A VISIT TO ACC

There is nothing particularly unusual about a man returning to the college from which he graduated and to the city where he served as minister to a church as well as lived as a student, but there are observations I might make about my recent visit to the Lectureship at Abilene Christian College that would be of interest to my readers.

Its most unique feature was that it was in company with Carl Ketcherside, whose background in our brotherhood is about as different from that of ACC as could be imagined. He was nurtured in the Sommerism tradition, which is itself a fascinating chapter in Church of Christ history, but whose leaders have vigorously opposed Church of Christ colleges all these years. Whether justified or not, the names of Sommer and Ketcherside have in our recent history been associated with bitter party rivalry and split-churches. It has been known, with some justification perhaps, as “the anti-college faction”, and was consequently in virtual isolation, having little to do with the rest of Churches of Christ, which apparently pleased all concerned. There is no evidence of there being any love lost between the conflicting parties.

Until recent years the party lines were drawn tight, and about all the opposing sides knew of each other were the tales that were told. Sommer and Ketcherside were, of course, of the very devil, though no one ever saw much of them; and the Christian colleges were hotbeds of digression and immorality, though their critics seldom came around to see for themselves. It is true that Sommer and Ketcherside both spoke on programs at Freed-Hardeman College back in those days, an experience which supposedly softened Sommer in his anti-college attitude, but such contacts between “college brethren” and “anti-college brethren” were indeed rare. They did, of course, have their debates, which have always engrossed our people for good or ill, the most notable of which was between Ketcherside and G. C. Brewer.

Daniel Sommer was indeed one of our imminent pioneers, and a giant in intellect and ability, and one whose influence reached far and wide. When he died the leadership of the Sommerite churches, which were and still are rather substantial in number and which have been most representative of’ Churches of Christ in some sections of the north, passed to Carl Ketcherside, who seemed to have had everything, including youth, erudition, and an uncanny ability to influence people. He gave life to a faltering party, and was obviously destined to be the guiding star in this significant segment of our brotherhood.

Then something happened, but that brings us to history too recent to evaluate, except to say that brother Ketcherside now readily confesses his factionalism, repudiates the party spirit, and engages in work that transcends sectarian lines. The Sommerite party, what remains of it, has rejected him for his “liberal” position, and he is now barred from their churches. He has, however, led a substantial portion of the Sommerite remnant with him into a broader view of fellowship, and they are helping him in his efforts to unite all of us. A man who was once confined to a narrow faction that thought of itself as the only true church is now moving among all our parties within the Church of Christ-Christian Church, as well as other religious groups, pleading for the unity of Christians for which our Lord prayed.

That the leader of one faction among us should rise above his party and give himself to the overthrow of all factionalism is indeed phenomenal in our history or any church’s history, and this point alone makes Carl Ketcherside an interesting person. He is known no longer as the champion of some party, but as one who refuses to be identified with any party. His journal, Mission Messenger, in an instrument of peace which circulates widely among all Campbellites, setting forth principles for the unity of the Restoration Movement. It appears providential that such a man would emerge in our ranks who is able to serve all our groups in our quest for oneness. Perhaps it is consistent with history that such a man comes from the most unexpected sources. “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?”

We rejoice that this man is being used widely among most all our parties. Besides the influence of his journal, he is addressing all of our brethren on the subjects of fellowship and unity. The Independent Christian Church were the first to open the door to his message, and he has been to nearly all their colleges as a lecturer, and has twice addressed the North American Christian Convention. The more “liberal” Disciples of Christ then began listening to him, and he has appeared not only at their state conventions with his message of unity, but also at the famed World Convention of Christian Churches.

Besides all this brother Ketcherside has engaged in numerous unity meetings that have brought together leaders of as many as ten or twelve of our factions. The consequence of all this is that our people have been more conscious of the sin of division and the prospects of unity than ever before. And yet it is those of my own background, the non-instrument Church of Christ (associated with such institutions as Firm Foundation and Abilene Christian College), that has most opposed Ketcherside’s efforts, and about the only party among us that is so far unwilling to give him a hearing. Despite pressure from their own students, our colleges refuse to have him come around, including ACC. Through his paper he has even offered to visit any of the colleges among us and submit to questioning by faculty and students, promising to conduct himself as a gentleman all the way, but so far there have been no takers.

So the “breakthrough” in my segment of the Church of Christ for the Ketcherside unity message is yet to come. There are signs, however, that it is nigh. I know of at least three instances where influential ministers from orthodox pulpits have mentioned Carl Ketcherside by name, and extolling him with such words as “the man who is doing more than anyone else for the cause of unity in our brotherhood.” So I predict it will not be long until Carl Ketcherside will be on lectureship programs at our colleges and will be engaging in unity conferences in our churches, both large and small, from coast to coast.

This will be a great blessing to us, not so much that Carl Ketcherside has to be heard, but it will mean that we have at last broken out of our shell of narrowness and littleness. So long as we oppose our own men who are struggling to unite us, it is foolish for us to tell the world that we believe in Christian unity. But I must admit, eager as I may be to believe otherwise, that the door is still closed tight among us to Ketcherside and his plea for unity.

Well, this is the man that I met at the airport in Dallas and drove to Abilene. I was prepared for an exciting venture, not only because it gave Carl and me the rare privilege of being together alone, but also because we expected to make important contacts in Abilene. And for some reason it gave me a sense of history, for I have a feeling that significant changes are underway, and that the Holy Spirit is using us in some small way in all of it. And I had rather make history than study it anytime!

I must here confess my weakness and just admit that I returned to ACC this time with some uneasiness, for my efforts as a critic and reformer are not always appreciated, and I don’t much like to go where I’m not wanted. Besides, my wife was doubtful that Carl and I should make such a trip, and certainly not both of us, of all things. She thought Carl should go by himself! Now Ouida is a very brave little wife who seldom registers protests, and I dislike doing what she thinks is unwise. And, after all, we have to remember that the last time I went to a Christian college lectureship they threw me in jail. Ouida received a call from Tennessee that I was in the cooler, and it was up to her to get out and raise bond money. She well knows that my being on my good behavior is no guarantee that I’ll get back home. So, she had some grounds for her misgivings.

I did not, of course, anticipate any untoward incidents at ACC (I didn’t expect any in Tennessee either!), and I was as right as rain, for we were both treated most cordially from beginning to end, and we were made to feel welcome. We are glad we went. We were edified by what we heard, and we were impressed with the sincerity of the speakers. Several of the lecturers confirmed what we already suspected: the free spirit of inquiry is making such inroads among us that a new day is dawning. Our leaders are now saying what they would not have dared to say a decade ago, or even two or three years ago. And the subjects discussed indicate a new emphasis among us. They were more Christ-centered, and for about the first time in the history of the Abilene lectures there was a lesson on the Holy Spirit.

One could not expect to hear a finer address than that of Prof. Tony Ash of the ACC faculty. He made it clear that he was searching for the Christ of the Bible (that was his subject) and that he realized he did not yet have all the truth. He indicated that we all have much to learn from our religious neighbors, and that we are not to suppose that we are right and everybody else wrong. He called for more dialogue, insisting that we have been too exclusive, too isolated. He urged that we be more Christ-centered and less doctrinal-centered in our concerns, It was a reasonable and responsible presentation, and given by an obviously concerned man.

We were equally impressed with the panel discussion on “Why Dialogue Has Ceased” conducted by Edward Rockey and Wesley Reagan. These men pointed out that the typical attirude toward the Church of Christ is that “They think they’re right and everybody else is wrong,” or that we leave the impression that we think we’re the only church. We will not be able to enter into dialogue until we assume that we have something to learn from others. They called for more consideration and understanding toward those who differ with us. They indeed wanted dialogue with the denominations. We were pleased that someone raised the question of a restoration of contact within our own divided brotherhood. And the question was raised as to whether Church of Christ ministers might belong to the ministerial associations, but no one was yet ready for that. That will take three or four more years of growing, I figure.

As this panel dealt with the need to set up more dialogue both among our own brotherhood and among the denominations generally, and as they called for a greater concern for unity efforts, I had the urge to point out that some of us have been doing these very things for several years. And I could have added that it is a herculean task to persuade leaders of the Church of Christ to have anything to do with such efforts.

It so happens that in both of the cases that I have mentioned, Prof. Ash’s discourse and the panel on dialogue, there was at least one brother of the “old school” that took the speaker to task for becoming too liberal. I happened to hear that much while I was offering a hand of commendation. But in one instance the speakers were rebuked for “going down the road with Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett,” which I thought was with poor grace. A man ought to be able to speak his mind without being lined up with somebody. Is the man speaking the truth?, should be the question, not whether he sounds like somebody that we are supposed to be against.

Brother Ketcherside and I shook hands with hundreds of wonderful brethren from everywhere, conferring at length with a number of them. The first hand that Carl shook after stepping onto the campus handed him a dollar for a subscription to his paper! And that happened at other times. We made it a point to call on as many faculty people as we could in their offices, especially the Bible faculty, most of whom are our old friends. We could not have been received with more Christian courtesy, and we were both convinced that they really were glad to see us, and were not just being nice. We called on President Morris and other administrative officers, and they seemed to be as pleased as we were. We were not up to anything in our visit to ACC, and we certainly had no chip on our shoulder, and we hope we made that clear. Our mission is peace and unity, and we were there to meet our brethren and listen to what they had to say.

There was a wisecrack or two along the way, such as one brother whom I’ve known for many years that wanted to know if I were there to take notes, but these were by no means serious. By the way, I took no notes! Neither did I say anything during the panel discussions; nor did Carl. We didn’t plan it that way; we had no strategy; we didn’t even discuss beforehand what we would do or not do.

The friendly reception convinced us that our brethren generally are more sympathetic with our efforts for a broader view of fellowship than they are the “old school” that has so long preserved Church of Christ orthodoxy. Our presence gave them an opportunity to question us and to see for themselves what we are trying to do. Once the word got around that we were there, two gatherings of students requested private conferences. We advised them to check with some of the faculty to make sure that such meetings would be appropriate. They were given an immediate OK, and we enjoyed the students very much, finding them both intelligent and responsible. We found absolutely no resentment to our presence, and I must admit that I figured there would be some. I am encouraged and edified, and I thank God for the trip. Many brethren showed the emotion of surprise at our presence, but a pleasant surprise, or almost that. Some of the fellows standing with us at various points about the campus would occasionally inform us that we were being watched, but they only meant that “that table over there has discovered who you two are and the word is going around.” But there is nothing wrong with that, for we realize that we are controversial figures, and I too stretch my neck when I hear that somebody is around that I’ve read and heard about for years but have never seen.

From ACC’s point of view they have every reason to want men with different views around, for it makes their lectureships of wider representation. We noticed something else that is highly encouraging: some of the Christian Church fellows were there, as well as non-Sunday School brethren, and a few others not within the mainstream. Wonderful! That they would want to be there is significant; that ACC would want them is equally significant.

It was great! We loved it! I’ve just about worked myself up to trying Tennessee again. If I can only convince Ouida that … —the Editor