Truth Magazine

By Dorris V. Rader

In recent years this spirit of ecumenism has broken loose among some in the “restoration movement” and they have proclaimed a new movement known as “The Fellowship of The Concerned Ones.” There is a definite and undeniable affinity between the denominational ecumenical movement and this new movement. This is virtually admitted by Carl Ketcherside in the Mission Messenger, July 1967. “We are wholly sympathetic to ‘the call of renewal’ as voiced by our religious neighbors in ecumenical circles. We congratulate and commend them for their recognition that our present state is abnormal and for their concern, which prompts them to want to do something tangible to remedy it. What they have said and written has affected a great many of us who would not like to credit them for an impact upon our thinking, but they have dragged and pulled some of us into the twentieth century quite against our wills.” (p. 98) In addition to Ketcherside, some of the other leaders in the movement include Leroy Garrett, Robert Myers, and Roy Key. These men, with others, are constantly in “unity forums” with Disciples of Christ, Christian Churches and churches of Christ. Others are included – but these are given special attention. We are certainly not opposed to discussing matters with others with the idea of eliciting truth, and upholding it. And if this were the real nature of such gatherings, it would make our hearts glad. But as evidence of the compromise characteristic of such meetings, I quote from an article by Ketcherside concerning a meeting of -top-level men in the churches of Christ” and a prominent leader in the Christian church. He says, “It was agreed that these leaders in the non-instrumental ranks would tone down their factional approach in their articles and broadcasts, eliminating such material as would intensify tensions between the two groups. No mention of the meeting ever leaked out to orthodox journals but the effect has been seen from coast to coast.” (Mission Messenger, Nov. 1969). (Emp. mine DVR) He went on to point out that “a front-rank man in the Bible department at Abilene Christian College recently said that if the instrument was being introduced now, the brethren who oppose it would look at it a long time before they would divide over it . . .” He further said that the brethren who oppose the instrument agreed to work for a lessening of tension on the mission field where the question is Dot an issue. They also disclaimed any intention of becoming involved in public partisan debate over the matter. You will notice that the opposers of such unscriptural practices were the ones doing the compromising. It cannot be whitewashed and make it anything but compromise. This is in keeping with the fact that Ketcherside does not believe that division was caused by bringing in the instrument or the missionary society. It was simply a “lack of love” that caused it! So, if one places ham on the Lord’s Table, he does not cause division, but the “lack of love” on the part of the poor old opposer!

It is admitted by Ketcherside that it is a new movement. “The ‘Fellowship of the Concerned Ones’ is growing. The factional defenders of partisan orthodoxy are frightened . . . A New Movement is gathering force . . . a twentieth century restoration movement-linked by kinship to the restoration movement of long ago and yet destined to meet realistically the needs of our contemporary era.” (Mission Messenger, Apr. 1965). Before looking into some of the basic tenets of the movement, a brief look at an historical development should prove interesting.

Back in the early fifties Garrett and Ketcherside were leading the anti-located preacher hobby. It was argued that the “gospel” is only “seed” by which the unsaved are begotten and it cannot and must not be preached to the church. “Doctrine,” it was alleged, is food for the child of God. Hence, a strong and definite distinction was suggested. The first chapter of Romans alone disproves his contention that the gospel cannot be preached unto the church. Paul wrote the letter “unto all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints.” (v. 7) Then, more than a dozen times in the following verses, the pronouns “ye” and “your” appear. Then, Paul declares, “I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.” (v. 15) Paul was ready to preach the Gospel to those Ketcherside said it could not be preached to. Then, to the Corinthians Paul said: “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel (1 Cor. 15: 1). The distinction he sees between “gospel” and “doctrine” is a distinction which does not exist. This can be seen from a statement in first Timothy. Paul talks about things “contrary to sound doctrine; According to the gospel of the blessed God . . .” (1 Tim. 1: 10-11). And in first Timothy six, we find that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ are simply the “doctrine” of Christ. (1 Tim. 6:3)

My point in mentioning the above is simply to show that this false distinction forms the basis (in part) for their willingness to fellowship just about anybody, regardless of “doctrinal” difference. With them “doctrine” is optional. It may be discussed, but never allowed to disrupt fellowship. Hence, this accounts for the willingness to fellowship the users of instruments of music in worship, those who use missionary societies, the Premillennialists, and anything else so long as one does not deny that 1, Jesus is Lord.” By his own admission, Ketcberside will fellowship “every person who has been immersed upon the basis of his sincere faith in Jesus Christ as God’s Son and his Lord.” (Defender Vol. II, No. 11, Jan. 26, 1909) He will fellowship, therefore, any such person currently in the “Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, or some other religious organization.” (Mission Messenger, Feb., 1960, Pg. 3-9) Perhaps this is what one preacher called “great fellowship.” Maybe he thought it is great because it is almost without any limits. It seems that with him the only factor breaking the “great fellowship” would be for an individual or congregation to reach the point of denying the Bible to be the Word of God. Let us now look at some of the positions embraced in the movement. And remember that these are positions being advocated in literature circulated among the churches in Tullahoma and the area. Sometimes it is subtly concealed but nevertheless it is there.

1. It is advocated that there are Christians in all denominations. Listen to Leroy Garrett: “The Church of Christ consists of all those who lovingly obey him in all things according to their understanding, which assumes that they will be baptized believers who are spirit-fillea. These saints of God are scattered throughout the Christian world, belonging to all sort-, of sects and denominations. They are Christians, not because of their affiliation with any particular sect, but because of their relationship to Christ Jesus.” (Restoration Review, Sept. 1964) Garrett says: “If the man who truly loves Jesus happens to be a Baptist, I love him no less than a ‘church of Christ’ member that truly loves Jesus. They are both my brothers in the same way and to the same degree. I have no half brothers in Christ.” (Restoration Review, Dec. 1964) Ketcherside declared that “God’s sheep are a scattered flock, and not yet a gathered one. Some of them are caught in strange sectarian thickets. . .” (Mission Messenger, May, 1963) Further he said, “As an illustration of what we mean, we mention our personal conviction that there may be children of God scattered among the various sects today. Since all children of God are born of the same father whom we claim, we recognize them as our brethren, regardless of the mistakes in reasoning of which they are now guilty.” (Mission Messenger, Feb., 1958, pg. 12) Thus it follows that Ketcherside and those who think as he does, believe that one may choose to “serve God” in a denominational body unknown to God’s Word, and remain in fellowship with God. (See 1 John 1:7.) If one can do this, all can do it! Is our state or condition with the Lord an unconditional matter? Jesus said, “If ye continue in my word then ye are my disciples indeed.” (John 8:31) Thus, even if a person has obeyed the truth, then later goes into denominationalism, the issue is, can lie remain there and continue in fellowship with God? (1 John 1:7; John 8:31)

2. It is argued that there is no unity except “in diversity, ” none in conformity. “We assert that if there is any unity at all, it must be unity in diversity … there is no other kind of unity.” (Mission Messenger, July, 1965) What do they mean by diversity and conformity? Do they mean that unity cannot be had in conformity to human traditions? We would agree! Do they mean that we need not have conformity to or adhere strictly to the Bible in order to have unity? Then, we disagree! That this is precisely what they do mean is seen in the following statement. “What do we envision in the united church? … The Baptist church would not have to close shop, though being ‘Baptists’ would come to mean less and less to them. The Methodist church would probably continue worshiping at the Methodist church, and the Presbyterian and Lutherans would not necessary discard all marks that distinguish them from others. The Christian church and the church of Christ would not be expected to join each other. . . . not at the outset at least. But all these groups could still be as one body in the holy bond of Christian brotherhood. despite external differences and even annoying disagreements. The big difference would be that they would accept each other as brothers and treat each other as children of God in the same heavenly family . . . They would drop creedal barriers, having fellowship on the Lordship of Christ and nothing else. ” (Restoration Review, May, 1964-Emp. mine, DVR) Ketcherside said He can be in a sect without being sectarian. We urge no one to come into anything except those who are out of Christ Jesus. We invite DO one to come into anything except those who are not in the one body. Let us stay where God has called us in that one body and be a part of the concerned ones.” (Mission Messenger, Nov. 1964) (Emp. mine-DVR) Ketcherside is urging the “scattered sheep” to stay caught in those “strange sectarian thickets” and just be a part of the “concerned ones.” Ketcherside admits what we already knew, namely, he has been greatly influenced by the leaders in the protestant ecumenism. Hear him: “What they (religious neighbors in the ecumenical circles DVR) have said and written has affected a great many of us who would not like to credit them for an impact upon our thinking, but they have dragged and pulled some of us into the twentieth century quite against our wills.” (Mission Messenger, July, 1967) told you that there is an undeniable affinity between this movement and the larger denominational ecumenism. There is the admission. This “unity in diversity” was borrowed from them! It is a phrase of the ones who use “good words and fair speeches” and deceive the hearts of the simple. (Rom. 16:17-18) Any position, which allows for many bodies must necessarily allow for many faiths, and many Lords. (Eph. 4:4-6) Paul admonished that there be no divisions among you, and to be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. (1 Cor. 1:10). The denominational leaders have long argued for “unity in diversity” and Brother Ketcherside admits being influenced by them.

3. It is argued that we cannot understand the Bible alike. Faithful brethren have met this and refuted it all along from denominational preachers. Now, Robert Myers has said, “Any honest and perceptive person knows that through every century since the book was written men with equal sincerity and wisdom have been unable to understand some of its crucial issues alike … Perhaps it is time to take a long, hard look at the problem of interpretation. We may want to overhaul our position . . . Unity in diversity is possible, the unity of conformity never has been and never will be . . . It isn’t that God’s revelation speaks with two voices; it is simply that man’s interpretive power is affected by many factors and that one hardly ever finds two men on earth who are anywhere near alike” (Restoration Review, Apr., 1964) Thus, like the denominations, they are ready to excuse every presumptuous sin on the basis of man’s interpretive powers being affected. Suppose the man who denies the virgin birth, miracles, and the deity of Jesus argues that these are merely matters of interpretation, and that his views should not be allowed to keep him out of fellowship with them. Would these men be so “unloving” as to “sit on the judgment seat” and exclude him from fellowship? Do not count on it. They cannot do so and maintain any degree of consistency with the position. For, after all, if we cannot understand the Bible alike, how can they be sure their “interpretation” of such matters is correct? The Bible directs us to “be not unwise but understanding what the will of the Lord is.” (Eph. 5: 17) If two people both understand what the Lord’s will is, they will be alike. God commands its all to “speak as the oracles of God,” (1 Pet. 4: 11) a thing we cannot do unless we can understand the oracles of God. We are admonished to “walk by the same rule,” and to “mind the same thing.” (Phil. 3:161 The very same passages we have always used to answer the denominational contention on this point are sufficient to answer these men who admittedly have been influenced by the denominational leaders.

4. We are told that the Bible is not a pattern or blueprint. One writer challenged the idea that there is a pattern for anything-in Christianity. He thinks such would be “legalism.” Leroy Garrett said, “When we take all the New Testament Scriptures … we can be sure about a few matters regarding the work, worship, and government of the ecclesia. (emp. mine. DVR) . . , This dos not mean, however that the Scriptures provide its with ‘a minute and detailed pattern’ for the church. For the most part the guidelines are in a few broad areas which seem to restrict the areas in which we might move instead of precisely defining them.” (Restoration Review, May, 1964) (Emp. mine DVR). Of course, if the Bible is not a pattern or blueprint, there can be no violation of any pattern. (See Heb. 8:5) Like other modernists, they regard the Bible as simply setting up a few (powerfully few at that) general guidelines and they are so broad and flexible its to allow for just about anything.

5. It is denied that the New Testament churches were alike in doctrine and practice and hence the unity of the apostolic church is denied. Listen to Garrett: “Another characteristic of the true, apostolic church, we are told, is its unity; therefore, the divisiveness apparent in ‘modern denominationalism’ rules out all denominations as the true church of Christ. I am surprised … that my brethren keep making this kind of argument, puerile and naive as it is. First, the primitive churches were anything but united, if that means they were alike in doctrine and practice, or even if it means that they got along well with each other . . .” (Restoration Review Sept., 1964) Wonder how this can be reconciled with the fact that the Bible pictures the multitude in Jerusalem as being of “one mind and of one soul,” (Acts 4:32) and that Paul preached the same thing in every church. (1 Cor. 4: 17) It cannot be shown that the apostolic churches were anything like the denominational picture today. There simply were no denominations in existence. Let him find such in the Bible, and then he will have something to go on. But they have already ruled out the Bible as being any pattern anyway!

6. The “Movement of the Concerned Ones” is s saturated with the theory of the Holy Spirit operating other than through the word of God. It is reported (Gospel Guardian, Vol. 20, No. 4) that in the Dallas Unity Meeting of 1967, Ketcherside in response to questions said that lie did not believe the Holy Spirit would reveal anything in addition to the written word; but that the Holy Spirit does ‘illuminate or reveal to one’s heart the meaning of the scriptures. Myers says we cannot understand the scriptures alike, and Ketcherside says the Holy Spirit reveals the meaning to us. If these men are right, the Holy Spirit is doing a fair job of contradicting himself and confusing everyone. Garrett asserts and implies the presence of the Spirit in the same sense as in Paul and Elijah. “Does God speak to men directly and immediately in our day? … Men no longer believe in God’s living presence. God once did this or that, but he does so no longer. Religion must have been vital and exciting to Elijah or Paul, for the Spirit of God was a living reality in their lives. All lie does these days is through the cold print of a book. Get full of that book and you get full of the Spirit! This is a view all too common. We may be disbelievers without realizing it … If we look to the Bible and to the Lord for answers to the crucial problems facing our world, then we must believe that ‘Jesus is the same yesterday and today and forever!’ (Restoration Review. Nov. 1964  Emp. mine DVR).

Gospel preachers have met and answered these assertions from denominational preachers much longer than any of us has lived. Oral Roberts could do as good a job arguing his miraculous healing today. There is a growing number who have been influenced by this type of teaching, who is claiming a direct guidance of the Holy Spirit. Some claim Holy Spirit Baptism and speaking in tongues. In the Word of God what is attributed to the influence of the Holy Spirit today such as guiding, instructing, leading, comforting, sanctifying and dwelling in us, etc. is also attributed to the Word, which the Holy Spirit gave us. This is not to argue that the Holy Spirit is a book, or cold print or just a word. He is a person. It is simply to affirm that He operates through the word, which is the “sword of the Spirit.” (Eph. 6: 10, Compare also Col. 3:16 with Eph. 5:18) If one has no difficulty seeing that Christ, a person in the Godhead, dwells in us by faith, he should have no difficulty seeing that the third person of the Godhead can dwell in us in like fashion. (see Eph. 3:17). For an excellent refutation of this “Pentecostal Holiness Movement” in the church, consult the book by Foy E. Wallace, Jr., The Mission And Medium Of The Holy Spirit. Any of the debates with denominational preachers of the past on the direct operation of the Holy Spirit will be of assistance.

The restoration plea of the pioneers and the faithful down through the years has been designed to bring men and women out of denominationalism and away from the dogmas of men. The “Fellowship of the Concerned Ones” runs in the other direction. It encourages them to remain where they are regardless of “doctrinal” matters, and presumptuous practices, which render worship as vain.

If our standing for a “thus saith the Lord” makes us “keepers of orthodoxy,” may our tribe increase ten thousand times ten thousand! Our fervent prayer is that our brethren, who have been sitting quiet while these views were propagated, will rise up with the Sword of the Spirit and stand as defenders of the Faith. This movement will not stop! It will continue to progress among people who forsake “the pattern” and follow human wisdom. No doubt it will eventually become blended into the larger and more general denominational ecumenical movement from whence the seeds were borrowed. It definitely has an appeal as all sin does. But you do not have to be swept into the tide of its digression. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 41, pp. 8-12
August 23, 1973

By James W. Adams

“How fast would a man have to run around the block to see himself leave?” In the halcyon days of youth, before the complexities of life which are inherent in maturity set in, the quotation above was a sort of standing joke among a group of us budding intellectuals (?) who were just being introduced to higher mathematics and the physical sciences. Needless to say, we never solved the problem. What a surprise it is, therefore, after all these years, to find its answer all but practically demonstrated in the argumentation of W. Carl Ketcherside. While our brother does not actually see himself leave, he does make his trip fast enough to meet himself coming back. In my last article, I promised to deal with Brother Ketcherside’s self-contradictory sophistry contained in his explanation of the three ways in which he says fellowship between baptized believers may be terminated.

The Three Conditions

In my article just previous to this one, a lengthy quotation was given from an article written by Ketcherside and published in the Restoration Review, February 1973, tinder the title, “Fellowship.” Unless otherwise noted, all quotations in this article from Ketcherside will be from this source. Readers will please refer to my previous article. In the quotation in question, the following fellowship-terminating conditions are listed: (1) Moral turpitude; (2) the advocacy of doctrines which separate from God; (3) the factional spirit.

In keeping with the Ketchersidean modus operandi, all of these conditions are buried in a landslide of qualifying rhetoric, but I shall dig them out and we shall have a good, long look at them. Richard Whately in his Elements of Logic makes some observations, which may be applied most appropriately to the Ketchersidean method. He says: “It should be remembered, that a very long discussion is one of the most effective veils of Fallacy. Sophistry, like poison, is at once detected, and nauseated, when presented to us in concentrated form; but a Fallacy which when stated barely, in a few sentences, would not deceive a child, may deceive half the world, if diluted in a quarto volume” (P. 141).

(1) A Preliminary Consideration. Ketcherside says that if a baptized believer “adopts a life-style or engages in a course of conduct in defiance of the moral and ethical values associated with Jesus, he ruthlessly violates the covenantal relationship,” hence that “his behavior constitutes a public and blatant declaration that he will not allow Christ to reign over him.” This is interesting, indeed. Let us test and see if our brother really means what he says. Suppose a man divorces his innocent wife because he has without any sort of justification fallen in love with another woman and subsequently marries his inamorata. Jesus says, “whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery” (Mt. 19:9). But this man says, as do some of the brethren, “Fornication dissolves the marriage relationship. I freely admit that I sinned in divorcing my first wife without scriptural cause and committed adultery in my first sexual union with my second wife, and for these sins, I and she repent and ask for God’s forgiveness, for my first wife’s forgiveness, and for the brethren’s forgiveness. However, since my first marriage was dissolved by my act of fornication, I may now continue, without sin to live as husband and wife with my second companion, as I am the husband of only one wife.”

Assuming this man to be perfectly sincere in his convictions and assuming that Brother Ketcherside believes (which he may not for all I know what the majority of the brethren believe Jesus to teach concerning this matter (that the man and his wife are living in an adulterous condition or state), what would Ketcherside do relative to maintaining fellowship with this couple? They have “adopted a life-style” which is adulterous, hence are guilty of “moral turpitude.” Yet, the allegedly guilty parties say: “We believe devoutly in the Lordship of Jesus and in all things we desire to be submissive to His will, but we do not believe we are now living at variance with His will.” This hypothetical but entirely possible case is posed to highlight the fact, which Ketcherside seems to have overlooked that, in the realm of ethics or morals, the problem of interpreting the will of Christ is quite as vexing as in the realm of so-called doctrinal matters. Relative to so-called “doctrinal” matters, our brother likes to say, “Of course, I fellowship erring brethren, for the only kind of children God has are erring children.” Therefore, why does he not say relative to moral matters, “Of course I fellowship immoral brethren, the only kind of children God has are immoral children. Since these children of God are honestly mistaken concerning the teaching of Christ relative to marriage and divorce and sincerely desire to’ be submissive to the Lordship of Jesus, they are my brother and my sister and I love them? I don’t disown my brother in the flesh because we disagree about the weather, so why should I put my brother and sister in Christ out of the family of God because they commit adultery?” This would be harmonious with his logic, so if he does not fellowship such people, why does he not do so? If a person’s being mistaken honestly about the will of Christ relative to worshipping God by playing upon mechanical instruments of music is no bar to fellowship, why should his being honestly mistaken about the will of Christ relative to marriage and divorce resulting in an adulterous union be a bar to fellowship? This could be logically expanded to include every moral commandment in the will of Christ. The proponent of “Situation Ethics” does so expand the matter. Incidentally, I hear via a report from the recently conducted “Tulsa Forum” that Ketcherside promises to prove in the September issue of Mission Messenger that God and Christ are “Situationists.” I can hardly wait!

(2) The Advocacy of Doctrines which Separate from God. Ketcherside says’ “One may be mistaken about many things, but erroneous opinions will not necessarily sever him from God.” By the use of the term, necessarily,” I judge our brother to be saying that some erroneous opinions in religion will separate men from God and some will not. He explains by saying, “The body of truth is like the human body, in that it has many members. Not all of these are essential to being, some are essential only to well-being.” This implies that Ketcherside has a list of those things “essential to being- and a second list of those things -essential only to well being.” It would be fascinating to know just how he arrived at this determination. Like the Roman Catholics, he unquestionably divides sins into mortal and venial sins. I should like much to see these lists and to have the opportunity to examine the rules of interpretation which he employed in reaching his determination.

An interesting fact Ketcherside needs to consider is that the Holy Spirit made “working not at all” a condition of the termination of fellowship (2 Thess. 3:11-14). Is laziness a greater sin than corrupting the worship? Ketcherside’s teaching and practice declare that it is. The obligations of an unequivocal command would demand he not fellowship such persons as those described in 2 Thess. 3, yet he avers (and practices accordingly) that a corruption of the worship through the use of mechanical instruments of worship is not a condition justifying the termination of fellowship. It would appear that laziness with Ketcherside is a mortal sin while a corruption of the worship is only a venial sin.

The Holy Spirit also recognizes a failure to provide for the physical necessities of one’s relatives as grounds for terminating fellowship by saying, “If a man provide not for his own … he has denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel” (1Tim. 5:8). Ketcherside agrees that one who “denies the faith, and is worse than an infidel” is not in the fellowship. Question, dear brother: Is the simple failure to provide for the physical necessities of needy relatives worse than denying members of God’s family of which I am a part proper spiritual nourishment through a corruption of Divine worship’! Ketcherside’s theory and practice declare such to be true. Such a concept makes the physical transcend the spiritual and the “outward man” more important than the “inward man.” Paul should have had Ketcherside to advise him when, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he penned 2 Cor. 4:16-18, for it would have kept him from exposing himself to the embarrassment of having written such nonsense (?) as these verses contain.

Thus far, we have noted that Ketcherside’s list of things “essential to being” includes (1) the belief of seven facts concerning Divine acts wrought in Jesus. (2) submission to immersion in water as an act of obedience to God without regard to any design other than this, and (3) the moral requirements taught and exemplified by Jesus. I take it that all “opinions” relating to these matters are “essential to being.” You will be impressed, if you will read after Ketcherside, by the fact that he omits all reference whatsoever to matters having to do with the Christian’s worship of and service to God in purely religious acts and relationships when discussing matters “essential to being.” The church, its organization, its worship, and its work quite evidently, in his mind, relate only to well-being.” He unquestionably excludes them from such matters as have vital bearing upon life in the Son or the life of the Spirit. With him, they would contribute to the enjoyment of spiritual life but make no contribution whatsoever to its maintenance. In my judgment, for what it may be worth, this is blasphemy! Ketcherside is more than a benign, misguided zealot. He is a malignant false teacher.

(3) The Factional Spirit. Ketcherside believes that the party spirit is a condition justifying the termination of fellowship. Incidentally, sooner or later, almost anyone who dares to oppose his fellowship-unity crusade will be stigmatized by him as a defender of party interests and a propagandizer of the party line. He literally breathes fire and brimstone and prophesies hell fire and damnation with reference to all involved in what he calls “segments of the Restoration Movement” with the exception of certain members of the rank and file who are fed up with “Church of Christ exclusiveness and partisan bigotry.” He stigmatizes the leadership in these segments as schismatics and heretics, yet, all the while, seeks to impress them with the quality and degree of his love for them as brethren and with the fact that he can and does recognize a state of fellowship as existing between himself and them.

If all of these divisions of the so-called “Restoration Movement” are indeed factions, and if factionalism terminates fellowship between men and God and the factionist and the faithful, any person who maintains vital connection with such groups over a period extending beyond recognition of their character as such becomes a party to their factionalism. Yet, Ketcherside advises young people who are caught tip in his views not to leave, but to remain in these groups. He says there is no value in exchanging one party for another. This would suggest that Ketcherside believes there is no religious body of people on this earth, which is not a “party” in the objectionable and unscriptural sense of that expression. Christ approved churches of the apostolic period were not “factions.” Yes, some of them had factious people in their constituency (Corinth, for instance), but the mere fact of their presence did not make the group as a group a “faction.” This would mean that Ketcherside’s attitude suggests there are no true, New Testament churches extant in our world today. If this be true, why does he not use some of his zeal to “restore” at least one to the world where he might himself worship to say nothing of the rest of us” If factionalism breaks or is a condition of the termination of fellowship, how can Ketcherside be right and continue to fellowship factionists? Can he correctly be in fellowship in religion with those who are out of fellowship with Christ’!

Conclusion

In the paragraphs just preceding this one, I have mentioned Ketcherside’s advice to young people not to leave their respective religious connections since nothing would be gained by exchanging one party for another. It is my desire to pursue this matter further in my next article, which I shall call: Subversion in Five Easy Lessons.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 41, pp. 4-7
August 23, 1973

By Mason Harris

(Editor’s Note: Brother Harris wrote a previous, though independent, article on this same subject which you may want to refer to in the May 10th issue.)

In the parable of the great supper, all who were invited began to make excuse. One asked to be excused on the basis that he needed to see a new piece of ground; another needed to test a yoke of oxen; and a third had married a wife. It seems that all these people were bothered by the same problem. Each was saying in his own way, “I do not have time to attend the supper for I have something else to do.”

It may be that none of them wanted to attend the feast and simply allowed his schedule to become so filled that he would not have time. Or, it may be that they would have enjoyed going to the feast, but did not know how to manage the use of their time where they could do everything they needed or wanted to do.

People have not changed much, if any, over the past two thousand years. Excuses still sound much the same. One of the most common excuses heard today is, “I don’t have time.” I suspect that most of the time this is offered because the person has no desire to do the thing under consideration. However, there may be instances where some would really like to do something, but in all sincerity cannot find the time. This happens only because they do not know how to manage the use of their time. Someone has said, “A century can be crowded into fifty years by doubling the efficiency by which time. is spent. “

In order to avoid a collision of duties with regard to time, we need to plan our activities. This will allow us rightly to proportion between the various duties of life so that none is left out or fails to get its proper place. So, as we make our plans, we need to be able to decide what is most important and how our various duties relate to each other in importance. Jesus expressed it this way: “Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.” (Mt. 6:33)

On another occasion, Jesus said to someone, “Follow me.” The man said, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.” Jesus showed the importance of putting first things first when he said, “Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.” Another said, “Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house.” Jesus said in reply to this man, “No man, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.” (Lk. 9: 5962)

In every well-planned life there is time for religious activity such as family devotion, Bible study, church assemblies, helping others, etc. The person who says his work does not allow time to attend to spiritual matters is not leading a well-balanced life. Remember that it is written in Ecclesiastes. “To every thing there is a season, and a time for every purpose under the heaven.” (3:1)

Paul said to the Ephesians, “See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil.”(Eph. 5: 15-16). The thought here is with regard to the proper use of one’s time. We should not walk without thought of where we are going, but with some fixed principles of action. Someone has said:

“This is the beginning of a new day.

God has given me this day to use, as I will.

I can waste it, or use it for good.

But what I do today is important

Because I am exchanging a day of my life for it!

When tomorrow comes, this day will be gone forever,

Leaving in its place something that I have traded for it.

I want it to be gain, and not loss, Good and not evil; success and not failure,

In order that I shall not regret the price that I have paid for it.”

Someone may ask, “How does one redeem the time?” One thing is sure: We cannot redeem it by regaining any portion of the past. The past is irrecoverably gone. So it would be only a further waste of time to spend hours in regret for wasted moments in the past. Furthermore, you cannot borrow time from another. You cannot hoard it up as you can money. You cannot even work exceptionally hard and earn more time. In the continua life, when we awake each morning, our purse is filled with twenty-four hours of the unmanufactured tissue of our life. If we would have health, pleasure, money, contentment, respect, and if we would work toward the development of our immortal soul, this is the time for us to use.

We redeem the time by “buying up opportunities,” or by making the most of them. Instead of letting the hours of our life be spent in idleness, excessive devotion to business, vanity, and such like, we are to lay hold on opportunities for doing good. If we would make the most of our time, we need to plan our activities so there will be no collision of duties. But planning is of no value if we fail to work the plan. And one of the greatest obstacles to work is procrastination, the act of putting off until another day the things we intend to do.

Procrastination entices us to wait . . . it tells us that tomorrow the work will be easier or more effective. At first it may be just a matter of days that we intend to wait … then weeks and months . . . until finally we lose interest and abandon our plans. An old proverb says, “Do not put off until tomorrow what you can do today.” In the book of Ecclesiastes it is expressed this way: “Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.” He who waits about the salvation of his soul and the souls of others may at last join the ancient Jews and cry, “The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and we are not saved.”

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 41, pp. 2-3
August 23, 1973

By James W. Adams

In the past fifteen years, parents all over the nation have been introduced to and confounded by the “new mathematics” via their schoolage children, and the controversy yet rage concerning its advisability and viability in the educational process on the elementary and secondary levels in our public schools. As strange as it may seem, during the same period of time, there has been introduced and propagandized among professed churches of Christ a spiritual form of “new mathematics” relating to the question of fellowship between dissident groups in said churches. The leading agitator for the “new M spiritual math” is none other than W. Carl Ketcherside whose teaching I review in this series of articles.

It is believed and certainly hoped that the new math” in our secular schools is possessed of more validity and consistency than Ketcherside’s spiritual variety. One of the many fetishes of our crusading brother is his professed hatred for a bugbear, which he styles “legalism.” Yet, I have never read after any religious writer who tries harder to reduce man’s relationship to God to a series of mathematical propositions than does he. Such is cultic in tendency and legalistic in spirit. Added to this is the fact that his spiritual math is grotesque and unbelievable. It is like something out of a Martian nightmare. It proposes that seven equal one, one equals two, one equals a multitude, and such like.

“Seven Equal One”

Ketcherside constantly affirms the mathematically phrased proposition that one fact believed and one act obeyed equal salvation, that mutual enjoyment of salvation equals fellowship, hence that all “immersed believers” are essentially one in Christ in spite of a multitude of divergent beliefs and practices. Having set forth this basic proposition, he then proceeds to enlarge his “one fact” to be believed to “seven facts related to Jesus of Nazareth,” hence makes one equal seven. His one fact to be believed concerns the Deity of Jesus that Jesus is in fact the Son of God. Immediately, however, he expands this to two facts in recognition of the New Testament statement that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God” (John 20:30, 31; Acts 8:37; Mt. 16:16 KJV) by adding belief in the Messiahship of Jesus – that he is the Christ, the Anointed One. So, one equals two, and two equals seven, but seven also equal one. This is the “new” Ketcbersidian “math” by which the problem of divided Christendom is to be solved.

To what real purpose is all this mathematical jargon? None that I can see! I know of no fact concerning Jesus, which does not in some sense relate to his Deity and Lordship, and there are considerably more than seven of these facts revealed in the word of God. Some of these facts are evidence of the Deity of Jesus, but others are established as facts and their validity vindicated only on the basis of the fact of the Deity of Jesus. It is an exercise in futility to seek to divorce any Divinely revealed fact concerning Jesus from his essential nature and mission in the world. Most of them both confirm and are confirmed by His Deity, and all of them are basic to His Lordship – His universal sovereignty over “angels, principalities, and powers, might, dominion, every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come, and all things to the church” (1 Pet. 3:22; Eph. 1:20-23).

The facts to be believed contained in the “good news (gospel)” of eternal salvation consist of all the facts concerning Jesus of Nazareth. I freely acknowledge that the alien sinner does not have to know every fact concerning Jesus in order to embrace Him as Savior. He must know enough facts to produce absolute conviction as to His Deity and unreserved trust in Him as Savior which lead to his acknowledgement of the sovereignty of Jesus over his life by repenting (Lk. 24:46,47) and upon a confession with the mouth of Christ as Lord (Rom. 10: 9, 10) being immersed in water in order to the remission of his sins (Acts 2:38). However, it should be noted that such faith produced by New Testament revelation obligates the believer to accept unreservedly all other revealed facts concerning Jesus and that the repudiation of any such revealed fact is tantamount to a denial of them all since they all rest squarely upon the same body of evidence. This is to say that faith must be a continuing faith. The believer must keep on believing. Peter said, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again to a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time” (1 Pet. 1: 3-5). These things being true, I cannot fellowship as a Christian any person who denies any revealed fact concerning Jesus Christ regardless of his honesty or the sincerity of his primary obedience in the act of immersion in water. I am constrained to regard him as an infidel.

One Equals a Multitude

Not only does Ketcherside make one equal two, then seven, in reference to his “belief of one fact” theory, but also relative to his “obedience of one act” theory, he makes one equal a multitude of commandments. He begins by making his one act of obedience, which he says is “immersion in water,” two acts of obedience. Ketcherside teaches that repentance is a prerequisite of scriptural immersion. Repentance is not faith, nor is it immersion. It is a distinct command addressed to the human will (Acts 17:30; 2:38), hence can and must be obeyed. It is not a physical act as is immersion, but it is an act of the mind and will of man involving purpose of life. The Holy Spirit predicates remission of sins upon it as an appropriating condition as did our blessed Lord in the “Great Commission” (Lk. 24:46, 47; Acts 2:38). Brother Ketcherside, our evolving genius in “the new spiritual math,” must expand his obedience of one act to an obedience of two acts, hence make one equal two. There is one alternative for him. He could assume the position taken by Baptist debaters to the effect that “repentance and faith are inseparable graces” and insist that repentance inheres in his “belief of one fact.” This would in all probability not bother him since he already makes one equal seven. To make it one more (eight) should be an easy matter for one of his spiritual mathematical acumen.

As previously stated, Ketcherside makes one equal a multitude. He spends much time in his writings arguing that those things essential to bringing one into the fellowship are the significant matters while divergent beliefs and practices within the fellowship, though important, do not alter the fact of fellowship or the “condition” of fellowship. As previously pointed out he brutalizes the “birth” figure (John 3:5) to sustain his contention. He argues that the conditions essential to birth are the things indispensable to fellowship. They put the child in the family – the fellowship. He then argues that disagreements in the family, while important, do not affect the family relationship, since it is a state or condition. This means that Ketcherside’s essentials are two: (1) belief of one fact and (2) obedience of one act-belief that Jesus is the Son of God and immersion in water.

But, does he accept the logical consequence of this concept? No, indeed! If he did, he would have to accept the validity of the doctrine of the impossibility of apostasy. So, he does some more of his mathematical gymnastics and comes up with three ways that fellowship may be broken, hence he makes two equal three. This is not all, for his three ways turn out to be generic categories which may legitimately be regarded as containing a multiplicity of Divine requirements as I shall show, hence he makes one equal a multitude. Let us allow our brother to speak for himself:

The common life is entered by an acceptance of the Lordship of Jesus over our earthly existence, and it can only be disrupted by a renunciation of our pledge of allegiance to km as our sovereign.

One may deny the Lordship of Jesus in two ways – by what he does, or by what he says. If he adopts a life-style or engages in a course of conduct in defiance of the moral and ethical values associated with Jesus, he ruthlessly violates the convenantal relationship. HLIS behavior constitutes a public and blatant declaration that he will not allow Christ to reign over him. . . .

Another basis for congregational action is advocacy of doctrines, which separate from God. One may be mistaken about many things, but erroneous opinions will not necessarily sever him from God else God would have no children left . . . The body of truth Li like the human body, in that it has many, members. Not all of these are essential to being; some are essential only to well-being. All truths are equally true, but not all truths are equally important.

What one must believe in order to enter into the fellowship of life is more important than what one may believe while in that life. Thus, a denial of the facts related to Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God will destroy the relationship created by acceptance of those facts. Such a denial separates from God exactly as such acceptance unites with God …

The third basis for such actions as I am discussing is the factional spirit . . . (“Restoration Review, ” February 1973, p. 25).

In the matter of fellowship, I have charged that Ketcherside makes one equal a multitude in reference to his “obedience of one act” theory. He says that fellowship is entered by obedience of one act, immersion in water. He says that one accepts the Lordship of Jesus over his life in this way and that his fellowship with Jesus “can only be disrupted by a renunciation of our pledge of allegiance to him as sovereign.” Observe also, he admits that this can be done “by what one does, or by what one says.”

Following this, Ketcherside list three ways in which he believes the immersed believer may terminate his fellowship with Christ and consequently with all faithful believers. I propose to show that these three fellowship – terminating conditions involve a multiplicity of the Lord’s requirements which must be obeyed by his followers. In fact, they logically and scripturally involve practically everything that any of us would regard as having a bearing upon Christian fellowship. Ketcherside’s three ways are generic categories involving many distinct requirements. They are neither specific facts nor commandments. Ketcherside’s generalities obscure the issue. It is my firm conviction that such is intentional on his part. This is his modus operandi.

Conclusion

Space forbids a continuation of the examination of Ketcherside’s three ways of terminating fellowship. His statements are rich in sophistry, so it is my intention to give them thorough consideration under the Title “Ketcherside Meets Himself Coming Back.”

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 40, pp. 8-10
August 16, 1973