Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

In a previous article, I documented from A. T. Degroots book, The Grounds of Division Among Disciples of Christ, that the precise disagreement among brethren a century ago centered around whether the New Testament was ever intended by God to produce a once-for-all-time pattern for the church, as regards worship, mission, and organization. The liberal Disciples of the 1900s no more liked to wear the label “liberal” than do the modern-day liberals among us.

In this article, and in two other articles to follow, I wish to show that there are multitudes among the Churches of Christ today who have accepted, and who now promulgate, the basic premise of digressivism, namely: that the New Testament does not constitute a binding pattern for the twentieth century church. This is the heart of digression, and it is now rampant among Churches of Christ, as I purport to document in the following articles. You will notice that our liberal brethren also disclaim the label “liberal,” but they are liberal none the less.

Carl Ketcherside

The New Testament, in Heb. 8:5; Gal. 6:2; and Jas. 1:25, indicates that God revealed a divine “law” (or “Pattern”) which man is obliged to follow exactly. Brother Carl Ketcherside has used virtually the exact terminology of A. T. Degroot and other liberal Disciples of Christ in attacking the pattern principle. Let me repeat the premise advanced by Degroot: “that the principle of restoring a fixed pattern of a primitive Christian church is divisive and not unitive” (p. 8). Brother Ketcherside will accept this premise, without changing a word. In fact, Brother Ketcherside recently devoted an entire year of study in his paper Mission Messenger to proving that there is no divinely established pattern. Some brethren among us today wonder why we cannot unite with Brother Ketcherside. It is precisely because he has much more in common in principle with the liberal Disciples of Christ than he has with those of us who stand where the Churches of Christ have always stood, and contended that there is a one-and-only pattern for the church revealed in the New Testament.

Here is how Brother Ketcherside worded the Disciples of Christ premise, but which premise Brother Ketcherside also accepts: “Would it shock you too greatly if I came directly to the point and suggested that perhaps God gave us no pattern at all in the commonly accepted usage of the term by the various factions calling themselves The Church of Christ” (Mission Messenger, Feb., 1970).

More precisely in the terminology of A. T. Degroot, Brother Ketcherside, in the same issue Of Mission Messenger said, “Nothing has been more productive of dissension among us than the concept that God intended to provide for us a specific pattern complete in minute detail and that this pattern constitutes an inviolable law for His children in all ages, climes, and conditions . . . I am urging that the whole 6pattern concept which makes of the apostolic letters mere legalistic documents be examined calmly and dispassionately. This is not an adoption of liberalistic philosophy.”

Note that Brother Ketcherside goes out of his way to assure us that his doctrine of no-patternism is not “an adoption of liberalistic philosophy.” It would be refreshing to meet at least one liberal sometime who would admit he was a liberal. Degroot denied the applicability of the label “liberal,” and Brother Ketcherside for some reason seems to think that someone just might think he has advocated a wee bit of liberalism. The truth is that his doctrine that the New Testament was not intended to convey a divine pattern is the very essence of liberalism, his protests to the contrary not withstanding.

“Refocusing…”

A few years ago M. F. Cottrell, who was living in Denver the last I knew of him, wrote a book entitled Refocusing God, the Bible and the Church. Cottrell has had a rather motley history. He started out with the old Ketcherside element in the church, spent a few years with those of us who are now labeled by the liberals as “Anti,” and now in sentiment is with the new Ketcherside position. Under a heading entitled “Hypersensitivity to Scripturalness and Results,” Brother Cottrell advocates the basic premise of digression, namely that the New Testament is not a book of divine pattern to be followed and duplicated. Cottrell said, “If we see God as the monster of heaven, a needless hypersensitivity toward being scriptural is created. This type of legalism inevitably binds and limits God (by His own rules) to where he cannot work” (pp. 26, 27).

I did not know we could be too sensitive about following the instructions of God, but the anti-legalist (i.e., the liberal) speaks of “a needless hypersensitivity toward being scriptural. . . .” Furthermore, Brother Cottrell said, “As a result we find ourselves suffering from paralysis by analysis. While stressing scripturalness, we analyze until we paralyze.” (p. 27). The alternative is completely to disregard the divine Word of God, and then one would not have to worry at all about scripture analysis.

Further in his advocacy of digressivism, Brother Cottrell said: “We have long been taught and trained to look and ask for patterns. Sometimes the author wonders if we havent almost developed pattern obsessions. It seems that when good brethren begin some good work, the first thing we hear is Where is the pattern? Most of us think there must be one or else we cannot proceed.” (p. 121).

I have never thought it was such a bad practice to inquire “Where is the pattern?” In fact, I think we should make that inquiry before we even begin. But like Degroot and Ketcherside, Brother Cottrell is challenging the basic thesis that we must even inquire as to whether there is divine authority for the action. ` Of course, Cottrell also denies be is liberal.

Mack Langford

Another example of one within the Churches of Christ who has advocated the basic tenet of digressivism is Mack Langford, who did live in Collingwood, New Jersey. I do not know if he still lives there or not. Langford said the “Church of Christ concept of worship is rooted in two things: the idea that worship is essentially a legal procedure demanding utter “rejection of any human creativity in favor of Gods absolute and final command; and the presupposition that there is a carefully stated pattern of worship in the New Testament which must be slavishly followed” (Quoted from Riverside (Wichita, Kansas) Church of Christ Weekly News Bulletin, April 3, 1966).

Brother Langford maintains that it has now been demonstrated by American and German scholarship that there is no New Testament pattern. Hear what he says: “Recent scholarship, German and American, has stated over and over that we know little about the first century Church, and there is no such thing as a final pattern for worship, polity and missions, yet we in the Church of Christ continue to insist that the New Testament is a blueprint which must be exactly reproduced.” He also states that the “New Testament is no legal document outlining in detail a planned procedure of worship; there are no orders of worship to guide us. Instinctively we know this”

Back in the 1950s, in the space of a few months, fourteen gospel preachers, and most of whom were from the Chicago area, forsook the Churches of Christ and aligned themselves with the very liberal Disciples of Christ. The basic thesis of the Disciples of Christ is that there is no New Testament pattern. I think I have adequately shown from their own statements that brethren Ketcherside, Cottrell, and Langford have accepted the basic error of the Disciples of Christ. In principle, they have rejected the basic position of Churches of Christ, and they therefore might as well align themselves with the Christian Church. Perhaps personal preference and family tradition might stand in their way, but no principle that they hold dictates that they should continue with the Lords people. In sentiment, they belong with the Christian Church who was the first to deny the New Testament constitutes a divine blueprint.

In two articles to follow I want to demonstrate that others in what some call the “mainstream” Churches of Christ accept the same presupposition regarding the New Testament. Yet they also seem to be completely unable to understand why anyone would call them “liberal.”

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 32, pp. 3-5
June 15, 1972

By James Sanders

The voice of God what can be said of it? Multitudes have heard the Word of the Lord but few have heard His voice.

God prepared Moses to receive the Law by the voice of a trumpet which grew louder and louder with each note (Ex. 19:19). Every wandering thought was brought home; attention was fixed and the occasion solemnized. And then the Lord spoke in a peal of thunder. Such is the voice of God.

The Apostle John was likewise prepared to hear the Lord. There was the call of a great voice as of a trumpet (Rev. 1:10). John identified Him whom He heard as the Son of man. His voice was as the sound of many or rushing waters (verse 15). This is the description of the voice of God in Ezekiel 43: 2: “his voice was like a noise of many waters.” Daniel likened the voice of God to the voice of a multitude (Dan. 10:6).

When the Lord speaks He can and will make Himself heard to those who are afar off as well as to those who are near.

But the voice of God is not confined to one note. It may be like the terrifying surge of waters or the crash of thunder. But that same voice of God can be like a still small voice. Elijah so heard Him (I Kgs 19:12). The voice of God can thunder in terrifying and majestic rebuke; and the voice of God can soothe with the comfort of a mother over her hurt child.

Application

Let the servants of the Lord take note. Those who speak as the oracles of God must rebuke and reprove in thunderous tones but let them also exhort with all longsuffering (2 Tim 4:2).

The Lord of hosts would have His spokesmen to cry a loud; spare not and lift up their voice like a trumpet (Isa. 58: 1). And the Lord of hosts would also have His spokesmen to comfort ye, comfort ye my people (Isa. 40: 1). Let the servants of the Lord be as their Master.

“Jack Christians”

It is possible that you may never have heard the expression titling this article. The other day while reading an article on the Mormon Church, mention was made of “Jack Mormons.” After reading the definition of a “Jack Mormon”, I decided that we had quite a few “Jack Christians” in the church. What is a Jack Mormon? The Mormons define him as cne who brays like an ass, but pulls no weight in the traces.

It seems to me that the church is filled with people who do a lot of braying, but little work Every Lords Day, at least one-half of the Christians in the world do not attend Bible Study. The work of each congregation has to be done by one-fourth of its members. Three fourths of the money contributed to support the Work is given by this same one-fourth of the members. So approximately three-fourths of the members say “Lord, Lord,” but do not Hi will. They sing “Oh, How I Love Jesus” and “I Love Thy Kingdom Lord,” but never put their shoulder to the wheel, or pull any weight in the traces. Their only “work” consists of their braying about bow much they love the Lord and His church!

Real Christians must work out their own salvation (Phil. 2:12), abound “in the work of the Lord” (I Cor. 15:58), “work the works of Him that hath sent me while it is day” (Jno. 9:4). I ask you dear brother or sister, are you doing these things? Are you busy with the Lords work? Is your braying equaled by your work? Or, are you one of the “Jack Christians with which the Lords Church is unfortunately so thickly populated?

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 32, p. 2M
June 15, 1972

By J. T. Smith

The above headline, taken from The Graphic, the official newspaper of Pepperdine College in Los Angeles, California, introduces another step toward complete digression and apostasy by those who are in charge of that school. The article says, “A Jesus Music Festival Pepperdines first — will be presented free of charge at 7:30 Friday night in the University auditorium.” “The festival will feature a variety of contemporary music, ranging from hard rock (in the Chicago style) to folk tunes. Three groups — the Philharmonic, the Dennis Ryder trio, and the Hallelujah singers from Calvary Chapel — will perform.” “Ted Switzer, former public relations head for the Beverly Hillbillies and other Film way productions, will be master of ceremonies.” “Personal testimonies will be given by Tom Harris and Bill Lawerence. Harris was co-producer of The Cross and the Switchblade, the film story of David Wilkersons evangelism among New York street gangs. Lawerence is a deacon at the Vermont Avenue church of Christ and a speech therapist at North High School in Torrance… Festival worker Tom Barber expects the concert to explode the campus wide-open, spiritually. We expect people to get a new and different outlook on Jesus as a person. We want to present His life as real and vital to our lives in the Twentieth Century.”

Just one week later, February 17, 1972, The Graphic ran another article entitled “Jesus Music Festival Here Attracts 700 for Worship.” The article starts out, “I worshipped show business for a long time-now I worship Jesus.” “The statement was made by Fed Switzer in his opening remarks as emcee for the Jesus Music Festival in the auditorium Friday night.” “Switzer, who has worked as public relations director for The Beverly Hillbillies and has been involved with show business since 1948 stressed that theres a real difference between knowing the Son of God and knowing that Hes the Lord of your life.” “Testimony such as Switzers was a major I part of the festival.” “Several types of music were presented during the evening.” In addition to telling the names of those who performed, this article adds that Dennis Ryder and Steve Snell, folk-country singers, accompanied themselves on piano and guitar. The Philharmonic group, composed of 12 members, featuring drums, electric guitars, and a strong brass section, “shared some of their experiences in changing from a professional group to one that performs for the Lord.”

Also, in another article in the February 10 issue of The Graphic, entitled “Revolution Through Education, “they told of a Catholic folk mass, folkloric dancers, and rock groups on campus.” And this is supposed to be “worship”?

What Constitutes Worship?

For a number of years the denominational world has argued that “worship” consists of “testimonies,” “playing on instruments of music,” etc. Now, those who were once counted as “faithful brethren in the Lord” are allowing such to be termed “worship.” Jesus said, you will recall, “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24). Both of these things are necessary. It is not enough to have the enthusiasm, doing what you do with all your might. Saying Hes Lord in your life is one thing. Worship must also be according to truth. Paul expressed the same thought in different words. He said, “My hearts desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal for God but not according to knowledge. For they going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God” (Rom. 10:3). No doubt, those who put on the “Festival” have a “zeal for God.” The problem is – it is “not according to knowledge.” The question that comes to my mind is why are those brethren (1) who are in charge of the school allowing such foolishness to be presented under the guise of “worship?” And besides that, A Catholic Folk-Mass???

What About Those Who Sanction or Endorse Pepperdine??

Many have known for a number of years that brethren were drifting away from truth, and closer to digression and complete apostasy. Many brethren have counted those of us who have cried out against the first steps (taking such positions as “there is no New Testament Pattern in Benevolence” etc.) as being radicals, hobbyists, and antis. What are they going to say now that these “first steps” have taken brethren into such digression as this? Also, what about those who get so upset when you point out the steps away from the truth that men like Ira North and others have taken in all of the institutionalism, begging money for colleges, social affairs and many other un-scriptural things they have engaged in; now that they are encouraging, with full-page ads in religious publications, our young people to go to Pepperdine College to receive their education at the feet of men like Frank Pack, William Banowsky, President of Pepperdine, and others who allow such “goings on” as the above mentioned things, to be “fed” to our young people under the guise of “worship”? If these are the kind of things that are being taught and practiced by brethren, and they are, we are not just about to have digression among some who were once counted as “faithful”, they are already there.

The words that the Lord had John to write to Christians in the church at Sardis would seem very appropriate to me, as we attempt to exhort these brethren to come back to the truth. “I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.” “Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.” “He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.” “He that hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches” (Rev. 3:1, 3, 5, 6). May God help us all to study His Word and abide by its teachings while we have life upon this earth.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 31, pp. 11-13
June 8, 1972

By Colly Caldwell

The book of First Corinthians is the most comprehensive single study of the local church in all the New Testament. Perhaps the central characteristic of a local congregation is best described in Paid’s admonition: “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be. no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (I Cor. I: 10).

With that verse in mind, a local church may be defined as a group of Christians meeting in one place who have love for and fellowship with one another and who have agreed to speak and do together those things which God has given them to speak and do collectively.

The term “church” is a collective noun and therefore one Christian is not “the church” (universal) or “a church” (local) … (cf. I Cor. 12:12-14, 18-20). Each Christian is, however, a member of the body Q Cor. 12:15-17), and important to it as a working part (I Cor. 12: 2 1 27). Each Christian is given personal responsibilities to be done individually, and he is given collective responsibilities to be done together with other Christians. One may not isolate himself from other Christians in his general locale without avoiding many extremely important responsibilities given to him by God. The idea that I may be a Christian and not a member of a local congregation, if one exists near me, is false to the core. If faithful brethren are joined in the Lord’s work in the area where I live, I must fulfill my collective responsibilities.

If one does not exist near me, I must attempt to teach men the Gospel and thereby bring one about.

Not every responsibility of the Christian is in the realm of collective action; thus, one cannot say that every action of the Christian is the church at work … or at play … or in sin … or doing good. It is true, that my personal responsibilities sometimes affect the collectivity either for good or bad, but that does not imply that the church has done what I have done. Our brethren who have supported human institutions to do the church’s work on the ground that when the individual Christian acts the church is necessarily also acting must see this truth. I may murder a man and my family suffer tremendously, but the facts that I am a member of the family and that the family has been affected by my action do not legally incriminate the family unit.

Now, understanding that as a member of a body acting together, I must function with the others, and understanding that acting personally as a Christian my works may affect the church, I feel a grave responsibility to the local church of which I am a member. The book of First Corinthians will serve as a guide in viewing that responsibility.

1. My responsibility to the local church of which I am a member is to be free from divisiveness (I Cor. 1). Churches need so badly to be united within themselves upon the word of God. The church at Corinth was literally torn apart by the attitudes of the member parts. They wished to be divided. Theirs was not a question of doctrinal belief. They simply would not get along (I Cor. 1:10-16; 11: 17-21; 4:67; 6:1-7). Some are so self-willed that they will divide the body of the Lord over trivial, meaningless questions or over matters which are purely determined by judgment or expediency. The attitude of many is: “I will have my own way or I will tear up the church!” The words of Paul. . . Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves” (Phil. 2:3), are so very timely for churches today.

2. My responsibility to the local church of which I am a member is to stand upon the revealed word of God (I Cor. 2). In matters which involve human preferences within the realm of lawful selection, the Christian must bend his desire many times to accommodate others; but in matters involving revealed Truth there can be no bending. Paul addressed the Corinthians with the proposition that faith is directed by the revelation of the mind of God and that the words of man’s wisdom can only destroy.

Many churches could have been saved from digression in the past twenty-five years if Christians had only been strong enough to stand upon the truths of the New Testament. I owe that to my brethren with whom I worship. They may not always appreciate it, but it will be to their good. I cannot be compromising in dealing with God’s revealed word. I may cause my brethren to be lost.

3. My responsibility to the local church of which I am a member is to labor for the building up of the body (I Cor. 3-4). Paul uses first his own example, how that he diligently worked to build at Corinth (I Cor. 3: 1-10). He then turns to the responsibility of each man and woman there to build upon the foundation which is Christ. Their work should be an abiding one (I Cor. 3:11-15). And then in chapter four, he discusses further his stewardship and its place in their growth.

Saving souls by leading them to the Savior is the primary work of the church. We have been saved and we must help others to be saved. If any local congregation is to grow, each member must put himself to the task of talking to others about the Lord and teaching the Truth to all that we can. This takes persistent effort. It takes getting folks out to the worship services. It has often been suggested that every Christian try to convert one soul to Christ each year. This is not an unreasonable request. If we were all as interested in souls and giving our best to the task of converting them, we would be doing more than that. And if we did, the church would double in size each year.

4. My responsibility to the local church of which I am a member is to lead a righteously moral life (I Cor. 5-7). At Corinth there was fornication (chapter 5), public defrauding of one another (6:1-14), more immorality (6:1520), and uncertainties about the proper marital and home-life requirements of God (chapter 7). Now how could the Corinthian church grow with the world seeing all that? If the church of which I am a member is to be what it ought to be, each member must be a Christian in every sense of that word. We want the congregation to radiate a wholesome influence in the community. We must show the light of Christ in our lives. None of us is so insignificant that our example cannot hurt. What we do reflects upon the other brethren either for good or bad. When the world sees our evil, they associate it with the church. When the other brethren see it, they are discouraged and some may even imitate us. Paul said that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump and therefore must be purged out before its effect may be felt. On the other hand, the influence of a godly life will do as much, for the well-being of the local church as any other single. — To be continued

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 31, p. 9-10
June 8, 1972