Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

The following articles are an exchange between Weldon Warnock and Jerry Bassett on 1 Corinthians 7:15. The exchange is the result of an article which I wrote, published in the 21 July 1988 issue of Guardian of Truth. In a review of the book Not Under Bondage written by brother James D. Bales, I made the following statement:

James D. Bales’ book Not Under Bondage was published in 1979 and already its influence is being felt among conservative brethren. (For example, see the 18 October 1987 issue of Coburg Road Bulletin published by the church which meets at 1005 Coburg Rd. in Eugene, Oregon, in which Jerry Bassett took the same position as brother Bales.)

Brother Bassett sent me an article replying to my material on 1 Corinthians 7 and charging that I had misrepresented him and the Coburg Road church by that statement.

Letters immediately began to be exchanged to provide opportunity for a discussion in Guardian of Truth. I had no intention of misrepresenting the Coburg Road church or brother Bassett and still do not believe that I have done so. However, this exchange provides the reader opportunity to decide for himself. Brother Passett’s first article is the article to which I referred in my editorial which charged that brother Bassett takes the same position as James D. Bales.

The exchange also emphasizes the fact that some brethren among us are teaching that alien sinners are not amenable to God’s law of marriage revealed in Matthew 5:32; 19:9. The consequences of this are clearly demonstrated in the exchange: alien sinners who have divorced and remarried for reasons other than fornication can be baptized and continue living in their second (third, or fourth) marriage. This issue will not go away. We need not pretend that it does not exist. We live in a society which practices divorce and remarriage for any causes; we have some preachers among us who are preaching that aliens are not amenable to Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. Because of these two facts, brethren need to be awakened to this danger which threatens the church. To accomplish this purpose, my initial articles were written. To promote further study, this exchange is published. May God bless each of us as we study these issues.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 15, p. 463
August 3, 1989

By L.A. Stauffer

May 25, 1989 marked the end of the long controversial life of a talented, influential, well-known preacher among Churches of Christ and Christian Churches. After spending the day in volunteer work at the Cornerstone Fellowship, a religio-social communion that distributes to the needs of the poor, and the evening in Bible study at the Oak Hill Chapel, his home congregation, W. Carl Ketcherside of St. Louis, MO, who suffered from heart trouble the past few years, apparently died in his sleep. He was 81. Leroy Garrett of Denton, TX, Ketcherside’s closest associate, a friend of 37 years, preached the funeral May 28. Burial was “back home” in Farmington, MO.

Ketcherside, according to Garrett, began preaching at age 12 or, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, age 13. Soon thereafter, friends report, he became an award-winning championship debater in a Kansas high school. The development of his talent both as a speaker and a polemicist equipped him well to persuade and move hundreds, even thousands of people to his way of thinking. Friend and foe alike attest to his power in the pulpit and on the debate platform. The name “Ketcherside,” first attached to his followers as arch-conservatives and later as extreme liberals, testifies to the attractiveness of his person and the eloquence of his speech. These qualities served his purposes well during nearly 70 years of preaching.

The preaching life of Carl Ketcherside divides itself into two nearly equal parts. He devoted the first 30 to 35 years of preaching to opposing what was commonly called “located preachers” and “Christian colleges.” My first acquaintance with Ketcherside came through the published debates he conducted with G.K. Wallace in discussion of these issues. He then denied the right of preachers to receive stipulated wages and to locate with one congregation under the oversight of elders. He likewise denied parents and interested individuals the right to build and support “Bible” colleges in which to educate their children. He drew the circle of fellowship tightly around those brethren who opposed these practices and shut out of his communion all who disagreed. His views were cogently argued and skillfully penned in Mission Messenger, a monthly periodical he published for 40 years or more.

In 1957 Ketcherside, after repenting as it were in “sackcloth and ashes,” began more than 30 years of preaching new views on the meaning and extent of “fellowship.” In 1961 1 met and talked with W. Carl Ketcherside for the first time at a “Unity Forum” in Chicago. He assured me that his biblical views had not changed, except in the broadening of his ideas of fellowship. He then believed what he had always believed, including opposition to mechanical instruments of music in worship and church support of missionary societies. He could now, he said, fellowship all Churches of Christ and Christian Churches in matters on which he and they agreed without endorsing any views he rejected. He used the pulpits of both to spread his concepts on fellowship among all who had been baptized into Christ.

In 1974, at Indianapolis in a second conversation, “Carl,” as he was usually addressed, told me that his former ideas were unimportant to both him and God. He by this time had concluded that baptism need not be “for the remission of sins” and that “Jesus Christ didn’t come all the way to earth and die on a cross to concern himself with issues of whether men should use instruments of music in worship.” In reply to a question about the breadth of fellowship he brusquely refused to acknowledge that anyone among “Disciples of Christ” denied the bodily resurrection of Christ. In time he drew the circle of fellowship wider and wider – including even those who claimed devotion to Christ but denied the nature and necessity of baptism.

Leroy Garrett’s eulogy at the funeral included what he assured the audience was Ketcherside’s favorite poem and favorite Scripture. Both are appropriate in summation of his life and its impact. The poem relates to drawing circles of fellowship. It tells how one man draws a small circle of fellowship that shuts men out and another man draws a larger circle of fellowship that takes the first man in. The Scripture: “For David, after he had in his own generation served the counsel of God, fell asleep” (Acts 13:36).

Garrett’s application of the poem, in the first place, alluded to men who on the basis of scriptural authority refuse to have fellowship with those who accept instruments of music in worship (see Eph. 5:19; 2 John 9) and with others who outrightly reject baptism as essential to salvation (see Mk. 16:15,16; Acts 2:38). When Ketcherside accepted those men and either propagated or encouraged their views, strict biblicists drew lines or circles of fellowship that excluded him. He then with his patented “I love you” drew his circle around them and said, “I fellowship you.” But biblically, “I love you” must not be confused with “I fellowship you.” God loves the whole world but has fellowship only with those who walk in the light (see 1 Jn. 1:5-10). Christians who draw circles that exclude men from fellowship – love those men, whether they be W. Carl Ketcherside, Leroy Garrett, Billy Graham, or Pope John Paul II.

And yet Garrett’s poem is a fitting description of W. Carl Ketcherside’s life. He first drew small circles to shut men out, then larger circles to take men in. His life was one of extremes, and at both ends of the spectrum the power of his personality and charisma moved men.

Garrett also assessed Ketcherside accurately – that he sought to serve his own generation and then fall asleep. He neither built nor left any permanent institution to carry on his work. Even Mission Messenger was laid to rest when he had said what he wanted to say in its pages. He did not leave it to a younger editor to further his goals.

No one, however, not even Garrett, believes that the influence of W. Carl Ketcherside will end with the generation he served. His works will follow him and he being dead will yet speak. He will especially speak thorugh the generation he served – through the vast array of men and women who have left the simplicity of the gospel to find their way into modernistic, charismatic, denominational, evangelical religious bodies who are dominated by either “faith alone,” t4social gospel” concepts, or both.

Yes, the Scripture Garrett quoted truthfully depicts Ketcherside’s will and what is theoretically true. A man can serve only his own generation and must then fall asleep. But the legacy he leaves that generation and the fruit it bears constitute an echoing voice for which he is responsible whether for weal or woe.

The life and teaching of men with charisma, such as W. Carl Ketcherside, who move and influence others on extreme ends of religious spectrums remind us that “ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (Jn. 8:32). When men speak, regardless of how powerfully and persuasively, we must be found “examining the scriptures daily, whether these things” are so (Acts 17:11).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 15, pp. 453, 455
August 3, 1989

By Wayne S. Walker

In a previous article we began a discussion about how the Bible says we should act when it is silent on a particular subject. The article had nothing new to say. These things have been proclaimed by faithful gospel preachers and believed by faithful Christians for years. However, they need to be brought to our remembrance from time to time, especially in view of more recent controversies regarding the subject. We began that study with Hebrews 7:14. “For it, is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood.” God had specified that priests under the Old Testament were to be of the tribe of Levi. The law of Moses was silent concerning approval of priests from any other tribe. Consequently, even Jesus himself could not have been a priest on earth since he was of the tribe of Judah. The author’s argument in context is that for him to become our High Priest there had to be a change of the law.

Application of this principle was made to some problems that have arisen among brethren over the years. We saw that while the Bible does not specifically mention certain methods of assembling, singing, and giving, it is not silent about the doing of these things themselves. Therefore, we do have authority to use any expedient methods of doing them which do not change the nature of the command or violate any other teachings of God’s word. On the other hand, God is not silent regarding the kind of music he wants us to use in praising him. He specified singing. Any expedient way to help us sing falls within the general authority to do so. But anything that would add another kind of music or change the nature of the command is indeed a matter of Bible silence and silence does not give consent according to Hebrews 7. In this article we want to make further application of this principle to some other problems that have bothered members of the church.

Generic Authority

An argument is often made that there are some churches of Christ who believe that the Scriptures are silent on having divided Bible classes in the church building and on using individual communion cups. Since we go ahead and practice these things on which, presumably, the Bible is silent, why can we not also have instrumental music or other such things on which the Bible is also silent? Again, equivocation is the basis for this argument as well, and the problem is the result of a misunderstanding of generic authority (see chart).

What God Said:	This Includes:	Silence:
Teach Christ’s Commands (Matt. 28:18-20)	Bible Classes   Literature	Teaching Human   Doctrine
Drink the Cup   (1 Cor. 11:23-26)	Individual   Containers	Water   Cola

The Bible says to teach Christ’s commands (Matt. 28:18-20). It nowhere specifies a particular place or arrangement. Some would affirm that the only arrangement authorized is when the whole church is come together in one place. However, this is merely assumed and cannot be proven from Scripture. The use of graded Bible classes with literature expedites the generic command to teach Christ’s commands. Of course, teaching human doctrines instead of or in addition to Christ’s doctrine changes the command and thus cannot expedite it. The Scriptures are silent in telling us to do this and, in fact, forbid our doing so.

The Bible tells us to drink the cup (1 Cor. 11:23-26). Obviously we do not drink the literal vessel, so “the cup” must stand for the contents which we do drink rather than the container itself. Nowhere is there a specific statement as to the number of containers. Individual communion cups are expedients to following a generic command. We are still doing nothing but drinking “the cup,” regardless of how many containers we use. But using water or cola changes the command. These are not expedients and the Scriptures are silent on them. And when God says nothing, we are not at liberty to act.

So the Bible, in reality, is not “silent” regarding Bible classes and individual communion cups. While they are not mentioned specifically, they are included in generic authority and are thus permissible. They neither change the command nor add to it but are merely expedients to carrying it out. This cannot be said for instrumental music, teaching human doctrines, and using water or cola in the Lord’s supper. Thus they are wrong.

Specific Authority

However, through the years, some brethren have tried to bring other practices into the church by claiming that they are simply expedients, like the Bible classes and individual containers. In fact, there are those who have tried to establish a fourth method of determining authority. In addition to divine commands, approved apostolic examples, and necessary inferences, they have said that we can use the “law of expediency.” If it is expedient, it is authorized. I believe that it was Henry Ward Beecher, a denominational preacher, who used this same kind of argument to justify infant baptism. However, for a practice to be expedient in carrying out God’s commands, it must first be lawful itself and the thing it is supposed to do must be lawful. To put it plainly, there must be direct command, approved example, or necessary inference to authorize it. And in the area of specific authority, we must limit ourselves (see chart below).

What God Said:	This Specified:	Silence:
Mission of the Church	Spiritual in Nature (Rom. 14:17)	Recreation; Entertainment
Preaching the Gospel	Church is Pillar of Truth (1 Tim. 3:15)	Missionary Society
Benevolence	Church Helps Needy Saints   (Acts 6:1-6)	Benevolent Organization;   General Benevolence
Edification	Church Instructs Members   (Eph. 4:12)	Colleges

With regard to the mission of the church God has spoken. And he has specified that the church’s mission is to be spiritual. “For the kingdom of God is not food and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 14:17). The church may do whatever is necessary in accomplishing this mission. However, God is silent regarding the inclusion of recreation and entertainment in the mission of the church. There are many fine human organizations which are able to provide for these physical needs of mankind, but God established his church or kingdom to meet men’s spiritual needs. Recreation and entertainment are not expedients to induce people to come to church services or teach them the gospel because they are not spiritual in their nature.

Concerning one aspect of the church’s mission, preaching the gospel, God has again spoken. He specified that the church is to be the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15). The church is the only institution specifically designed by God to do this. (This statement is not intended to deny the right of individual Christians, whether singly or together, to fulfil their personal responsibilities in proclaiming the truth.) Any expedients which would enable the church to carry out this work would be within the realm of that which is lawful. However, the Bible is silent about a union of congregations in a missionary society which then does the work. The missionary society is not an expedient way to preach because it is not the church acting as God ordained it.

In reference to the work of benevolence, God has specified that the church is to help needy saints. We have one example of this in Acts 6:1-6. This is what God has spoken. But there is an area of silence. God has not spoken about church sponsored benevolent homes taking care of needy saints, nor has he spoken about churches helping the poor nonChristians with their physical needs. You can read the New Testament from Matthew to Revelation and you will not find one shred of precedent for benevolent institutions supported by churches for the general benevolence by churches. These are not expedient ways of carrying out the work of benevolence because they are not doing what God specified.

There is another area of the church’s work – edification. As to this work, God has spoken and he has specified that the church is to instruct its members. Ephesians 4:11-12 says that God gave certain gifts to the church – apostles and prophets to reveal the word, and evangelists, pastors, and teachers to proclaim the word, “for the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of the body of Christ” (ASV). Ephesians 4:16 goes on to say, “From whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes the growth of the body [church, WSW] for the edifying of itself in love.” God is silent about a church or churches setting up an independent organization, such as a Sunday School Society or a “Christian” college, to provide edification for its members. (This statement is not intended to deny the right of individual Christians to establish a school, separate and apart from the church, as a business enterprise to teach both secular and religious subjects.) Therefore, such church-supported entities are not expedient means to edification because they are not the church acting as God intended, since God specified that the church is to edify itself.

The fact is, when God has given specific authority for what he wants done, whom he wants to do it, and how he wants it done, we have no right to generalize that something else will do and then call it an expedient. This principle holds true whether one is considering the mission, work, worship, organization, message, or behavior of the church. When God says to do something, we must do what he says. We may use whatever expedients are necessary to accomplish it. However, when God says nothing, we have no right to act. God said nothing about priests from any tribe other than Levi. Using men from Judah, Benjamin, etc., to serve at the altar would not have been an expedient method of offering sacrifices because it was different from what God specified.

Our Authority

How, then, can we solve the problem of what to do when God says nothing? First, we must realize that God has spoken to us and that the Scriptures are a complete revelation of everything that God wants us to know. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). If it is a good work, so far as God is concerned, he has authorized it in the Scriptures. If it cannot be found in the Scriptures, then it is not a good work in God’s sight.

This is the only conclusion possible if we accept the Bible as God’s final word.

Therefore, we must understand that what God wants us to do has already been bound and loosed in heaven. “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. It will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16:17-18, NASB). The same promise made here specifically to Peter is also made to the other apostles in Matthew 18:18. When the apostles preached God’s word, they did not speak off the top of their heads. They proclaimed what God had previously bound and loosed in heaven. Thus, we have no right to bind or loose anything other than what God has plainly revealed in his word through the holy apostles and prophets.

And, finally, we must remember that the curse of God rests upon all who would add to, subtract from, or change his will in any way. “For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book” (Rev. 22:18-19; cf. Deut. 4:2; Prov. 30:5-6). Those who sought to add priests from other tribes when God said nothing about them had to face his wrath. And those today who add things to God’s word, such as instrumental music, when God has said nothing, will have to answer for violating this passage. I would not want to be in their shoes at judgment for anything in the world.

Conclusion

Very simply, when God says something, we must do i We must have the attitude expressed by young Samuel “Speak, Lord, for Your servant hears” (1 Sam. 3:9). But when God says nothing, we had better do nothing with regard to that particular subject. This principle can also be illustrated from Acts 15:24. In the discussion over whether the Gentiles must be circumcised, the apostles and the elders of Jerusalem said, “We have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, ‘You must be circumcised and keep the law’ -to whom we gave no such commandment.” Now, the apostles and elders had not said, “You must not go and preach that the Gentiles must be circumcised.” They simply gave no commandment to do it.

Did the fact that the apostles had given no such commandment, that they were silent on this matter, that they had not said, “Thou shalt not preach circumcision,” give these false teachers the right to proclaim their doctrine? Certainly not! And when we cannot find authority in God’s word for a belief, a teaching, or a practice, we have no right to accept it as true and we had best leave it alone. When God says nothing, we have no right to presume upon his silence and we have no liberty to act. May those who truly want to be his people here upon the earth and desire to go to be with him in heaven when this life is over learn this lesson well.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 15, pp. 456-458
August 3, 1989

By William C. Sexton

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed (Gal. 1:8).

Paul stated a principle in the above verse to the Galatians which all of us need to be aware of and apply in our lives, always. Even a great apostle as Paul, should he declare something other than the primitive, revealed gospel, has a curse on him and should not be accepted. Even an angel can’t change the gospel without being “eternally condemned” (NIV).

Don’t follow “great men,” people who have gained great respect from us, to accept views that are not scriptural. Paul’s point is this: Don’t allow anyone to persuade you to accept something that has not been revealed in the original gospel message!

This constitutes a great danger for us. We are not likely to follow people we don’t respect. When people whom we have come to respect and think of as being “great” teachers speak, we listen! They have a great deal more influence on us than others, so we should be careful. Men of repute have been the cause of many people turning down a road of departure from the revealed will of God.

Peter turned aside to practice something that was contrary to the original gospel, and Paul was obligated to withstand him to his face, because he was to be blamed (Gal. 2:11). Peter’s action caused one of lessor repute (Barnabas) to “be carried away” with this “dissimulation. ” Paul was faithful in his duty; he called on Peter to repent of his sinful behavior, showing how sinful his action was and the consequences of his inconsistency. Galatians 2:17 says, “But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.”

With equal zeal and determination, we, too, should act as Paul did. “Great men,” are still just men, having no right to teach anything other than what God’s holy men moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:20-21) have taught.

It is my observation that men who seem to be “somewhat” (Gal. 2:6 “God [really] accepteth no man’s person”) have been able in most of the departures to lead men away and get them involved in things they would otherwise not have gotten into.

All of us have been helped by other men and women who have studied the Bible and gained a reputation for their knowledge and dedication to Christ. However, we must always be able to listen and reason, accepting only that which we can see as being the real teachings of the Holy Scriptures.

We need not stop listening to or seeking the sound teachings and wisdom of men and women who over the years have shown their dedication to the Lord. May we ever be a bit skeptical, however, and not be willing to accept anything they say if it is not based solidly upon holy writ.

The time comes in each of our lives when we need to question another’s views on things that he is teaching, regardless of his experience, devotion, and reputation.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 14, p. 431
July 20, 1989