IN RESPONSE TO AN EDITORIAL IN “FIRM FOUNDATION”

In the October 26 issue of Firm Foundation, brother Reuel Lemmons wrote somewhat about an editorial in this journal, as well as some things said by brother Carl Ketcherside. We shall quote only that part of the editorial that is directed to us, with a view of making some statements that may prove helpful. The editorial was entitled “The Further they Go, the Worse they Get.”

When brethren go off on a tangent, the further they go the greater distance from the truth. It is noticeable that it is extremely difficult for one who has embraced liberalism even to a small degree to ever pull back from it. He goes further and further into it until he is finally lost completely. The gravitational pull of truth seems to be less and less the further they get from it.

This is graphically demonstrated by Leroy Garrett in the September issue of Restoration Review, and by Carl Ketcherside in his October issue of Mission Messenger. We do not propose to review either’s position in this brief notice, but simply call attention to what the liberal attitudes of these men have ripened into.

Garrett says: “When a man proclaims victory over sin through the risen Christ he is a gospel preacher. Men like Dr. Criswell, Bishop Martin, and Billy Graham proclaim the glad tidings of heaven. They may err in their instructions as to how men are to respond to the gospel, just as we all err in many things, but they are as much preachers of the gospel as any of the rest of us . . . It was in proclaiming the facts of heaven that made Paul a gospel preacher. The same proclamation today makes the one who proclaims it a gospel preacher, be he a Methodist bishop, a Baptist evangelist, or a Church of Christ minister from Abilene.”

We deny that the men mentioned above preach the gospel. The gospel is more than “acts to be believed.” There is a “plan” involved in preaching the gospel as well as a “man”. No man preaches the gospel who does not tell men correctly how to become saved. Telling them that is a part of preaching the gospel. This was the fallacy of Brother Moser’s teaching many years ago. And this same fallacy permeates some of our “brotherhood Bible school literature” today as well as some preaching. One preaches only a part of the gospel who preaches only its facts. The gospel has facts to be believed, commands to be obeyed, and promises to be enjoyed. It takes them all to preach the gospel. If the men mentioned above preach the gospel, then the preaching of these men makes Christians since the gospel is the power of God unto salvation.

We understand from several sources, one being his own editorials, that brother Lemmons is deeply concerned over the tendency toward “liberal” thinking on the part of Church of Christ youth. The attitude shown by the editor in the above article may be one important reason why our young people are in rebellion to orthodoxy. Our brother editor seems to be incapable of entertaining the notion that he himself might possibly be wrong. He has a way of equating “the truth” with what he and the Firm Foundation have always stood for. He does not merely call certain ideas of a Ketcherside or a Garrett into question; they are ex cathedra disposed of because of their “great distance from the truth.” Brother Lemmons himself, along with all Church of Christ orthodoxy, stand at the very center of “the gravitational pull of truth.”

While he includes others within Church of Christ circles, besides Ketcherside and Garrett, that are in this tangential orbit, he is nonetheless sure of his own position. Brother Moser of yesteryear and some preachers of today, along with writers of Bible school literature — and he could have added, of course, many youth in the universities — are afflicted with the same fallacy. We could easily add the consensus of the entire world of Biblical scholarship as to what constitutes the gospel, if brother Lemmons would like. But all this apparently means nothing to the editor. He knows what the truth is, and he knows we are off on a tangent. And the further we go the worse we get. I shudder to see my brother use the term “the truth” so patronizingly. Pontius Pilate asked the wrong man the question, “What is truth?”

The most important feature of the editorial, however, is that it points up the fact that the nature of the gospel is the crucial issue in our efforts to restore unity in our divided ranks. It may alarm us for someone to suggest that all these years we have not known the meaning of the gospel, and yet I am convinced that it is here that the battle is joined.

Brother Lemmons’ view of the gospel involves more than is suggested by this one editorial. Even if Billy Graham did make clear the terms of pardon as stated in Acts 2:38, he still would not be “a gospel preacher” if he remained within the framework of the Baptist Church. To brother Lemmons the gospel includes the whole of the New Testament scriptures, and no man is a minister of that gospel unless he teaches the entire revelation. He would admit, I suppose, that Dr. Criswell preaches part of the gospel when he proclaims the risen Christ as Lord, but in neglecting another part, the terms of pardon, he does not really preach the gospel. But it does not end there, according to Church of Christ orthodoxy, for even if he does carefully spell out the formula of “believe, repent, confess, and be baptized for the remission of sins,” he still preaches only part of the gospel. He still is not “a gospel preacher” unless he “preaches the truth” about the church, the Lord’s supper, the name we are to wear, instrumental music, and all the rest.

Now we can better understand why we are so divided. When we differ on some doctrinal point, it is supposed that someone has distorted the gospel, and so we have to start another loyal church. Each faction supposes it is the only true church, for it is the only one “true to the gospel” in reference to music, missionary activity, Sunday School, support of institutions, or whatever the issue might be.

My position is that the gospel is the glad tidings of Christ — His death, burial and resurrection in our behalf — which is Paul’s definition of the gospel in 1 Cor. 15:3-4. There are terms to the acceptance of the gospel, to be sure, and these are faith, repentance, and immersion, though these are not part of the proclamation itself. In other words, I believe Peter had already preached the gospel — all of the gospel — when in Acts 2 the crowd asked him what to do. He might not have even mentioned baptism had they not asked him, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” In Acts 13 Paul preaches the gospel without mentioning baptism, though he might have done so had he been asked what Peter was asked on Pentecost.

This makes baptism no less important. It only puts it in proper perspective. It is the same difference that there is in the good news that a rich man has died and left you his fortune, and the instructions you later receive as to what steps you must take to make the fortune legally yours. I stated clearly that I regret that Billy Graham does not instruct the people as to the terms of pardon, and in this he is wrong, but he is nevertheless a gospel preacher in that he proclaims the very propositions that the apostle Paul identifies as the gospel.

My position stresses the importance of seeing that it is the gospel that makes men brothers in Christ, which was accomplished long before we had the New Testament scriptures. It is “obeying the gospel” that unites us in Christ, but this must not be made to mean a correct understanding and practice of everything in the New Testament scriptures. We can all understand and obey the gospel, as all our various groups have, but we do and always have differed on many doctrinal teachings.

Unity is not, therefore, contingent on unanimity of interpretation of all the scriptures, but upon obedience to the gospel. We can, therefore, be different on these things that we are divided over, and still be one brotherhood, treat and accept each other as brothers. The only line of fellowship is the gospel itself, and that does not include the many doctrines that we seem unable to understand alike.

COMMENT ON COMMENTS

It may prove helpful to “share the mail” with our readers by passing along a few comments from some of those who are kind enough to send us their reactions to our editorials. We offer a few comments of our own that might help to clear the air.

The greater part of your article on Alexander Campbell sounded like the Leroy Garrett I used to know, instead of the Garrett after whom I have read of late. Examples: “ . . . Christian union can be realized when all sects return to that faith and practice which they all concede to be scriptural and apostolic.” Again: “There is the infallibly safe way, Campbell believed, and this is the only way to unity.”

You state that Campbell insisted upon “more than a correct order of faith and practice,” which is to imply that he did insist upon a correct order of faith and practice. Human errors were his “obstacles to a restoration of the ancient order,” and “the restoration of Primitive Christianity.” Campbell had “both doctrinal and ethical imperatives.” He refused to “compromise the seven unities mentioned by St. Paul.”

Now unless the all-sufficiency of the Bible and the all-sufficiency of the church are “opinions” rather than facts, then we are not guilty of making our opinions tests of fellowship to the division of the church. Your premise is that every fact must be accepted; opinions must be privately held. You must reply, apparently, that some of the things held as “facts” by us are only opinions. If so, I think the sectarians will contest some “facts” (i. e. virgin birth, bodily resurrection, immersion), affirming that they are mere opinions of Leroy Garrett.

I have no difficulty acknowledging as Christians all who accept the gospel facts and obey Christ, though some by immorality and error make shipwreck of the faith.

Your article sounded more like the typical restoration appeal than some of the things you have been writing of late. Your general reasoning makes me wonder why you hold so tenaciously to baptism. It seems that sprinkling, in your system, would serve as well, if the person did what he then thought was right. —- Cecil Willis, Editor, Truth Magazine, Box 7245, Akron 6, Ohio

We appreciate these helpful remarks from a beloved brother and a fellow editor. You might wish to subscribe to his journal at $3.00 a year. In my opinion it is by far the best edited of the papers issued by the so-called “conservative” element among Churches of Christ.

We must distinguish between what is essential to fellowship among Christians and what is necessary for the restoration of primitive Christianity. Fellowship can be a reality even when men differ on what are facts and what are opinions. I can be in fellowship with a man even if he has not accepted all the facts of the Bible that I have. It may be that he doesn’t reject any fact, for he may simply not yet understand, or he has not yet learned what I have learned. Or he may see as a mere opinion what I see as a fact. I do not argue, therefore, that “every fact must be accepted” in order to make fellowship possible. I would rather say every gospel fact must be believed and acted upon. Only those who believe and obey the gospel can be brothers.

There is, of course, much more involved in restoring certain doctrines and practices to the church. Virtually all the divisions among our churches today come within this area. My argument is that we can restore fellowship within our divided ranks on the basis that we are all in Christ together. We have all believed and obeyed the gospel of Christ, which is the only possible basis of unity. We can still differ in our interpretations as to what constitutes a restoration of primitive Christianity. And the dialogue for better understanding should continue while we enjoy the unity of the Spirit.

Yes, the “conservatives” are guilty of frustrating the fellowship of the saints in that they confuse what is necessary for unity with what is essential for restoration. Our “liberal” brethren who support the Herald of Truth organization may indeed be wrong, and we may insist that they obstruct efforts to restore primitive Christianity. But still they are our brethren, and unity must not be marred by disagreements in this area. The debate should, of course, go on, provided we can treat each other as brothers. Fellowship can be just as real even when we differ on institutionalism, and if we really love each other we will not allow such differences to separate us.

I can use my own convictions in regard to innovations as an example. I must insist, as I have for 15 years as an editor, that the professional minister, who displaces the function of the elders in the congregation, must go. He has no place in the restored church. I shall continue to work to that end. I am personally convinced that all who foster the minister system are impeding the restoration, however good their intentions may be. But this in no wise affects my relationship with all these brethren. They are just as much my brethren, and we are just as much within the fellowship of Christ as if we saw eye to eye on the pastor system.

As I understand it, you “conservative” brethren do not do it this way. You make fellowship contingent upon agreement on the “issues confronting the church.” There will always be such issues, and always have been, and unity will never be possible if we must await unanimity on the issues. My avowal is that we can work toward a better understanding of the issues within the framework of unity. Unity first, then the dialogue; not the reverse of that.

This is the whole point in what Campbell was saying in the quotations you give. Yes, he insisted on certain doctrinal and ethical imperatives for the restoration of primitive Christianity. At the same time he accepted the Baptists and others as his brethren, for they had obeyed the same gospel that he had. All such were within the fellowship of the saints. But the task of restoring certain neglected features of primitive Christianity to the modern church was something else. This is what he was calling upon all Christians (including those in “the sects”) to help him accomplish.

It is this important distinction, my dear brother Willis, that you fail to see. You and brother E. R. Harper are as much within the fellowship as you and brother Yater Tant. The gospel of Christ brings all three of you together as one. Things like sponsoring churches, instrumental music and premillennialism cannot mar “the unity of the Spirit” unless brethren do not love each other. You can and should continue to oppose what you believe to be an innovation, but you must not draw the line of fellowship on a brother because he differs with you.

TEXAS

Your paper deals almost entirely with denouncing the Church of Christ and building up all other denominations. One issue begins with a fine article on “Who is a real Christian?”, but the rest of the entire publication points out the inadequacies of the Church of Christ. Another issue begins with a criticism of the Church of Christ term “Christian Education,” while your next note builds up a picture of a good man of another denomination. After a good lesson on “the Pastor System,” you again point out the faults of a Church of Christ associated college in Abilene. The next three articles in your paper show weaknesses of the Church of Christ . . . Please expose false teaching from all sources! -Tyler, Texas

While I am unaware of “building up all other denominations,” I offer no apology for being a critic within the Church of Christ. The answer is simple: I am trying to make conditions better among Churches of Christ. If conditions are to improve, there must be considerable self-criticism; and our readers will notice that there are many beside myself, but all within the Church of Christ, that make their criticisms. They are all trying to help. If I thought they had an ax to grind, I would not publish their stuff. My writers are both young and old, and among the best educated and most promising men in the brotherhood. They write because they are concerned. They are dedicated men of prayer who are willing to suffer reprisals in order to cultivate a more spiritual brotherhood. And there are many other! who, while they do not write, are with us in spirit as we engage in self-criticism. After all, you must remember that I also am in the Church of Christ, and I have always been willing to take my share of the blame for conditions being what they are. We are in a venture of self-criticism. I, too, would take a dim view of an outsider taking us to task, for I would think he should be busy criticizing his own church. To the contrary, outsiders are usually impressed when people within a religious communion indulge in self-evaluation.

The request that I criticize others as well as the Church of Christ is as old as reformatory efforts themselves. The prophet Amos was told: “Get out of here, you prophet, you! Flee to the land of Judah and do your prophesying there!” It is like the little boy who gets a spanking, complaining that Mother does not spank his brother too. Never was there a reformer, whether a Martin Luther, a Martin Luther King, a John Knox, or an Alexander Campbell, who was not told what Amos was told: go somewhere else! I am planning to stay, and I hope generations to come will be glad that a lot of us are staying, just as we are thankful that the reformers of yesteryear stayed.

I received through the mail this month one of your publications, Mission Messenger. I do not appreciate such trash being sent me. Men like you and Leroy Garrett are a disgrace to our Lord, but you have your reward when the smoke ascendeth forever and the fire is not quenched. So save your postage. — Dallas, Texas

I have been sending a few names to Carl Ketcherside each month so that brethren in the Dallas area might become better acquainted with what he is trying to do. A physician received such a copy and immediately sent in 40 or 50 subscriptions, including other physicians and a number of preachers on the list. Others responded with comparative enthusiasm. But this brother wrote the above to brother Ketcherside, who in turn mailed it on to me, without comment. Perhaps the St. Louis editor thought I should know where I am going, so that I can make my plans accordingly! He offered no word of consolation, as if perhaps he had no intention of going along, which I think is very unbrotherly.

Seriously, I would say to the Dallas brother, if he can contain himself long enough to get this read, that I am glad that he expressed himself freely to us. I commend him for signing his name to what he wrote. We would welcome his criticisms, if he would care to tell us wherein we are a disgrace to the Lord. Even though he is not our judge (admittedly it is good for us that he is not!), we would give any suggestions he cares to make careful consideration. We believe in criticism, and we can take it and are glad to get it. But it doesn’t help much just to tell us we are going to hell, especially when it sounds like you are sort of glad we are!

LOTS OF PLACES

Praise the Lord! The Spirit must be at work. Never have I been filled with so many spiritual things that I need to share with you. Christianity is breaking out all over. The spiritual emphasis on this campus is at an all time high . . . This surging movement in the Church of Christ is not just a local thing. My friends tell me that this was the predominant mood and feeling of the 800 students from 13 Christian colleges that attended the Harding Missions Workshop. They were silently seeking the way of the Cross, but now more openly . . . —a student at a Christian College

The material that you present in Restoration Review is as fine and worthy of respect and praise as any that I have read. I’ must thank you personally for the aid you have given to me through your work. The highest compliment that I can think to give you is that I think you are truly a man of the Spirit. May the Lord continue to work so powerfully through you — Sumerlin, Oregon

No doubt, not caring about the truthfulness of your charge, you’ll say, “just prejudiced”. But if so, it is prejudice from the scene of action — not the 800 miles removed variety aroused by the slanted, editorialized, news reports of the Eric Sevareid, Huntley- Brinkley variety. Come to think of it, your editorial is comical, coming from so near to where Lee Harvey Oswald was according to TV pictures, left wide open in front by police to be gunned down by your fellow-citizen, Jack Ruby.

Come to see us “cowards”. We’ll show you how we treat wild and wooly western editors, smothering them to death with disappointment by ignoring their presence. — Montgomery, Alabama

(This was in response to my editorial in the October issue on “Justice in Alabama.” It was not signed. While I was not sure at first, I finally decided that it was intended to be taken seriously. )

I am concerned about the divisions and the general attitude of the brotherhood today, and it is encouraging to know that some are thinking and writing about it. — a student at a Christian college

I am interested in the possibility of a new restoration. I am a preacher of the Church of Christ, non-instrument variety, who is discouraged with narrowness and tradition. — West Virginia

What an experience it would have been could I have been at the unity meeting in Dallas! The good accomplished there will probably never be known, but the seed of unity which it has sown will ripen into a golden harvest in future years-a student at a Christian college

I wholly concur with you that there is a need for “dialogue toward better understanding and more sensitivity toward brotherhood.” While I am not always in agreement with specific views expressed in the Restoration Review, I do believe that the lack of free and honest dialogue is abhorrent. — a college professor

The impression that is left in Restoration Review is that nothing good comes out of Abilene. You totally ignore the efforts of men like . . . (he names four professors) . . . who are saying the same things you are, only in less iconoclastic ways . . . Please do not feel that you are waging a one-man war. There are many who hold equally liberal views. Some feel, however, that the most worthwhile influence can be made by introducing innovations clothed in conventional language, which does not have the effect of alienating brethren. — a student at a Christian college

(I am sorry that I have left the impression that nothing good comes out of Abilene, for I too came out of there, as well as a number of the writers of this journal. It is a delightful surprise to learn that several profs at Abilene are saying the same things I am. I won’t tell the editors on them if you won’t! I do not intend to alienate brethren. I am trying to get brethren to receive again those that are already alienated. If a man can couch these ideas in “conventional language,” and thus say it better than I am saying it, the good Lord bless him in his effort. I’ve never claimed that the other fellow should say it like I do. All I know to do is to say it. I pray for guidance, and I ask the Lord to help me in saying what I say in the very best way. I realize that I fall far short. While I am not sure what “conventional language” is, I favor any approach that is effective. We must make sure that we do indeed say it, without equivocation. )

I enjoy Restoration Review and agree wholeheartedly with many of the ideas expressed, and I know we should have a great deal more teaching in these areas. However, sometimes I seem to detect scorn, ridicule or sarcasm in the articles that perhaps is not intended . . . Since you are skilled in the use of the pen perhaps you could express your thoughts in a way that would not leave this impression. It is much easier to read and give serious thought to ideas that are set forth which seem to have love as the motivating factor. . . — Nebraska

(Believe me, I appreciate these criticisms. The Lord knows I try to write without scorn and sarcasm. I will pray more about it and I will try harder. My, if you could see what I scratch out, or what my wife talks me out of publishing, you would bear with me! I become so incensed over our smug self-righteousness that I am often compelled to put acid into my words. The good Lord make me gentle! Keep criticizing me if I don’t improve.)