THE “WHO” IS IMPORTANT

The work of reformation, like all serious aspects of life, has its amusing moments. Quite a list of comical incidents could be assembled from the many experiences that a few of us are having in the current reformation within Churches of Christ.

One such incident took place at a Church of Christ Bible Chair near a state university. At least one of the young ministers conducting the Chair was impressed with what Carl Ketcherside was saying in his Mission Messenger. He realized, of course, that this particular journal was “off limits”, and that he had to be cautious in revealing his enthusiasm. An influential preacher was in the city conducting a revival for an influential congregation, and one day while visiting the Chair he apprised the younger preacher of the danger of reading either Mission Messenger or Restoration Review. It was apparent to the younger man that the elders of the big church that supported the Chair, who happened to find out that questionable literature was being read by some of those at the Chair, had urged the prominent minister to register his warning.

The idea that the younger minister got from the conversation was that a man might be viewed with suspicion by the brethren if he read from Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett, and that if he has any ambitions of success among Churches of Christ he would do well to stop such questionable practices.

It was within this rather sensitive climate that the young preacher went into the office of the director of the Chair in order to share with his superior a very provocative article that he had noticed in one of the brotherhood papers. Sitting across from the director the young minister held an opened copy of the Firm Foundation, and he read slowly and distinctly the article that he thought the director would appreciate. Once he had finished the director was as enthusiastic as he was, agreeing that we need more writing like that, and eagerly inquired as to who might be writing like that in the Firm Foundation. The young minister then revealed his trick. He had hidden a copy of Mission Messenger inside the Firm Foundation, and had been reading to the director an article by Carl Ketcherside!

The director responded with embarassment more than anything else, for there wasn’t much he could say after having already expressed his approval. The young minister concluded that the director’s only complaint was that it was Carl Ketcherside that said it!

I readily concede that this was a dirty trick to pull on anyone, especially a director of a Church of Christ Bible Chair, and yet I must admit that it strikes me as amusing as it is pitiable. It has the humor of a Socrates about it. That old gadfly of Athens had a way of stinging people into a realization of their superficiality, and making them like it. Socrates had a way of causing people to laugh at their own stupidity. This incident at the Bible, Chair should have caused the director to lean back in his chair and laugh heartily at himself. It should have stimulated self-examination.

Nothing reveals the herd mind more than the habit of accepting only what comes through the party line. The first test of validity is whether one of our men said it. The “who” is more vital than the “what”. If one belongs to the party, he can speak the usual shibboleths and hand out trite and superficial remarks and get good pay for it. The party will take care of him, however mediocre he may be. Yet the man who really has something to say is often refused a hearing, as much for who he is as for what he might say. This is one of the tragic consequences of the party system. A man need not be especially studious and productive to gain security within the party. He is to know the right people and be loyal to the party. Excellence might even prove to be a handicap. He doesn’t have to know much, nor does he have to say anything much, for no one expects it anyway. But he is expected to be true to the system. This is his bread and butter.

It wasn’t so much what Jesus said that got him into trouble, though this was certainly part of it, but mainly that h was he who was saying it. Many rabbis had taught much of what our Lord taught, as the Talmud is witness. but the big difference was that it was a freelance teacher, one outside the party structure, that was doing it.

For example, when Jesus taught in the temple, saying: “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers,” (Mk. 11:17) was he not saying what any devout rabbi might say? Why then did the priests and scribes react as they did? “And the chief priests and the scribes heard it and sought a way to destroy him; for they feared him, because all the multitude was astonished at his teaching.” (Mk. 11:18) .

Jesus was a problem to the Jewish clergy, not so much because of what he was saying, but because they had no control over him. They couldn’t fire him or cut off his salary; nor could they bar him from lectureships or keep him from writing in brotherhood journals. The clergy is quite willing for a man to reprove with strong language like Jesus did so long as he remains safely nestled within the party. The party even likes it. They’ll say, “Wow, he really let us have it, didn’t he?” As long as he looks to the party for money and position they know they have him. He will know how much he can say and where he must stop.

It is the same way in politics. I mean political politics, for I’ve been talking about religious politics. An old crony in the Democrat party can romp and rave about the evils in the party, and no one will think much about it. But let him bolt the party and remove himself from their patronage, and then see how they react to him.

Most any orthodox rabbi in the time of Jesus could have issued rebukes against abuses in the temple, even to saying it was being turned into “a den of robbers”, for this was but a quotation from the Jewish Bible, and no one would have thought much about it. True, they would not have expected him to turn tables over and get a whip after them like Jesus did, but this is the point. Jesus did not behave like a party man. He was free, and it was this freedom that the party could not stand. Since they could not control him they had to destroy him. Party systems must always behave this way for the sake of their own preservation.

R. H. Boll is a good illustration of this in the non-instrumental wing of disciples. At one time he was well situated within the party, serving as front-page editor of the Gospel Advocate and used widely by the churches. But when he died many years later he had long been rejected as a heretic and had been virtually forgotten by these same people, able to serve but a small group of churches that came to be known as premillennial. What happened? Brother Boll continued to be a great scholar and a deeply spiritual man, one willing to live a very simple life and serve weak churches. Why then was he cut off with such finality? The stock answer is that it was because he began to teach premillennialism.

If the story is ever told in detail, and I hope that I myself will be able to chronicle it some day since it should be done by a non-premillennialist, the facts will show that the charge of premillennialism was but a pretext. The real reason was that R. H. Boll dared to venture beyond the pale of party control. He put Jesus Christ before the party. And so he was destroyed. The party would have borne with brother Boll’s premillennialism, for he did not make it a test of fellowship anyway, if he had been willing to kow-tow to the system. The party did not hang him because he was a premillennialist, but because he insisted on being a free man in Christ.

When I was but a youth at FreedHardeman College I accompanied other students to a Murch-Witty unity meeting in Indianapolis one weekend. One thing that stands out in my mind about that experience is that I got to see the infamous R. H. Boll. It was the first Church of Christ heretic that I had seen, and I had been so conditioned to suspect him that I am sure I was thoroughly prepared to reject anything the man said.

It was almost 20 years before I saw him again, and by this time I too had had the sentence of death upon me long enough to view the brother in a different light. I was no more premillennial than before, but I was freer than before. Anyway, I didn’t think in terms of brother Boll being a premillennialist when I visited him in Louisville, but as a brother. He was an old man by then, and he was no longer the issue in the brotherhood that he had been. He was pretty well forgotten. I found a man who had a sweet, quiet trust in Jesus Christ, a man free of bitterness and resentment, and one who was content to serve in the humble ways appointed of the Lord. Yet he was a man of such tremendous talent that he could have sat among the high priests of the party had he chosen to. He chose freedom instead, and thank God that he did. May his tribe increase, whether they be premillennialisrs or not!

Brother Boll wrote a very fine tract on What Must I Do to be Saved?, if I remember the title correctly. It was an ideal tract to hand to a man of the world, for it was written with such love and understanding. I recall some of the Church of Christ ministers com menting upon the tract, pointing to its excellence. One of them said, “It is too bad that it was written by R. H. Boll.” That shows how important the who is! The tract did not, of course, touch upon the millennial question, but was rather a sound, forceful presentation of the gospel. But orthodoxy could not use it. It was written by the wrong man!

I have long since been convinced that it matters not how much excellence one might achieve through diligent study, or how much he might have to offer a group of believers. or how much he might know regarding a particular subject or problem, he will not be used unless he is a party man. On the other hand, it matters not how mediocre and superficial a man is, even to the point of stupidity, the party will find a place for him somewhere as long as he is loyal to the party. This is true, of course, not only among our own factions, but throughout all sectarianism. A free Southern Baptist or a free Roman Catholic priest is going to have just as rough a time as a free Church of Christ man, or nearly so. And one is just as likely to be out in the cold as the next one. That is why I urge all Christian workers who take Restoration seriously, the concerned ones, to have a means of livelihood other than the party.

I am sometimes amused when one within the party says things that others of us are branded for saying. The following, which I take from a Church of Christ bulletin, will illustrate what I mean. Read it and decide who it sounds like:

We have grown far more exclusive and isolated than our restoration heritage should permit. It is imperative that we return to the plea of the pioneers and present ourselves as Christians only. Satan has greatly neutralized our gains and virtually isolated our voices by con. vincing us that any faithful effort to restore the church must inevitably challenge, and antagonize the motives and methods of all other believers.

We must begin at home, within the restoration family in working toward greater rapport and understanding. More dialogue and less diatribe is needed between dissenting groups within our own movement. We will not convince the world that ours is a unity movement until our own sense of fellowship draws us closer together.

We are delighted, of course, that this was written and published, whether by a Carl Ketcherside or a minister of one of the largest non-instrument Churches of Christ. This time it was the latter. We know, of course, that these words, however true or however badly needed, would never have found expression in orthodox circles, had they not been said by the right person. How far this respected and influential minister will carry the convictions expressed only time will tell.

Though it may be slow in coming, this struggle for a freer and more loving brotherhood is going to be victorious. There will be more and more voices raised like this one of the minister of the big Texas church. People are tiring of sectarianism, littleness and narrowness. They want a broader and richer Christian fellowship. And it will come. When it comes we will, of course, be less sectarian than we are now. But it may be predicted that the party stalwarts in that day, having been led by the people more than they lead the people, will convince themselves that they always believed and taught that way.

“Reject a brother because he differed with us on instrumental music? … Not call on a visiting minister to pray because he was a premillennialist? … Suppose that we were the only Christians? … Why, we never believed things like that! Oh, maybe a few fanatics, but not the majority of us … We’ve always endeavored to lead the church into this broader fellowship … It is a satisfying accomplishment … Carl Ketcherside? … Who was he?” —the Editor

Jesus insisted that the greatest ritual service is the service of human need. It is an odd thing to think that, with the possible exception of the day in the Synagogue at Nazareth, we have no evidence that Jesus ever conducted a church service in his life on earth, but we have abundance of evidence that He fed the hungry, and comforted the sad and cared for the sick. Christian service is not the service of any liturgy or ritual; it is the service of human need. Christian service is not monastic retiral; it is involvement in all the tragedies and problems and demands of the human situation.—William Barkley