In personal discussions with the young men involved in the "fellowship-unity" cult, we have become aware of a "standard approach" which all seem to have adopted for their own use. A session with these young men usually begins with one pointed question, "Do you know all truth?" Once our youthful sophists have begun their chain of queries and have put the unwary listener into the position of determining who's saved and who's not, they have succeeded (seemingly) in shifting the burden of proof' to the bewildered answerer. Like most philosophical systems, if one grants these young men their basic premises, they can superficially make their "system" work. The "fly in their ointment," however, is that their basic premises have no Scriptural foundation! Their questions have no relevance whatever to God's scheme of redemption or unity-God has never made exhaustive knowledge, a prerequisite to salvation. In the Bible, one has access to all the truth God has seen fit to reveal unto us. Consequently, one may know the truth which God revealed unto us in His word. When one believes what His book teaches on church co-operation, music, in worship, the fellowship of the, saints, or any other subject, he believes the truth on that subject and in 'believing the truth, he stands related to Christ who is the truth.

In the process of time a child of God will be confronted with error; it is his responsibility to study and thereby know the truth that he might contend for it and practice it. The man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work because every Scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction which in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16, 17). God's fellowship is thus never any larger than the realm of light or truth. Those who remain with the truth ever remain with God, for the "just shall live by faith," the faith once for all delivered unto the saints.

It is a blatant fallacy to assert that because we do not have exhaustive knowledge we may not draw lines of fellowship over doctrinal matters. Even these bright young minds can see their inconsistency to a certain extent, for they too draw lines. These that would have us believe the Bible is too hazy and nebulous in the areas of instrumental music or church organization to draw lines, affirm the "clearness" of Biblical teaching on baptism and the Lordship of Jesus and draw a firm line at these two points (although the line is becoming less firm all the time). Their argumentation' usually runs similar to this:

These young scholars (?) have thus decided that beyond the "one fact and one act," there is nothing that should really keep "us" apart from any other "sincere, baptized believer." The reply to their contention is elementary: if we could "conceivably be wrong" about the worship and organization of the church, then we might well also be wrong about baptism and the Lordship of Jesus! After all, why draw a line at baptism-there are many sincere, devout "Protestants" who believe that baptism is either unnecessary or the token of remission of sins from whom we are withholding fellowship! After all, why draw a line at the Lordship, of Jesus-there are many sincere, devout "Moslems" who live by many of the principles by which we walk from whom we are withholding fellowship! If we may not draw lines at the worship and organization of the church, pray tell by what authority may we draw it at baptism and the Lordship of Jesus?

Friends, these young brethren have tossed the possibility of any absolutes out the window and have substituted a doctrinal situationism which is headed for oblivion. In any system then where truth is relative, every man is his own authority and master and in fact in this system it is an absurd and vain thing to speak of the Lordship of Jesus Christ!

It is a curious thing indeed to note the sources of authority to which these young brethren run when their views are challenged. Rather than turning to the living word of God, the sword of the Spirit, these find consolation and shelter in the oracles of Campbell or Lard! Their plea is not back to the Bible, but back to the Restoration Movement! The standard of their beliefs is an odd volume of Lard's Quarterly or an excerpt from The Christian Baptist. They have quite intelligently given up any hope of finding their views in the infallible word of God and have turned aside to the writings of fallible men. But lest they evince an air of impiety, some have been scribbling some notes from the New Testament in the back of their bound volumes of Mission Messenger!

The preoccupation of these young men with the Restoration movement to the neglect of the Scriptures has obviously affected their vocabulary and approach to worship. Their writing efforts and conversation are sprinkled with the non-Scriptural terminology of the modern denominational world. Such speak glowingly of a "commitment to Jesus" or wax eloquently of "when Jesus walks into your life" with all the testimonial fervency of a "Jesus freak" at a Billy Graham crusade! Visiting the services of a congregation where these boys are "in the lead" is much like attending a "Youth for Christ" rally in terms of the "campfire" hymns "in the round," spontaneous "chain prayers," and the extensive use of modern speech "translations."

It is often asserted by these younger brethren that because we are not "controlled by the extraordinary revelatory power of the Holy Spirit which directed the apostles" we should be careful lest we alienate our brethren in a "foolishly dogmatic" stand for the truth. The import of their assertion is this: since we are not "inspired interpreters" as were the "apostles," we should thus manifest a more patient tolerance for error in light of doubtful ability as exegetes.

God made man in His own image, giving him a personality, an intellect and has made it possible for man to communicate and to understand communication. As Ron Halbrook has well said, "If a man is void of mental ability to understand the necessity of worshipping by faith with regard to instrumental music, institutionalism, etc., then he is also safe, for he must be an infant or idiot, a child or insane!" Their approach here represents but another dodge of the responsibility to stand for the truth.

It is hoped that by the appearance of these three articles we have provoked the thinking of those young brethren who are enamored with or sympathetic to the Ketcherside Garrett unity movement. It is also earnestly hoped that more of our older brethren in the Lord, in light, of the attitudes and beliefs manifested by these younger men, will begin taking a clearer, more militant stand for the truth of the gospel. No one will be benefitted by a "low-key, silent treatment" regarding the issues which face us-they will not just simply go away. It may be yet possible to salvage the souls of those young men who are not totally committed to the Ketcherside position, but a vacillating, compromising attitude will only contribute to the problem. Our prayer is that these young men and older men will honestly reevaluate their respective beliefs and "search the scriptures to see whether they be true." "Ye, therefore, beloved, knowing that things beforehand, beware lest, being carried away with t error of the wicked, ye fall from your own stedfastness" (I Peter 3:17).

Truth Magazine, XVIII, 5, p. 8-9
November 29, 1973