Pilgrimage of Joy. . .No. 35

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU CHANGE
W. Carl Ketcherside

I have often been asked about the effect of my changing convictions upon the party of which I had been one of the leaders. That, of course, is always the crux of any change. In the Saint Louis area where brethren could question me personally and where they could observe the life of Nell and myself, all of us continued to grow together in love. It was not quite so tranquil in other parts of the country. As I began to expose my changing views there was first astonishment and then resentment.

I had been a leader in opposition to the “Rough Draft” as presented by Chester and Allen Sommer in Indianapolis, Indiana. I had worked with their brother, D. Austen Sommer, in salvaging a “faithful church.” Later when problems arose with the latter I had again been a leader in what we called “preserving the faith.” Now I was saying the faith revealed in the Book was greater than, and not even related to our petty problems. Indeed, I was beginning to intimate that it was not only supremely above the Sommer movement, but the whole Campbell movement. The body of Christ as viewed by God was infinitely superior to all of our hassels and wrangles about means, methods and machinery. I suggested that He might not have been with us in any of our debates and controversies.

At first the opposition was an undercurrent. I would hear rumors of speeches delivered in various places opposing my concept of fellowship. Occasionally someone would write me that his congregation had received a warning against me. I was no longer sound in the faith. It was suggested that I might be losing my mind and that much learning had made me mad. I was not invited to speak at a few gatherings where I had once been welcomed. As the spirit of opposition gradually began to crystallize and to surface in order to protect itself, it became centered in three men among the older brethren - E. M. Zerr, Roy Loney and C. R. Turner.

Brother Loney was a good writer but was completely deaf. His speaking was greatly affected by his condition, and he was very difficult to understand. He had been alienated from his family and isolated from the brethren for some years because of his involvement in local church troubles. I went to Colorado and offered him an opportunity to write for Mission Messenger. He readily accepted. However, he had grown up in an age of preacher rivalry and church trouble, and was happiest when engaged in a running feud by mail. My changing views presented him another opportunity. He wrote letters to brethren whom he deemed weak in Saint Louis and sought to woo them into allowing him to come and start a “faithful church” and gather the dissidents together. They brought the letters to me and we ignored them.

Brother Turner’s influence was limited and hurt by his own judgment. Possessed of an inflexible spirit, and being radical by nature, he felt called upon to try and drive brethren to see things as he did. Wherever he went he assailed “the new doctrine on fellowship.” He was especially embittered by my emphasis on love as the solution of all of our problems and ridiculed it publicly whenever he could.

Brother Zerr was possessed of the greatest knowledge of the Book of any man among us. Every year, after his wife died, Nell and I had him come and stay with us for at least two weeks at Christmas time. He liked our children and enjoyed the spirit of gaiety which they created when they came home. I had edited and published his large book New Testament Questions and had also brought out the six volume commentary which he wrote. We were close to each other and I arranged for him to speak in congregations in the Saint Louis area.

He was a columnist for our little journal, writing a monthly article, “Word Studies in the Bible.” He was adept at this kind of thing and had his articles in on time every month. As I began to air my developing views he became uncomfortable at appearing in the same paper with me. More and more it was apparent in his column that he was attempting to shore up our traditional partisan position. This was evident in his column for March 1958 when he wrote on the words “Heresy and Faction.” The same issue carried two articles of mine. One was titled “The Party Spirit.” Some have said it was the most keenly analytical article I have ever written. The other article was another installment of “Thoughts on Fellowship.”

It was this series which Brother Zerr could not allow to go unchallenged. He wrote me that he would not continue to write for the paper unless he was permitted to write about my fallacies. I replied that I would welcome anything he said which would point out my error, and nothing he wrote would keep me from loving him. Accordingly, he announced his intention of dealing with my views in the August issue of 1958 in an article entitled “Preface.” The intensity of his feeling was shown by his concluding words, “I am not vain enough to think I can ‘stem the tide’ of this disastrous movement. But I know that I can clear my conscience by raising my voice and hand against another incipient gash in the body of Christ.”

In an editorial note I said, “We cherish the right for Brother Zerr to differ with our views, and we will provide him the same opportunity to be heard as we ask for ourselves. He may set forth any view he holds in this paper. . . The fact that our brother, or any other brother, disagrees with us will make no difference in our treatment of him. We will demonstrate one time in history that there is room in the fellowship of God for brethren to differ in love.”

It was obvious that I now faced the first real test of my view that love was the ultimate dynamic which could maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. For the first time I was committed to a wholly new approach to dealing with those who differed with me. I examined my own heart and found out that I was not shamming it. I loved these brethren in spite of their human weaknesses and mine. I resolved not to hurt their influence nor put a stumblingblock in their way. I would simply be true to Jesus. I would correct any mistakes which they sustained by evidence and apologize for any wrong.

I published all that Brother Zerr wrote. I replied as gently as possible. The result was that brethren had both sides of the controversial thinking before them in the same issue of the paper. I felt deeply that the things I was writing would some day be generally accepted. I was content to plant and water. I would “learn to labor and to wait,” and allow time, the great arbiter, to validate what I was saying. As for the present I must be true to increasing knowledge regardless of consequences.

We escaped without a formal split, for which I have ever been thankful. It is true that some brethren with whom I had labored branded me a Benedict Arnold. Of course they knew little about what I was seeking to do and nothing about Benedict Arnold. In private letters I have since seen, I was referred to as a traitor. None of these things moved me nor did I count my life dear unto myself. I knew the brethren did not realize the scope of what I was saying and they were angry, thinking I had left them. Actually I did not leave anyone. My only sin was the receiving of all of God’s children as my brothers. I did not consider that loving others more meant that I loved those with whom I had been associated any less. I moved out of the stagnant pool of backwater into the mainstream of God’s mercy and love.

In these days I am constantly running into good brothers and sisters whom I knew in the olden days. They would have nothing to do with me then. But many of them have now become less sure that they have a perfect understanding of all truth. They have seen their children and grandchildren drift away from the cold, calculating legalism which we then equated with the will of God. It has shaken them. They have mellowed and become more open. Some of them are now members of groups about which they condemned me when I suggested there might be Christians among them.

I have learned one thing which has proven valuable for me. When problems arise, if one can avoid saying too much about them in their initial stages he will not have so much to retract later on. Human pride often interferes with our acknowledgment of wrong and congregations which choose sides actually create the “sides” by their choosing. All matters are better when handled with cool heads and warm hearts than with hotheads and cold hearts.

On Labor Day weekend in 1958 occurred a meeting of great significance. It was held in the little city of Nowata, Oklahoma, and was arranged by my brother Paul who presided over it. Hundreds of brethren gathered from several states. It was a rich time in sharing. Featured was a discussion of instrumental music in relation to fellowship. Participants were Seth Wilson, Don DeWelt, Leroy Garrett and myself. The format proved to be excellent. There were three sessions of two hours each.

In the first each speaker took thirty minutes to state his personal convictions on the theme without regard to the others. I had not consulted with Brother Garrett as to what he might say. In the second session the four speakers questioned each other seeking for clarification of the views expressed. In the third session all sat together upon the platform and fielded questions from the audience. The method was far superior to a debating routine. One of the chief blessings accruing from it was involvement of the audience in the questioning. I came to love and respect Seth Wilson and Don DeWelt as sincere brethren in the Lord. That feeling has deepened with the passing years.

On October 27, I suffered a great loss when my uncle, L. E. Ketcherside, was suddenly called home to be with the Lord. He had spent the day before mimeographing 450 sheets for door-to-door distribution in Bismarck, Missouri. It was a work he loved. He covered one short street when death stabbed at his heart, and he fell backward, with the remainder of the tracts fluttering to earth about his prostrate form. He never writhed or twisted. Death was instantaneous. He was the last of my father’s brothers and sisters. As I spoke before his casketed form I realized that his death closed one chapter of a family history which had provided four gospel preachers.

In December Brother Garrett launched Restoration Review. He was assisted by Brother Clint Evans of Hartford, Illinois, as publisher. From the outset the journal met a real need. Many of the articles were classics. It has continued until this day doing untold good in a fearless presentation of vital matters.

Not everything was good. The opposition against my thinking became more intensified. In some instances there was bitterness toward me. Brother Loney wrote in our September issue: “Little pipsqueaks carried away with a smattering of ‘new’ scholarship show a disposition to solve all the problems of the universe. If the teaching on fellowship that is now being offered is to prevail, then this brotherhood will disintegrate, and become a thing of the past.” Our brother did not realize that we were praying for all “brotherhoods” to disintegrate and those who composed them to merge into the one body of Christ.