Truth Magazine

By Leslie Diestelkamp

Most Christians today are perhaps aware that brother Carl Ketcherside, of St. Louis, Mo., has been throughout the last three decades one of the most able and most conservative gospel preachers in America. I do not imply by that statement that most of us agreed with him, but we had to recognize his ability and conviction. Many of the things for which he stood so firmly were true to God’s Book, though he did indeed become extreme in his domination of churches, in his disfellowshipping tactics and in some other ways. However, there has now been a big change and, though his former divisiveness was evil, his present position is worse! He has gone to the other extreme, and now in trying to make a dynamic plea for unity, he has espoused a cause that is good, but has completely abandoned the true principles of the New Testament regarding and regulating the unity of believers.

I have not been able to secure all of his recent writing but feel obligated to respond briefly to some that has been seen by me. This is done with the hope that it will cause many younger men who seem to be almost swallowed up in this new movement to re-evaluate their attitude and re-consider the contrast between the word of God and the new and fair words of brother Ketcherside. Brother Ketcherside carries his new plea to various people by means of speeches wherever he can secure an appointment, it seems, and also by means of his paper, “Mission Messenger.”

In his articles on unity, brother Ketcherside stresses, properly I think, that we should not withhold fellowship from people because we differ or disagree. However, he fails to deal with the problem regarding those who practice unscriptural things, and who, by so doing would involve us in such sin also if we participate with them.

Brother Ketcherside often writes now of the sectarian spirit which he used to have, and which he seems to think almost all Christians now have. He properly criticizes his own divisiveness of other years when he did not recognize as brethren those who disagreed with him. Anyone who has been familiar with his record knows that he did need badly to repent and reform his ways and his attitude of sectarian, dictatorial aloofness. Furthermore, it is good that all of us be warned against any such creedalism and bigotry. When differences exist, instead of immediately separating ourselves from all others, branding them as apostates and “disfellowshipping” everyone who doesn’t agree with us, we must exercise patience and toleration with all people, at the same time teaching, studying and reasoning together.

That Other Extreme

It is dearly apparent that brother Ketcherside, in advocating some splendid principles which had not previously been included in his life and work, now has gone completely, altogether, without reservation into another extreme which may well be more destructive to souls than his former divisiveness. He now goes so far as to beg and plead and urge for unity without identifying the Bible principles upon which that unity can be based. Toleration is his theme, and he begs for such, not only with regard to men but with regard to principles. The actual crux of his appeal is not only that we be patient with men in error, but that we be tolerant with the error they advocate and practice. He is critical of those who try to keep the letter of the law of Christ, and like former brethren Warren, Wilburn, Key, etc., who were making these same pleas ten years ago and more, he seems to think one can keep the spirit of the Lord’s word without complete obedience to what is written in the New Testament. The other men just named, and still others unnamed, were able to lead many honest, deluded souls after them into real modernism, and their influence, especially here in the north has been hard to overcome. No doubt brother Ketcherside’s powerful voice and potent pen will also cause many to wander into denominationalism and destruction.

Examples

On page 8, Vol. 24, No. 4, of “Mission Messenger,” brother Ketcherside indicates that the “design” of baptism should not divide people who differ about it. This is equal to saying that it doesn’t make much difference whether one believes that baptism is “for remission of sins” or that it is the duty of a Christian. But valid baptism must be by the authority of Christ (Ac. 2: 38; Ac. 19:1-5; Col. 3:17, etc.) If one is baptized, believing that he is a Christian and that baptism is his duty as a child of God, that baptism could not possibly be by the authority of Christ. We might as well argue that the “action” or the “element” makes no difference in baptism! If the design of baptism can be dismissed as so inconsequential, then immersion is also unimportant and water is not a necessity at all. Brother Ketcherside will surely agree, and in so doing, abandons the very principles of salvation.

Again, in “Mission Messenger,” Vol. 23, No. 3, page 3, brother Ketcherside says, “Every sincere person who believes that Jesus is the Messiah and God’s Son, who is immersed in water in the implementation of that faith, is God’s child. He is my brother. He is in fellowship, the same fellowship into which I have been called.” But many such people believe that they were saved while sitting on a stump in the woods, while kneeling at a mourner’s bench or while and when some other physical, emotional matter overwhelmed them. They do believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God. They are then baptized “to follow the Lord.” But this is not the baptism Jesus authorized, it is not into Christ nor is it into “the one body.” (1 Cor. 12: 13.) A few years ago here in Chicago-land Roy Key advocated that if a person was sincere, and truly believed, we could not say he had not been obedient to Christ simply because he had not been immersed. Brother Ketcherside is still a step behind, but undoubtedly will soon openly also advocate this false doctrine that wil1 destroy the souls of men.

In Vol. 23, No. 6, pages 5 and 6, brother Ketcherside says, “I have never advocated fellowship with or between sects or sectaries, but with the Christians in all sects.” ” I conclude that I am in fellowship with every sincere baptized believer on the face of the earth.” But we must keep in mind that if children of God are in the sects, it is in spite of God’s word and not because of it. If they are there, it is in violation of that word and not in adherence to it. If they are in such they are also in jeopardy of losing their souls eternally. Christ did not die for a sect or party. He has never added a single soul to such. And, again remember that many, many sincere, baptized believers have never obeyed Peter’s command (Ac. 2:38) and they would deny that baptism had any part in their supposed salvation.

Brother Ketcherside argues that there is only one church in existence, for all the called of God” are added to it. Indeed, those who are called by the pure gospel and are obedient thereto are only and altogether added to that divine organism, Christ’s church. But we cannot deny that there are many churches. People have been “called of men” into human societies. Brother Ketcherside says that there can no more be many churches than there can be many Lords. True. However, there are indeed many, many lords (masters). Likewise there are many faiths, many baptisms, many hopes and even many gods. Truly there is one real Lord, faith, baptism, hope and God. In the same sense, there is only one true church. (Eph. 4:4-6.) (See also 1 Cor. 8:5-6.) Paul says there are gods many and lords many. Today we can say there are churches many. It is not possible, scripturally, to have fellowship with people in the many denominations simply because some children of God may have left the one true body to join themselves to a human society. Neither can we scripturally assume that denominational doctrines, even though they may be honestly believed, will ever make real Christians. Brother Ketcherside says man can no more create a church than he could create a God or the Holy Spirit. Indeed man cannot create a true church that belongs to Christ, but he can create one that belongs to men and that will lead souls to destruction, just as he can create a god that is after his own desires and that avails nothing but eternal ruin.

Brother Ketcherside says, “Division among the children of God is a sin, a work of the flesh.” (Vol. 24, No. 4, page 2, “Mission Messenger.”) He then properly emphasizes that we must not judge a brother, but must wait for Christ to render the judgment against those who go astray. This is indeed a proper emphasis. (Rom. 14:10.) However, the New Testament does teach us to do three things that are hardly mentioned by brother Ketcherside in his fervent over-emphasis upon unity (unity at almost any cost). (1) We must teach and practice true principles to the fullest of our ability without compromise. (2 Tim. 4:1-4; 2 Tim. 2:4.) (2) We must fight sin and false doctrine, openly and vigorously. (1 Tim. 4:1-4; Eph. 6:10-18.) (3) We must withdraw ourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly (2 Thes. 3:6) and we must “mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine” which was given by the Holy Spirit. (Rom. 16:17.) A fourth principle, equally important is that we must endeavor to maintain unity in spite of differing opinions. This one principle brother Ketcherside emphasizes effectively, but almost to the exclusion of the other three just mentioned herein.

Unity is a beautiful thing (Ps. 133:1), but unity in error makes no one right. If I am at peace with sin, it makes me a sinner. (Eph. 5:10, 11.) If I have fellowship with those who teach and practice error, I bid them “God speed” and am “partaker of his (their L. D.) evil deeds.” (2 Jn. 11.) Let us plead for unity upon a scriptural basis. Let us never abandon truth just in favor of unity.

Truth Magazine VI: 9&10, pp 2-4
June – July 1962

By Ferrell Jenkins

The only standard of authority for the church of Christ is the words of Christ and the apostles as revealed in the New Testament. However, from time to time, we hear various “false standards” advanced as authority for certain acts. Sectarians have been using these “standards” all along. It is not difficult to find brethren aping them. Acting on the basis of anyone of these “standards” would be unlawful. Notice now a brief discussion of some false standards:

Does Good-Must Be Right

We often hear people say of some religious practice: “It does good, or it is good, therefore it must be right (lawful, scriptural). This is the theory that the end justifies the means. We cannot do “evil” (unscriptural things) that good may result. (Rom. 3:3-8.) To be scriptural or lawful a thing must be good, but not all morally good things are right for the church to do. Mechanical music is right in the home; but not in the church. Ham is good at the breakfast table, but not on the Lord’s Table. Too, some things may be right for an individual or a secular institution to do and not lawful for the church to perform. The P.T.A. or some civic club might have an auction or a box supper, but it would not be right (scriptural) for the church to engage in such practices. One man argued with me that the Nazarene church must be right (lawful), because of the good it was doing and the growth it was making. He was using this false “standard.” Because some human institution does a “good work” does not mean that it is right for the church to do this thing. Schools, P.T.A.’s, and other human institutions have human authority for their practices. We must have Divine authority for our practices in the church.

Great, Wise Men Favor This

Denominational people often quote some “great” religious leader to prove their point. When, for example, shown from the Bible that baptism is immersion, they quote Barnes, and Clarke, or some other scholar to “prove” that these great men taught differently and then they will say, “Do you think you are smarter than these men?” They are using a false “standard.” Our faith must not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. (1 Cor. 2:5.) There has been only one Who didn’t make mistakes–Jesus Christ. Even Peter, an apostle, practiced error at one time. (Gal. 2:1lff.) We should never have so much confidence in one man or group of men, but that we can remain faithful to God even though they go astray. Brethren are often found using this “standard” by saying:

The Practice of Brethren

“Faithful brethren” have practiced this for many years. The statements of the “pioneers,” of even some more recent persons, or the activities of some congregation are often cited as authority. One can “prove” the Missionary Society “right” by such pioneers as Campbell, Lard, and McGarvey. Practices of churches today can be “proved” right and wrong by the writings of preachers now alive. Some practices can be “proved” right and wrong in the writings of the same man. Men change: Our faith should not stand in them. Some things may be wrong, but if practiced consistently for a long period of time become traditions. The Book of God warns against this. (Matt. 15:1-14; Col. 2:8.) Suppose a man or a congregation has practiced something for as many years as they can remember. Does that make the practice right? No– emphatically! The authority of God is the only thing that makes a religious practice right. Have you noticed that when brethren use this false “standard” they are begging the question? When one says that “faithful” brethren have practiced a certain thing, that is assuming the thing to be proved. Were the brethren “faithful” in practicing the particular thing? Again: Our faith must not stand in the wisdom of men–not even our brethren.

Rather Do Wrong Than Nothing

When those of us who are content to do God’s work in God’s way speak out against some practice of our brethren we often hear this false “standard”: “I had rather do wrong than do nothing at all.” Inactivity is not right, to be sure. One who makes this statement is guilty of fallacious reasoning. He is assuming that the only choices are wrong or nothing. This is not true. We have the choice of (1) doing nothing and being wrong, (2) doing wrong, or (3) doing right. Of course we should do the latter.

Denominations Are Doing It

Sometimes when contemplating the doing of something, brethren will say: “The denominations are doing this and we need to do it,” or “We must make a good impression on the people of our community.” God’s people have always been warned about pride, and trying to please men rather than God. If in pleasing God, it pleases men–good, but we are not to please men at the expense of displeasing God. (1 Thess. 2:4; Gal. 1:10.) The Old Testament was written for our learning. We can learn from Israel the danger of wanting to be like the “nations about us.” To have a building, radio program, orphanage, hospital, or an advertising program because the denominations have something similar (and usually much better, so far as the mechanics of the thing is concerned) is to act by false authority.

Let those of us who have named the name of Christ be content to do God’s will not on the authority of any of these “standards.” They, in and of themselves, are not sufficient reason or us to do anything. Let us do God’s will because GOD WANTS IT THAT WAY.

Truth Magazine VI: 8, pp. 17-18
May 1962

By David Lawrence

Departures from the truth always are a result of an attitude toward the Scriptures. the faithful child of God should take precautions against the developing of an unhealthy attitude. When such an incipient attitude is discerned in congregations or individuals, it is time for some corrective action. We would like to call your attention to what we believe to be a dangerous situation: traditional thinking.

Traditions are like cobwebs. They seem to grow in unattended places. Lethargy, stale thinking, and selfishness are very conductive to tradition development. If you have ever heard the statement: “That’s the way we’ve always done it . . . ” you have witnessed traditional thinking in action. It is spreading through the church of our Lord at a fast pace today, especially in places where the work has been longer established; however, it may be found even in comparatively new congregations. Traditional thinking is an attitude of basing our practices on established custom rather than the authority of God’s word. Sometimes it is conscious, sometimes not. Often we are deeply embedded in traditional thinking before we realize.

After the exile the Jews developed a whole scheme of intricate traditions. Many of them were derived from the Law. But the fact was that it was the traditions that were observed and not the Law. Only as the traditions included the Law was it followed. Jesus encountered this scheme of thinking. His reaction was vehement:

“Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, this people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own traditions” (Matt. 7:6-9).

Paul did not have a much higher opinion regarding traditions. He says, by inspiration, in Colossians 2:8,

“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”

Traditional thinking may invade all kinds of religious practices. We may be, for instance, practicing the truth by tradition. There are many congregations of the Lord’s people who refrain from the use of the musical instrument merely because “that’s what we’ve always done.” Any observant individual can see the logical consequences of such a position. Soon we come to tolerate the practice of error. For if we do it one way just because that’s the way we have always done it, then why shouldn’t they do it another way, because that’s how they’ve always done it? This is the natural pattern of traditional thinking. If we refrain from the use of the musical instrument on traditional grounds, then we have no right to condemn the use of it among the denominations. If we immerse merely because that is the established custom, then we have no right to condemn a sect for sprinkling. Someday somebody will realize this . . . and then will come overtures for cooperation or even union with the sects, and probably the abandonment of the truthful act.

Then there are many who are practicing error by tradition. We hear of those who attempt to justify unauthorized congregational support of human institutions on the grounds of tradition. The possibility that we might have been wrong all along never occurs to these people. And a whole host of unscriptural phrases may be classified here. “Roll sins forward,” “Church of Christ minister,” “Stay for Church” are a few we hear. The standard of right is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, the methods, and practices of times before. The standard of right remains the revealed will of God through Jesus Christ.

But we may also practice opinion by tradition. This is, perhaps, the most dangerous of all. For here we bind upon men things that God has not bound, and should remain in the realm of the optional. We use the traditional argument as our authority. For instance, those of us who set the revealed acts of worship in a certain pattern and refuse to acknowledge that those who practice another order of worship are “scriptural.” Various strange convictions appear from time to time, and brethren must often bow to them rather than give offense. But when we bind our own convictions upon brethren, matters of optional nature, we are as guilty as those Pharisees who received the Lord’s strong retribution.

One thing about traditional thinking is sure! It stifles and closes off fresh, new, inquiring thought. We can – never progress toward Christian perfection; we are in a rut. Traditional thinking binds us to human doctrines and separates us from the teaching of God. The longer it continues, the greater the rift between us and the New Testament. Tradition-bound preachers, rather than investigating the Word for a new or deeper interpretation, preach from sermon outlines of their predecessors. How we need the spirit of the pioneers in the restoration movement! Would that we could break with traditions and discover God’s truth for ourselves. We would still be in the dark recesses of Catholicism if religious leaders confined themselves to established practices and customs. Indeed, Catholicism is based and thrives upon traditions. It uses them as a prime basis for authority.

Let’s clean out the cobwebs! How we could all use periodic re-examinations and reevaluations of our practices. We require house cleanings every now and then. Brethren ought to sit down together and determine if their beliefs and practices were those authorized by the New Testament. We ought to discover what are matters of faith and what are matters of opinion. Peter commanded us to “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” (1 Pet. 3:15). May God help us to give our answer in the form of chapter-and-verse authority from his word, rather than “that’s just the way we’ve always done it.”

Truth Magazine VI, 8 pp. 23-24
May 1962

By Bryan Vinson, Jr.

I hold that the name “Christian” is sacred. I believe that most students of the word of God will agree with this. However, I feel that no word in the human vocabulary is the object of more abuse than this sacred term. Men speak of “Christian communities,” “Christian nations,” and “a Christian world.” They refer to all religious bodies professing a degree of faith in Jesus as being “Christian.” Most members of the Lord’s church recognize the abuse of the sacred word as it is used in these ways. But it is quite possible that some of our usage of the word has reduced the sacred to the level of the common.

Look to Thyself

I hear my brethren (myself included) speaking of “Christian colleges,” “Christian homes,” and “Christian recreation.” I personally doubt the propriety of such language. I do not say that there is never a time when the word “Christian” may be used, in good taste, as an adjective. However, I think we should be reminded of the fact that it was never so used upon the pages of the New Testament. It was a name that God applied to those who obeyed the gospel and were added the church which Christ purchased with his own blood. ” . . . The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch” (Acts 11:26). In order for the sacred term to be used properly as an adjective it would have to be descriptive of some work or group peculiarly related to the Christ, or to a Christian. Perhaps we may speak of “Christian worship,” i. e. worship prescribed by Christ and engaged in, or offered up, by Christians. If ever the word “Christian” could be properly used as an adjective, this would certainly be a proper usage. It would be describing worship authorized by Christ, specifically, and engaged in by Christians, exclusively.

This close relationship does not, however, exist in some of the spheres and activities sc often described by the sacred term. Consider: Christian Colleges. In what way is Christ related to the college? Did he authorize it as a religious work, thus obligating Christians to support it to the extent of their abilities? Certainly Christ did not authorize the work of maintaining a college, and that is why we oppose the expenditure of funds belonging to the Lord’s treasury for such operations. It is a “Christian college” because those who make up the faculty are Christians? Or is it “Christian” because those who attend are, for the most part, Christians? Or is it because those who support it are Christians? If this is the case, then any business could become a “Christian business.” A Christian could organize a business, employ only Christians, deal in a service only for the benefit of Christians! and thus have a “Christian business.” But some may say it is the fact that the college is teaching the Bible and trying to build up young Christians that makes it a “Christian college.” If so, the previously described business could qualify for taking time each day to conduct Bible studies. The point should be clear: Christ’s authority does not specify any such business enterprise and Christians are not exclusively related to any such activity, –so it could not truly be a “Christian business.”

As A Christian

Some seem to think that a Christian does everything as a Christian, i. e. because he is a Christian. This is not true. Relatively few of the activities we engage in from day to day are engaged in because we are Christians. Much of what we do we do because we are parents, tradesmen, citizens, or just plain humans. A father provides for his children because he is a father, not because he is a Christian. You may say that because he is a Christian he is more aware of his parental responsibilities, which is probably true, but the responsibilities remain parental, not Christian. Consider the fact that Jesus taught his disciples to pay tribute unto Caesar, –not because they were his disciples, but because they were related to the civil government headed by Caesar. The paying of taxes, therefore, is something we do as citizens, –not as Christians. Certainly I do not mean to imply that we can refuse to be good fathers and citizens and remain faithful to the Lord. The Lord has made faithfulness to our other responsibilities prerequisite to our complete faithfulness to His will.

In view of the fact that most of life’s activities are concerned with the fulfillment of responsibilities other than those pertaining to our relationship with the Christ, we should be careful as to how and when we apply the word Christian. As a father or mother we may supply the wants of our children; as a son or daughter we may give honor to our parents; as a citizen we may be in subjection to the powers of civil government; as a h1zman we may assist in relieving the needs of mankind. But as a Christian we may do only those things that Jesus has specifically authorized exclusively for Christians. As a Christian I may worship God in spirit and truth; as a Christian I may proclaim the gospel to a lost world; and as a Christian I may take a special interest in the needs of my brethren in the Lord.

True it is that my relationship to the Lord should awaken me more fully to the responsibilities that I have in other relationships, but these responsibilities remain related to the other relationships. If we could clearly understand this concept, I firmly believe we could improve upon our usage of the word Christian.

These comments have not been presented in the spirit of dogmatism. These are my own reflections. Perhaps many of our readers will disagree, and I invite your comments. Perhaps some would be interested in writing their reasons as to why they think there is such a thing as “Christian recreation.” I invite your comments and articles.

Truth Magazine VI: pp. 21-22
May 1962