To Church of Christ Leaders. . .

PRIESTS INSTEAD OF PROPHETS?

I am persuaded by substantial evidence that many, if not most, of our leaders among Churches of Christ basically agree with the things this journal advocates, but they do not let this be known. When I refer to our leaders I mean:

Editors of our leading journals.

Administrators and professors in our colleges, and this would include at least a few of the teachers in the schools of preaching.

Elders and deacons in our churches, and Sunday School teachers. Ministers in pulpits across the land, including the largest and most influential churches.

I do not, of course, mean that all those in these various categories are in agreement with what we are pleading for, but that a substantial number are. I could easily name scores of such ones, and there are others that I hear from that could name even more. It is a case of our leadership being less than candid and forthright with our people, withholding what they really believe, even allowing, if not encouraging, criticism against those of us who are standing up for what they themselves would teach if they would reveal their true thinking.

To be more specific about the things I am referring to I would list especially:

1. The notion that what we call “The Church of Christ” is the one and only true church.

2. The idea that we are the only Christians, and that there are no Christians among what we insensitively label as “the sects.”

3. The assumption that we and only we have restored the church of the New Testament, that we have arrived and have all the truth.

4. The belief that instrumental music is per se a sin and that all who use it are sinning and going to hell.

5. The idea that fellowship must be restricted to those who are “right” on all the vital issues, that we cannot not only have fellowship with “brothers in error,” but with no one in thc denominations, not even with our sisters and brothers in the Christian Church.

The list could be extended to include our contention that we have been legalistic about baptism and remiss regarding the place of grace, that we have well nigh ignored the mission of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer and that we have been too legalistic and patternistic in our view of the scriptures and the primitive church.

So, mark well what I am saying. Even though scorn has been heaped upon me and others for insisting that neither the scriptures nor our own Restoration heritage demand that we think of ourselves as the only Christians or that we must make instrumental music a test of fellowship, these men are really “closet” advocates of the same ideas. They too believe that we should fellowship all those who are in Christ, certainly those among Christian Churches, and not just our own folk, but they are slow of heart to state their convictions.

This was brought home to me recently while visiting with an old warrior among us who has long since come out of the closet, if ever he was in it. Having once been in the administration of one of our colleges, he knows the people that I am talking about better than I. When I revealed to him my suspicion that these leaders actually agree with what we are saying, he reinforced the idea with an unequivocal I know they do! He proceeded to list the men by name, from Tennessee to Texas to California. I knew everyone he named and had long since decided that they were being less than honest with their readers and auditors about what they really believed. The old warhorse, who himself has suffered for his transparency, told of instances when some of these leaders revealed their true position to him personally, explaining that they were not able to say such things publicly lest they jeopardize their position in the brotherhood.

So I could name the men I have in mind, just as this brother did, and at one time decided that this article would be an “Open Letter” to these men, wherein they would be addressed by name, pleading for them to speak out, for I think I know they could speak their true convictions and get by with it, now at least, if not a decade ago. But I decided against that approach. I do not want it to appear that I am after somebody.

The evidence that I have has accumulated through the years from various sources, such as reports from private conversations. An example of what I mean is a conversation between some college faculty people and the president of the college. Effort was being made to bring Carl Ketcherside to the campus. The president was asked point blank, Is Ketcherside right? His reply was to the effect that Carl was right, but that he had a college to promote, which he could not do by having the likes of Ketcherside around. He was, at least in that moment, candid.

Another example is when one enterprising brother sent one of Carl Ketcherside’s articles to one of our prominent editors for publication, but with the author’s name deleted. The editor wrote back, commended the article, and requested the identity of the author so that he could give proper credit. The brother, knowing that this editor had again and again refused to publish anything by Carl, knew better than to carry the matter further.

When I mentioned Carl to the old warhorse referred to above, he said, They all know Carl is right, but they will not dare allow him to be heard, and what a tragedy since he is so articulate. Then he said, They are priests, not prophets, and that really puts the finger on the problem if not on them.

But I must add our favorite story, the one that delights Ouida, and it came to us directly from the one who did the fiendish thing, a teacher at a Bible Chair at a Texas university. Placing a Mission Messenger, then edited by Carl Ketcherside, inside a Firm Foundation, he went to the office of his director, telling him he wanted to read him something. So he read from Carl out of the open Firm Foundation, which is one way to get into that journal that Carl overlooked. The director was absolutely delighted, wondering what had gotten into the Foundation, publishing such vital stuff as that. Who wrote that?, asked the director, elated that the powers that be were at last speaking out. The teacher then laid his evil contrivance before him on the desk and burned him with Carl Ketcherside!

No wonder the lad was eventually on the outside looking in. After all, there is a limit to which you should go in making folk look like fools. I would have fired him too! But you should hear Ouida tell that story. She thinks it reveals so much about what has happened to us. We have actually reached the place where we will reject truth—if it is the wrong one who speaks it! What kind of love for truth is that? It looks as if the love of party come first.

Priests rather than prophets! It may be so. The priests throughout biblical history have been inclined to preserve the status quo and resist change. Serving at the altar, they have often resisted the prophet’s call for reform, and it was they that contrived the conspiracy against the greatest reformer of them all, the Christ himself. As interpreters of the law and the monitors of the ritual, they stood closer to the people and were in a position to “poison the well” when the prophet called for repentance. God assured Jeremiah that he could count on the opposition of the priests, but that he would give him the strength to resist them (Jer. 1:18). The prophets called on the priests to judge righteously and to teach faithfully, but it often fell upon deaf ears (Hos. 5:1, Mal. 2;7). Zech. 7:6 complains that they acted for their own satisfaction and Micah 3:11 judges them for ministering for hire. It is true that the faithful prophets were equally critical of false prophets, but it was usually the priests that stood in the way of reform, and so the prophets are always bidding them to hearken to the voice of God and mourn over their sin of neglect.

There is mystery to the evil we are describing, for we are talking about good men who love the Lord and the church, and who believe they are pursuing the right course in taking it easy. They tell my old friend that this is not the time, or that if they say too much they will jeopardize their opportunity to bring about the changes we all desire. They want to be in and not out, for it is only from the inside that change can be effected. They do not want to endanger their standing, their position, for then their opportunity will be gone. They want to say what others of us are saying but in their own way and own time.

I do not quarrel with this, for each must do his own thing in his own way before his own Lord. But as my friend said, speaking from long years of experience, They never get around to saying it, or if they do it is so veiled that no one gets the point. Theirs is not the prophetic voice, calling for changes that they know are long past due.

Some of us have the right to ask, What kind of leadership is that? We call for robust honesty, transparency, vulnerability, moral courage. They could get by with laying it all out before our people, for they have ripened for the change and would follow courageous leadership. But this is hardly the right motive. Suppose the prophets had waited until it was safe to speak out? Suppose our Lord had been careful to protect his “position” and had waited for the opportune time? Have we no understanding in leading God’s church to what it means to be a disciple of the humble Galilean who was committed to pleasing his Father rather than the people.

If we are true makers of peace, followers of Jesus rather than the party, there is no way for us to be invulnerable. We must be willing to get hurt, and that will almost certainly happen. For the few who have their values in proper perspective, and who have discovered what is really important over what is but trivial, the decision is by no means a difficult one.—the Editor.

There are persons in the Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches who were baptized to obey God rather than to please the sects. In this they rise above the sectarian spirit. despite the parties in which they find themselves. They ought to get out of the sectarian churches, but they see so much sectarianism in the nonsectarian churches that they think they are all alike.—David Lipscomb. Questions Answered, p. 592