GOALS OF RESTORATION
By W. CARL KETCHERSIDE

There are two subjects which should engross the attention of those who love the Lord in these days. One is the achievement of the unity of all believers in Him, the other is the restoration of the primitive order as set forth in the scriptures of the new covenant. It is my conviction that the first, for which our Saviour prayed, can only be accomplished through the second, for which we should labor. Unfortunately, we are hindered by the egotism of many, and by the indifference of many others. Those who think they have perfectly recovered all the Saviour gave, and perfectly uncovered all God’s word holds for us, resent the very implication of the term “restoration.” Those who reject the revelation of heaven as a guide, do not care to investigate it with a view to removing the rubbish and debris which have gathered through the years about the religion of the Christ.

We can be grateful there are still thousands who “sigh and cry for Jerusalem” and who are dedicated to the task of learning the way of truth more perfectly, and of sharing it with others. It is to these we dedicate this essay in which we propose to point out some of the areas wherein we should strive to recapture lost truths. As the Lord said to the aged Joshua, “There remains yet very much land to be possessed,” so it is with us. In our brief notice of the following items, we may lay a foundation for further examination in subsequent issues of this periodical.

I. SCRIPTURAL VOCABULARY

We suggest the following points as a basis for our approach to this topic:

1. It is impossible for man to grasp the thoughts of God until he reveals them (1 Cor. 2:10, 11).

2. Any revelation of the thoughts of God to man, must be given through a means of communication known to and employed by man.

3. Since men employ words as symbols of ideas.; to be intelligible to man, a revelation of God must be conveyed in human language.

4. The language employed in such revelation must be one commonly in use among the people, at the time and in the place, when such revelation is given.

5. Those who live in an age and time remote from that in which the revelation was given, and who employ another language, can only understand the revelation of heaven, by ascertaining the usage of the terms in which it is couched, by those to whom it was originally given.

6. The translation and interpretation of such terms must be according to the laws governing the translation and interpretation of other documents current among the same people, and at the same time, when the revelation was given.

7. Recognizing that words alter their significance through use by successive generations, the true restorationist must divest his mind as much as possible of prejudice created by ecclesiastical usage, and avoid reading into God’s word those meanings which are hallowed by tradition, rather than by heaven.

A restoration of the primitive order cannot be accomplished without first restoring the vocabulary of the Spirit. The revelation of the Spirit can be understood only in the language of the Spirit. “We impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit” (1 Cor. 2:13). The language of human philosophy is not adapted to the interpretation of spiritual truths. Each profession has a jargon of its own. Such specialized verbiage is used to debar the uninitiated from sharing the knowledge of the elite corps. A “layman” cannot read a physician’s prescription, interpret a legal document, nor unravel a scientific or technological report. Neither can one such understand philosophical or clerical phraseology. But the possession of the Spirit is not limited to those who have ascended scholastic heights, therefore, interpretation of spiritual truths to such should be imparted in words taught by the Spirit, rather than dictated by human wisdom.

I shall expect to show sometime in the future, God willing, what is involved in this process. Suffice it to point out now that one of our chief tasks is to recover the true meaning of the terms used by the Spirit. To do this, we must recognize that there are two great alterations which can be wrought in language and which will militate against a restoration of primitive purity, unless identified and eliminated. One of these is the assignment of a limited meaning to an unlimited term; the other is just the reverse. When an inclusive term is applied in an exclusive sense, or an exclusive term is applied in an inclusive sense; confusion will be inevitable. The ultimate result will be that we will work at cross purposes with God, regardless of our sincerity.

The great apostasy, now manifest in the Roman hierarchy, was given birth when the term “bishop” began to be applied to one man as opposed to the other presbyters. Thus was the seed sown and its fruition came in the form of a pontifical prelate exercising control in an authoritarian politico-religio institution of world dimensions. A term inclusive of all the overseers of a local flock was transferred to one as an exclusive right, and the damage was done. There is hardly a word of significance used by the Spirit which has not been abused and misapplied by men. Many of these words no longer convey the original intent of God to those who employ them. Of the many which I think of, I will mention but three, which will serve as examples.

1. Gospel. This word is currently applied to the entire content of the scriptures of the new covenant. No distinction is made between the tidings proclaimed to the world to enroll students in the school of Jesus, and the course of study provided for their development and growth—the doctrine. This confusion is the basis for one of the most tragic errors among those who constitute “The Church of Christ,” and tends to make of that body a restricted sect, instead of a fellowship of all sincere immersed believers.

2. Minister. Nothing is clearer than the fact that in the primitive church of God, this term simply designated a servant, but never expressed in itself the kind of service rendered. (For a full discussion of this point, read the author’s book, “The Royal Priesthood”). One “entered the ministry” by becoming a Christian. The employment of this word in an exclusive sense to designate one kind or branch of service, is an abuse of the language of the Spirit. It results in the creation of a professional, clerical caste, and by the same token, relegates others of God’s servants (ministers) to an inferior, or lay position.

It is difficult for those who profess interest in restoration to purge their speech of “the language of Ashdod.” I cite one example to illustrate the fact. My good friend and brother, Don DeWelt, recently published a book, “The Church in the Bible.” It contains a manual of instruction for those who wish to win souls. On page 192, occurs this statement relative to personal visitation of a member of the Methodist church: “You have never met him before, but when you tell him of your mission, i.e. that you are a minister of the Church of Christ calling or visiting in the homes of the community (if you are not a minister, you could say you are a Christian worker from the Church of Christ with the same purpose as above stated).”

We do not question the earnest desire of this brother to portray the church in the Bible, but he will never do it by such statements as these. In the first place one reads in vain, trying to locate the “Church of Christ” in the Bible. The word “church” is not capitalized in God’s book as it is by our brother in his book. The term “church of Christ” does not appear in the Authorized Version. The expression “churches of Christ” occurs once in Romans 16:16. It is not used as the title of a church; it is merely one designation of the church. The apostle Paul would have been astounded to hear one say he was not a minister, but a Christian worker from the church. What is a minister, if not a Christian worker? What is a Christian worker, if not a minister? When one differentiates between “a minister of the church” and “a Christian worker from the church,” he reveals that his thinking is tainted with clericalism. Instead of restoring the church in the Bible, he will only confuse the minds of the believers. Every Christian is a minister, and if one is not, he has little business trying to convert Mr. Green, of the Methodist church, as the example of our brother postulates. He needs to be converted!

3. Communion. This word is ordinarily applied exclusively to the Lord’s Supper. Many refer to that feast as the communion. But it is a translation of koinonia, the same word also translated “fellowship.” In Acts 2:42, it is actually distinguished from the breaking of bread. Everything we do jointly is a part of our communion. The songs, the prayers, the sharing of our goods, all of these are a part of the communion of the saints. When brethren congregate to pray and study on Wednesday evening, that is as much “a communion service” as when they gather about the Lord’s table on the first day of the week. It is true the Lord’s Supper is a demonstration of the communion of the body and blood of the Lord (1 Cor. 10:16), but this is just one facet of the communion of the saints.

II. PRIESTHOOD OF BELIEVERS

The reformers, protesting against the domination of a mercenary and rapacious clergy, became imbued with the idea that God’s plan for this dispensation revolved around the idea that every child of God is a priest to “declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.” They recaptured the theory of a universal priesthood, but were unable to restore the practice. Accordingly, the various sects, proceeding from their labors, soon developed a clerical caste, and by the very act, conferred upon a few the priestly prerogatives of the many. The restorationists, whose research influenced Alexander Campbell and his contemporaries, sought to restore to all of the believers, their priestly functions. As a close student of these men, Campbell seems to have caught a vision of God’s purpose. Unfortunately, in his fears lest the gains of restoration be lost, he decided to develop a school in which men could be given specialized training for preservation of the faith. As always happens, this seminary produced trained professionals, and these became the clergy of the new movement. It is impossible to send men from the various congregations of the saints to take courses “in the ministry” and not develop a special clergy.

To conceal the fact that we have a special clerical group, a subterfuge is frequently employed. The clerics are dubbed “evangelists” or merely “preachers.” The careful student of God’s word knows they are neither. Actually, we have lost ground in this particular, and motivated by partisan pride, desire for recognition, and unreasoning fear, most of those who claim to be interested in restoration of the primitive order, have brain washed themselves into believing that the “one man hireling ministry” is a reproduction of the work of Paul, Timothy and Titus. They are interested only in defending the status quo. They are convinced that God’s plan for edification will not work in the United States in this century, as it did in Palestine in the first century of the Christian era, and for that reason, they do not propose to try it.

But, how shall we eliminate the clergy? That is not our task. Rather, it is to eliminate the laity. The word “clergy” means “lot, or portion.” It refers to those who are the Lord’s lot, or portion, out of the nations of the earth. Thus, every child of God is a member of the clergy, or a priest of God. If every Christian can be convinced that he is a clergyman, he will cease trying to hire another for his clergyman. Seldom do clergymen hire another clergyman to preach to them. Will this system work? Look at the cult who call themselves “Jehovah’s Witnesses.” Every member of this strange fringe group believes he is a minister. He devotes hours of his time to personal and contact work, and to teaching prospects. Will the plan of God work in the twentieth century in dissemination of error and be helpless in the propagation of truth? The principle of mutual ministry imbued the primitive congregations with a zeal that swept the world before it. It is the only spirit which can again duplicate that feat.

III. PURPOSE OF THE CHURCH

It is a common statement in these days that Jesus gave “the great commission” to the church, and it is the duty of the church to proclaim the gospel to the lost. This is an indication of loose reasoning based upon our modern tendency to do everything organizationally, or leave it undone. Both parts of the above statement are without scriptural warrant. The so-called “great commission” was not given to the church at all.

1. It was given before the church was planted, and the planting of the church was the result of the implementation of the commission, not the result of it.

2. It was given to a group of individuals, and they were the very same individuals who had previously been given another commission, “Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not” (Matt. 10:5) . You could just as well argue that this commission was to the church, for it was to the same persons as the other.

In some circles at present there is a warfare of no mean proportion being waged over missionary societies or auxiliary bodies for proclaiming the gospel. It might be well to pause and reflect that God did not authorize, organize, or create any society, human or divine, to proclaim the gospel—not even the church! The gospel was not preached because the church was planted; the church was planted because the gospel was preached. The gospel was first proclaimed, men heard it, believed it, and responded to it in harmony with its demands. Those who did so then constituted the church. But men heard as individuals, believed as individuals, obeyed as individuals, were saved as individuals. They will also die as individuals, and be judged as individuals. The church is merely a congregation of holy ones, constituting the body of the Christ.

If it is the duty of the church to go into all the world, how will the church accomplish the task? The entire church will have to go, or that portion which does not go, will not do its duty. You cannot fulfill the command to “Go” by sending someone else. The command is to go. God made no provision for it to be carried out by substitution or proxy. Those to whom the commission was originally given, understood this, because the record immediately says, “And they went forth, and preached everywhere” (Mark 16:20). But if the commission is to the church as such, how will it be carried out? Is it to the whole church, or to each congregation? If to each congregation, then must each congregation “go into all the world”? If not, how can each fulfill the commission? If it is given to the church universal, who will decide on areas of labor, mark the boundaries of each worker, and exercise diocesan control?

If it is the duty of the church as an organization to preach the gospel to every creature, it would be wrong for an individual to tell the good news to any creature, without license or permission to do so from the organization. An individual has no right to intrude upon the prerogatives of an organized society and carry out its functions without authorization. Individuals are not allowed to print money in the. United States, even though the finished product is an exact duplicate of currency issued by the government.

The command is plain. It is “Go!” If there are 300 members in a congregation and they send one man to Africa, that one obeys the command. He goes. But the other 299 do something else—they stay! If we can obey one command by selecting a man and letting him do the duty of all, why can we not obey all the commands on that same basis? The whole truth is that “the great commission” was given to certain individuals. They carried it out exactly as they were told to do. It was not given to the church as such. The work of gospel proclamation is not the work of any organization as such—be it human or divine.

Then who is to announce the glad tidings? Every individual saint! Every person who has found the Messiah is to lead others to him. “Let him that heareth, say, Come!” That is our commission (Rev. 22:17). It is universal in scope. The church is not to send out a missionary. The church is made up of missionaries. Each member is a missionary. This obligation stems not from affiliation with a local church, but from allegiance to a universal king. Each person may find his speaker’s rostrum where he is. The kitchen table becomes a sacred desk to the mother who talks about Jesus to her children while she makes the pies, the plow handle upon which the farmer leans as he talks to his neighbor, the lathe of the machinist, the desk of the executive, the chair of the barber, all of these are sanctified to the Master’s use when utilized to win souls. It is no more an obligation of one saint to tell others of Jesus than it is of another. Imagine a congregation of Christians calling another man to come across several states to tell their neighbors, or themselves, about the love of Jesus! Modern revivals in the churches are expedients devised to cover up the dearth of the Spirit in the hearts of the members. They are monuments of our own lack of conversion!

What is the mission of the church? It is one of edification. It is a fellowship in which each member derives strength from others, and contributes strength to them (Eph. 4:16). The church is a filling station, not a parking lot; a training ground, not a battlefield. It is a school for education and discipline. Nothing has so defeated the real purpose of God in our lives as when we began building meeting houses in which to preach the gospel to the world. It was then we ceased to go, and demanded that the sinner furnish the transportation to the gospel. In the primitive church the members gathered to worship, and scattered to preach. They congregated for strength and went forth to serve. The world will not be saved by mass effort on an organizational basis. The world can only be preserved by salt, and every grain is required, and every grain to be effective must come in direct contact with that which it is to influence. You may preserve the salt by keeping it in the shaker, but you cannot preserve the food.

The time spent in calling meetings to plan missionary work ought to be used in doing it. It is not talking about lost souls that will save them, but talking to them. Meetings are called to discuss taking the gospel to lost men; and end up in discussing what man we can call to do it. We have lost sight of the fact that all who have been called of God, are called by a purpose and for a purpose. If I call a man from Virginia to tell my neighbor in Missouri about Jesus, then I have not done my duty toward my neighbor. Missionaries frequently pass each other on the road, both of them going to a field in which the other lives, and both passing thousands of lost souls enroute! Meanwhile, people will travel hundreds of miles to hear a debate about “The Herald of Truth” who have never tried to herald the truth to the folks across the street!

IV. CHURCH CONSTITUTION

The congregation at Philippi was composed of “all the saints in Christ Jesus, with the bishops and deacons” (Phil. 1:1). They were the sons of God in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation. Among the heathen who surrounded them, they shone as lights in the world, and held forth the word of life. The word “saints” is essentially a term of character. It designates those who are the holy ones. All in Christ Jesus are called saints.

Over the congregation at Philippi were the bishops. This word is elsewhere rendered “overseers.” It applies to those who are the superintendents or supervisors of a congregation. They are also referred to as pastors, or shepherds, in which case the congregation is designated “a flock.” The bishops were selected from among the members of the local congregation. They were ordained to this office only when they met certain qualifications announced by the Spirit. They were capable men chosen to meet an important responsibility.

One of the concerns of those interested in restoration should be the return of the office of bishop to its proper status in the congregation. In many instances it is disregarded and even disrespected. This is the result of several factors. In some instances men have been appointed to the office merely to conform to a form of church government without regard to qualifications. Many of those appointed have proven to be of little intellectual and spiritual stature, and have brought the office into disrepute, holding back the progress of the church, and ruling arbitrarily without regard for the feelings of those who constitute the flock.

Again, much effort and time have been expended in developing preachers, while little has been done to train for bishops. It is possible that if we had concentrated on the task of helping godly men fit themselves into the work of the presbytery, the cause of Christianity might be more advanced. It is the conviction of the writer that one of our greatest present needs is for capable leadership. Godly men who shepherd the flock should be encouraged, helped and strengthened. The dignity of the office should be reaffirmed and members taught to regard it with proper reverence.

Preachers of the gospel should avoid the assumption of the work and responsibility which belongs to the elders. In many places the bishops are mere figureheads. The preacher becomes the “front man” and the bishops bask only in his reflected glory. The preacher is the business manager and chief manipulator of congregational affairs. This is a far cry from the structure and procedure of the original congregations of Christians.

In conclusion, we must realize that the task before us is a great one. We must face up to our problems with honesty and courage. These problems, though great, are not insuperable. With faith in God and love for His word, we should pass forward without fear or prejudice. If we expend our lives in the battle for truth, the reward received will amply repay for even that sacrifice. May His grace be our shield and strength!

___________________

W. Carl Ketcherside is publisher of religious literature and Editor of Mission Messenger, 2360 Gardner Dr., St. Louis 21, Mo.

A PLEA FOR RESTORATION

Our plea is to everyone who has a good and honest heart. Only on such fertile soil will the seed of the kingdom produce a bountiful yield. Regardless of religious affiliation in the past, of parental instruction, ecclesiastical tradition, or priestly doctrine, let us throw off the yoke which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear.

Let us recapture the fountain of life so that its waters can once more flow free and freely, and restore to this earth the congregation as it was given by Him who is our great high priest at the right hand of God. Remember that “you also as living stones are built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ,” May God bless the royal priesthood of all believers is our very humble and sincere prayer.-W. Carl Ketcherside, The Royal Priest-hood, p. 193.