ instruments of music thought it was right to do so at the time when they were born into the Father's family. They were accepted as His children and received as members of the family in spite of their concept. Since the Father acknowledges those who were born of the water and of the Spirit as His children, I must receive and treat them as my brethren.
I can testify to them that I do not personally regard instrumental music in corporate praise as compatible with the Father's design for us. Dale admits that I did this. What troubles him is that there exists "a great rapport and fellowship" between me and brethren who use the instrument. The reason is quite simple. One's understanding of the problem of instrumental music has nothing to do with the fellowship. It is a question in the fellowship, not a question of fellowship!
The fact is that every person at the meeting near Chicago was my brother. I did not agree with a one of them on all matters. But I was then, and I still am, in the blessed and majestic fellowship of God with all of them. We are not in the fellowship because we agree on everything, but we seek to agree upon things because we are in the fellowship. Harmony is a fruit of fellowship, not the seed of it.
My brethren who disagree with me are not members of alien tribes. They are members of the one body. We are not one because we are perfect in knowledge or understanding but because we are in the perfect One! If one is right about Jesus he may be wrong about a lot of things and still be saved; if he is wrong about Jesus he can be right about everything else and still be lost. "Love, Fellowship, and Ketcherside." How I would like to make that last word synonymous with the first two. I eagerly solicit the prayers of every reader of The Gospel Guardian that I may do so. I love you men!