Anyone who reads the history for 1953, of the particular restoration attempt to which we are heirs, will surely recognize that this year represented a peak in the battle between those who advocated a mutual ministry of all the saints and those who defended a professional ministerial caste. Although the central issue was the rise of a clergy system, there was always in the background the question concerning the right of disciples of the Master to create and endow human organizations to develop a special class of men who hire themselves out to congregations on a contractual basis to feed them.
It was a year of high tension manifested in public debates. We were attacked in articles in papers from whose columns we were barred and in which we could make no defense. Walter Henderson, at 2nd and Walnut, in Paragould, Arkansas, kept up a running fire against me in his little weekly paper called Pause, Ponder and Profit. Guy N. Woods devoted an article to me in Gospel Advocate. G.C. Brewer, who was as dignified in error as when he held the truth, stooped a little from his high plane and let loose a barrage in the same paper. He was perturbed because I held a meeting in Rutherford County, Tennessee, without consulting with George W. DeHoff of Murfreesboro and clearing it with him. I wrote a reply but Brother B.C. Goodpasture returned it with a note that my writings could not be published in his journal.
Glenn L. Wallace made a vitriolic attack on Leroy Garrett in the April 30 issue of Gospel Guardian. Rex A. Turner wrote an "Open Letter to Leroy Garrett" which was published on the editorial page of Gospel Advocate, for February 12. His opening sentence read: "Now that some of the details of certain maneuvers are in, the evidence points to the fact that you are definitely opening up a front for W. Carl Ketcherside and Sommerism here in the South." Leroy filed a reply. After a month went by he wrote to Brother Goodpasture and asked him why it had not appeared. In a letter which Leroy published, Brother Goodpasture ignored the question of the personal attack published in his own paper. But the Gospel Advocate had an editorial in the March 19 issue which said: "We do not feel that we are obliged to furnish a medium for radicals and hobbyists to ventilate their hobbies, nor are we obligated to become an agency for the dissemination of error. It is not our remotest intention to give brotherhood publicity to every hobbyrider and his fancies."
Brother J.W. Roberts, of Abilene Christian College, entered the arena through the pages of Firm Foundation. He was disturbed by Leroy's "peculiar ideas," and said, "Brother Leroy's ability and training deserve better things than the use to which he is putting them." Leroy pointed out that the Greek scholars, both Christian and otherwise, agreed with his position.
All of these men who took up the cudgel were eminent in "Church of Christ" circles. The fact that they felt pressured into writing against us, and even had to misrepresent our position, gave us the courage to press on. This was an indication that what was said was being read, that people were being made to question some of the entrenched practices. Although these men had been very active in debating with Baptists, Methodists and others, now they were being forced to defend what they had. For the first time in their history it was being demanded that they "preach what they practiced."
April 14-17 found Leroy Garrett and Floyd I. Stanley in a debate in Cowden Junior High School auditorium in Midland, Texas. The proposition was: "The Scriptures teach that a congregation of the Church of Christ with elders may employ a gospel preacher to serve as the minister of the congregation at a regular salary." Brother Stanley was the minister of the Southside Church of Christ in Midland. Reports from those in attendance universally mention his sarcasm and abusiveness, and Brother Garrett's calm and dignified demeanor.
On June 30-July 2, L.E. Ketcherside of Peoria, Illinois, debated Obert Henderson, of Walnut Ridge, Arkansas, at Peoria. The propositions dealt with the organization of Christian colleges and the work of evangelists. Those favoring the views of Brother Henderson absented themselves from the debate. He could not get one of the brethren to even come and keep time for him. I moderated and kept time for both men. The debate was very gentlemanly. Brother Henderson proved himself to be a person of real Christian character and demeanor. Later I became better acquainted with him and we enjoyed a real sense of fellowship in the Spirit.
My second debate with Brother G.K. Wallace was held in Saint Louis, November 26-30. It attracted hundreds from fifteen states and Canada. In addition to the debate two sessions were held daily at the Manchester Avenue meetinghouse. Those who presided over these sessions by invitation of the elders were L.E. Ketcherside, Peoria, Ill.; Vernon W. Hurst, Bristol, W. Va.; Hershel Ottwell, Hartford, Ill.; and Fred Killebrew, Senath, Mo. Brethren from everywhere were free to speak. They considered such questions as: What sectarian tendencies among us need to be eliminated? What scriptures are commonly misapplied? What are the bases for fellowship and disfellowship? What factors are essential to a complete restoration of the primitive order? These sessions were highly practical and free from controversy.
The debate itself was one of the most interesting in which I have been involved. Brother Wallace had argued himself into a dilemma. In Arkansas he contended vociferously there was no difference between preaching and teaching and between gospel and doctrine. He was on record as being opposed to any human organization to preach the gospel such as the missionary society. It was easy to prove from Florida Christian College bulletins that it was a human institution and that it existed to teach doctrine set forth in the new covenant scriptures. Brother Wallace was thus caught participating in and defending the scripturality of a human institution to preach the gospel.
He either had to take the position there was a difference between preaching and teaching and between gospel and doctrine, or else withdraw his opposition to the missionary society, as a human institution to preach the gospel. Later I learned from brethren who were present in the daily conclaves in which they sought to patch up the matter for Brother Wallace that the preachers knew they were hard hit. Their consolation lay in the fact that if Brother Wallace spoke forcefully and loud and hit his chart with the pointer the brethren might overlook the corner into which he had driven himself. He did both but it did not work!
As soon as that debate ended I had to start preparing for another. It was with Flavil L. Colley and was held in Beckley Theater at Dallas, Texas, December 1-4. It was limited to the scripturality of hiring a minister of a congregation having elders "as generally practiced among the churches of Christ in Dallas." Attendance was excellent and behavior above reproach. The debate was put into print and can be read in those libraries which have preserved such accounts of what transpired.
Before we close the account of debates we need to mention two more, which were held in 1954. One was conducted in Ivanhoe Temple, Kansas City, Missouri. It featured Leroy Garrett and Bill J. Humble. Pat Hardeman was the moderator for Brother Humble. Carroll Wrinkle served in the same capacity for Brother Garrett. To me, one of the outstanding things about this debate, which drew large audiences of eager listeners, was the question about the content of the gospel, whether the gospel was designed to be preached to the saved. Can the saved be evangelized? Despite the careless writings on this theme, it is ignorance with regard to it which underlies so many grave problems in the whole world of believers in Jesus as God's Son. It is the foundation of many of our own tragic and disappointing deviations from the divine purpose. The rise and development of a special clergy, the multiplication of divisive parties, the whole question of fellowship are all linked to it.
Brother Garrett debated George W. DeHoff at Nashville, Tennessee, June 1-4. The debate was conducted in a large tent pitched on Caldwell Lane, not far from David Lipscomb College. Pat Hardeman moderated for Brother DeHoff. Henry Clay Grayson moderated for Brother Garrett. From his very first speech Brother DeHoff seemed intent upon turning the debate into a burlesque. He dealt in personalities and it was obvious he was out to destroy anyone who opposed his practice. After the debate Pat Hardeman sought me out to tell me that the two of us would have to meet in a debate on the issues to end all debates. The time never came.
We were engaged in other things besides debating. In January of 1954, Leroy and I attended the David Lipscomb College Lectureship at Nashville. It was my pleasure to spend several hours with the venerable James A. Allen, editor of The Apostolic Times. He was seventy years old but his memory had not dimmed. He gave me a great many insights into the causes of modern defections within the church. I could see that a great many problems stemmed from the ambitions for leadership of men who allowed pride to rule their lives.
Leroy and I went to visit Brother B.C. Goodpasture in his office, and later in his home. Everything was cordial. We presented to him a proposal for a panel discussion by representative men dealing with principles and not personalities. He could not see the wisdom of it and preferred going on as we had with him printing but one side of an issue. The lectureship turned out to be a mediocre presentation.
The following month Nell and I attended the lectureship at Florida Christian College at Temple Terrace, near Tampa. The theme was "Persistent Problems in Preaching." Featured were men such as Basil Overton, J.A. McNutt, G.K. Wallace and Pat Hardeman. One night after the session a man stopped Nell and me just outside the tent. Within a few minutes about a hundred men were gathered around us. They began bombarding me with questions from every side with all of them talking at once. Franklin Puckett mounted a chair and began to quiz me while many others were talking at the top of their voices.
I told them I would talk to anyone whom they chose but would not become a part of such a hullabaloo as they were engaging in. Since Brother Puckett already had "the chair," they nominated him. We talked about two hours and no one left. Occasionally someone would yell out a question and had to be reminded of the agreement. I left about midnight feeling good. Some of those who had started out so bravely were silenced.
We were in Birmingham, where we spent three days in the home of O.C. Dobbs, Sr. I visited a number of people including John T. Lewis. We had a long discussion about the clergy system and our brother attended one night when I spoke. Brother Dobbs took the floor after I had finished and proposed an open forum on the issues in Birmingham. Brother Lewis opposed it strongly. He felt that he could speak for the congregations in Birmingham.
The year of 1954 drew to a close with a great deal of excitement prevailing. The status quo had been disturbed and men hardly knew what to do!
The time has come to try and describe the four most formative years of my life. They were years of change, of study, deep meditation and fervent prayer. They were years of fear mingled with faith. In them I came closer to God than I had ever drawn before. Actually, this period had begun on that Easter Monday in 1951 when I spoke at the little village of Ahorey, in North Ireland, at invitation of the Presbyterian leaders. I stood on the platform where Thomas Campbell had ministered before coming to America.
However, I returned to the United States to engage in debates with brethren. The heady excitement of combat in the forensic arena made it impossible for me to study deeply or to think clearly about the will of God for my future life. But between the years of 1953 and 1957 a great transformation took place.
Out of it came my article "That They All May Be One" in the January issue of Mission Messenger for 1957, and the even more trenchant "Thoughts on Fellowship" in January 1958. These were the initial public presentations of the thoughts which had begun to lodge in my heart. They represented my crossing of the Rubicon, the burning of my bridges behind me. They were the first guns fired in my commitment to an unrelenting war against sectarianism, and especially against my own.
During those years I learned the stern discipline of research and study. I read every word of the five volume Lard's Quarterly, the seven volume Christian Baptist, and as many bound volumes of the Millennial Harbinger as were available to me. It became apparent to me that we had departed so far from the original spirit and intent of the restoration ideal that it was a travesty upon justice to claim that we were the same movement. It soon became obvious to me that no splinter of the movement was the one holy, catholic and apostolic church of God upon earth, and that all of our fragmented groups taken together did not constitute the body of Christ in its fullness.
I was able to distinguish between the body as a divine organism conceived in the mind of God, and movements within it launched by the thinking of men like Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Campbell or Stone. It became apparent that the first great error of the heirs of the reformers was the equating of the movement with the Lord's church, thereby adding another religious party or sect to the already overburdened landscape. I became convinced that we had not achieved the original purpose of uniting the Christians in all the sects. The magnificent myth which had driven us on relentlessly to war against all sectarianism but our own was the fantasy that we were exclusively the body of Christ upon earth. It was a solemn thought to me that I had brothers and sisters meeting behind other signboards, and that we were saved by a Savior and not by a signboard. My growing conviction led to the article "The Sheep on the Hills." I could see that God's flock was scattered and not yet gathered.
I was led to investigate within their context every scripture I had ever employed to justify division among the saints of God. It was a frightening experience. As I read Amos 3:3; 6:5; Romans 16:17; I Corinthians 1:10; II Thessalonians 3:6, and other such passages and saw how we had wrested them, I began to wonder if I had ever been right upon anything. One after another my usage of such passages was taken from me. I began to mistrust my judgment. I was driven to my knees and sought the understanding of God's will with tears. I wept much to realize that at the very time when I thought I was serving Him I was actually dividing His children by my interpretations. It was several years before I wrote the first edition of my book "The Twisted Scriptures" but all of the time the Spirit of God was illuminating me as I surrendered more and more to His claims. I was driven to Him by loneliness for in those days there was no one else to whom I could talk.
It was a difficult thing to overcome pride and ambition. I had been for so long a recognized leader of a faction in the religious complex that I sought for some way to hold on to my past and maintain integrity with the present. One day, after months of introspection I sat down at my desk and wrote, "I have been in the wrong about fellowship all my life. Today I renounce that wrong. I will no longer try to make my increasing knowledge consistent with my past teaching. That teaching was in error." I recall as if it were yesterday how I felt when I read what I had written. It was as if fetters had been struck from my mind. New insights began to flood my soul so fast I could hardly write them down. It was as if a dam had broken inside me. I have never felt quite so clean and pure as I did that day.
People began to write and tell me I had changed. To them that was the unpardonable sin. They equated our past position with the will of God and to leave our feeble human thought and go on to greater heights was forsaking the truth. They would quote for me things I had written in the past and ask me if I still believed them. To all of them I wrote, "You are right, I have changed, and as I learn new truths I will change again. I have signed my declaration of independence from all of the errors of the past, and I shall pray that God will open up your heart to renounce yours as I have mine."
I resolved that I would never again debate publicly with any brother. I would never again represent any party, sect or schism. I would never again allow myself to be selected and thrust forward by the partisans of any school of thought to defend their opinions and deductions. I would stand or fall to my own master and I would allow all others to do the same. It came as a great relief to realize that never again would I have to spend weeks trying to figure out what an opponent might say and how I would parry his thrust. Since the moment I made my promise to the Father that I would never again debate, I have become increasingly convinced of the folly of attempting to arrive at truth or alleviate division by such a ridiculous procedure. If a community is not divided before a debate it will always be after one is held. The very psychology of our modern debating is divisive.
As I studied the past it became evident that men like myself who had learned new truths always made two errors. The result was an intensification of the sectarian spirit. In the first place, they left where they were and went with those who had taught them the new truth. This took the new truth out of the place where it was most sadly needed and put it in a place where it was already present. I resolved not to go anywhere but to stay where I was, regardless of what happened. If I could not serve God among those whom I knew best I would not be liable to do so among others.
Secondly, those who learned new truths usually tried to bind them upon others. In their joy at learning something meaningful to them they wanted to press it on everyone whom they met. Their new brainchild meant so much to them they wanted everyone else to become pregnant immediately. This always caused cleavages in the body. I resolved to share my ideas but never to allow them to become dogmas. I was resolute in my determination never to form a clique or club. As I wrote in my paper, I refused to be bought off or scared off and expected to remain where I was for the duration.
I urged all others to stay where they were until driven out. It appeared to me that the way to unite was to unite. The way to halt division was to stop dividing. It seemed sensible that if everyone remained where he was this would preclude the formation of new parties, and while this would not lessen the number it would freeze them at the present level. It was my conviction that time would heal many of the breaches and bridge many of the chasms. In any event, the formation of new parties or sects, or the changing from one party to another would not achieve the purpose of God. To shift from one party to another does not eliminate problems. It only subjects one to new and unfamiliar problems with which he is not by experience qualified to deal.
I did not feel it was proper for me to continue without informing the brethren with whom I was laboring of my radical change of thought. The elders agreed to set up six two-hour periods on successive Saturday evenings and invite all who wished to come. I was to speak an hour and then answer questions from the audience for an hour. The meetings were well-attended and orderly, although somewhat tense. I loved and respected all of the brethren. I knew how they felt. I had taught them what they believed and had led them in its implementation. Now I was occupying the same speaker's platform to tell them I had been wrong.
I discussed with them the name of the church and told them it had no official title. The primitive ekklesia represented the called-out ones and they were known, not by a title, but by their love for one another. They were identified by where they met, and we should name the place so we could find them geographically, but not name the church to distinguish it from other believers, for that meant to denominate it.
I dealt with the "five steps of salvation" and showed that we were not saved by climbing a little ladder into the kingdom. Rather we were drawn up by an "escalator." We simply took the step of faith and the grace of God, as an unseen power drew us up into repentance and immersion into the precious Lord. It was His power and not ours which accomplished His purpose and we never left the faith we had in the beginning to go on to the next step.
I discussed the nature of worship and showed the folly of "five acts of worship" when everything that one did on earth under the sovereignty of Jesus was an expression of worship. Under Jesus there are no holy places, holy days or holy things, but only a holy people. I discussed the nature and composition of the one body and showed that it was composed of every person on earth who had answered the call of God. We should not ask people, "Which church are you a member of?" because there is only one. There never has been another and never will be. Our purpose should be to receive all whom God receives and as He received them.
I showed the differences between the gospel and the doctrine. The gospel consists of seven historical facts. The testimony to these must be believed. The doctrine consists of a course of instruction. It refers to that which is taught. It requires understanding and rationalization. We are saved by faith, not by how much we learn and know, but by whom we know. It was also pointed out that God probably did not respect any of our lines of demarcation and division because He did not create them. We like them because they gave us a sense of security, but it was a false security based upon human opinion.
We did not lose a person. I am working today with the same congregations with which I have always worked. And I am welcome in hundreds more. Through the grace of God, with few exceptions, the places where I had worked outgrew their narrow and inclusive views in the Saint Louis area, and are as comforting to me as I try to be to them as we grow older in years and in the faith.
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 hassles 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 the 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 could 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 flood' 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 doing and nothing about Benedict Arnold. In private letters I have seen since, 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 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 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.
It was John Milton who called death "the golden key that opens the palace of eternity." As I think of 1959-60 I am impressed with how often that key opened the palace door for older persons whom I loved. Then I recall that I was fifty-two years of age and those of the preceding generation were ripe for the reaper's scythe. It is not in a morbid spirit but simply to keep the record straight that I mention a few of those whom "the great leveler" called home to be with Christ in this brief period.
There was John Egarian, who died at Riverside, California, at the age of 94. He was born in Betios, Syria, 14 miles from Antioch, on February 22, 1865. He learned to speak Armenian, Turkish and Arabian, but English was too much for him. He became skilled in silkworm culture, and was a consultant on silk production and manufacture while mayor of his city for many years. I baptized him and his good wife, with several others in the Armenian colony in 1939. He was 74 at the time and we had to speak through an interpreter.
On March 14, A.E. McClaflin, an elder at Bicknell, Indiana, died of a heart attack. I had stayed in his home many times, and the hours were spent in discussion of the word. His wife, Bessie, was a talented writer. For years she did a column for the Apostolic Review called "Leaves from a Rose Retreat," as their lovely home was called. Upon two occasions we had stayed up all night long talking about the Bible.
On June 16, J.W. Watts, Nell's father died. I was very close to him. Born in the Ozark hills he had grown up with little formal schooling. He came to the mining area when it was rough and tough. He was baptized by Daniel Sommer and was thoroughly committed to Christ. Twice he had been elected mayor of the city of Flat River. He was universally respected through the area for his commonsense, fairness and justice. I conducted his funeral service before one of the largest audiences ever to attend such an event. That day we learned what it meant to sorrow not as others which have no hope.
Brother E.M. Zerr was seriously injured near Martinsville, Indiana, October 29. He had celebrated his 82nd birthday two weeks before. He drove his car on to the highway directly in the path of one that was coming. He lingered four months in a coma, never regaining consciousness. He died on February 22, 1960. During his lifetime he conducted 75 protracted studies of the Bible in depth. For years he was the query editor for the Apostolic Review. He was the only man in the restoration movement who had produced a commentary on the entire Bible. A great deal of it was written in our home. I had gone to see him a few months before his accident. He was very cold and formal toward me. He thought I had "left the faith" because I insisted that God's people were still scattered throughout the sectarian world.
On the same day Brother Zerr died, a mutual friend of ours, James Vermillion, departed this life in Riverside, California. I first met him in Springfield, Missouri, when I arrived there at the age of fourteen to hold a tent meeting on north National Boulevard. I stayed in his home and played with the boys. In later years he got a thrill out of telling how he would have to come out and tell me it was time to come in and get washed up for the meeting.
On January 4, A.W. Harvey, died in Bloomington, Indiana, as the result of a stroke. He had been a friend of the Sommer family for years, although he was not that close to D. Austen Sommer, whom he regarded as extreme. He was widely known because of his authorship of a booklet called "Bible Colleges."
On February 6, Robert Brumback died of a cardiac condition, in Phoenix, Arizona, where he had gone upon the recommendation of his physician. He was author of two books which I published. One was "History of the Church Through the Ages." I proofread the 430 pages three times before publication. The other book was "Where Jesus Walked." It was the story of Brother Brumback's trip to the holy land.
On March 17, Dewey Copeland died of a heart attack at Valdosta, Georgia. I met him first at the debate with G.K. Wallace, near Paragould, eight years before. During the interval I had been in his home many times. He and his wife and daughter had made a trip with Nell and me to Banff and Lake Louise in Canada, returning by way of Yellowstone Park and the Black Hills. It seemed incredible that he was gone. Jim Mabery and I went by train to Georgia to conduct the funeral service. It was a vast crowd we addressed.
On July 5, W. Curtis Porter died in a Memphis hospital. He had known that he possessed a rare and incurable blood disease since 1942. When he first learned of the proposal of the brethren at Beech Grove to have me come to Arkansas, he bitterly opposed it. He spoke against me publicly and wrote letters trying to get the brethren to cancel my coming. He was the first one I met in my debate with Brother Wallace. Later, the two congregations in Paragould which opposed me so bitterly fell out among themselves. Brother Porter debated Guy N. Woods on institutionalism. It was while sitting in the audience listening to these two "pros" seeking to cut each other down that it dawned upon me how childish were the issues we were debating. I went to see Brother Porter at his home a few months before his final hospitalization. He was courteous and kind. He told me that after seeing some of the actions of the brethren he was inclined to be more favorable to me than to them.
The saddest loss of all was that of my mother. She suffered a massive cerebral hemorrhage at Topeka, Kansas, on Lord's Day morning, August 21. She was 77 years old. All the way from Saint Louis to Topeka I caught myself thinking of bygone days. I recalled how, when we were little, Mom used to sing us Danish lullabies as she rocked us. I remembered teaching her to read English. And I lived again the days of poverty. Her children had been her whole life.
She had known hardship, toil and pain, but now it was all over. Gone were the lonely nights when my father was away preaching and she was home worrying about sick children. My brother Paul and I conducted the memorial service. When I said the final benediction and turned away from the grave where her body would return to dust beside that of my father to whom she had always been true, I suddenly realized that our children had no grandparents left.
Not everything was death, of course. There was renewed life on many fronts. Brother Garrett and I continued our Saturday sessions in Hartford, Illinois. We met one Saturday per month for six consecutive months in the fall and winter. The subjects were weighty but timely. Each of us spoke an hour in the morning. At noon the sisters served an excellent meal and we all ate together. In the afternoon we took questions from the audience for two hours. We did not always agree but we loved one another and all of us learned. Out of these meetings grew the Hartford Forum, now the Saint Louis Forum. It has been one of the greatest influences in creating respect across party lines.
It was early in 1959 that we set up luncheon meetings at a restaurant in Springfield, Illinois, once per month. We met to discuss the implementation of God's will. The first one found 35 brethren from Churches of Christ and Christian Churches together. Brother Garrett presided. The theme was "How Can We Work Together For the Cause of Christ?" We met as friends and not as enemies. The next month more than 40 were present. It was a kind of daring experiment in those days. Now it is routine in our area.
In the March issue of the American Christian Review appeared an article over my signature entitled "A Statement of Fact." It was an apology for my actions in elevating "the Rough Draft," written in 1932, to a test of fellowship. I had reached the conclusion there was but one creed, the Lord Jesus Christ. To elevate an editorial statement of opinion into a test of union or communion was as absurd as it was wrong. I was particularly disturbed by the fact that we had summoned brethren from various sections of the country to a meeting in Kansas City, to take a stand on the issue. Such mass pressure seemed to me in retrospect to be sectarian. It smacked too much of church councils in history, all of which ended up producing a new creed.
I began the series of articles on "Covenants of God." I had become convinced that God had revealed Himself as a covenant-making God, He made covenants with Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Later He made a covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai. They broke His covenant and He promised to make a new one. In it the motives and rules of action would be engraved upon the hearts of men. It became obvious that we were no longer under a written code. The new testament was not composed of twenty-seven books. The new covenant was a person. The apostolic epistles were not a code of jurisprudence. They were a collection of love letters written to believers in Jesus who were having difficulty imitating the Master.
My whole life was altered. Always before I had been laying down the law instead of living up to love. I had become a good lawyer and a poor lover. Now passages seemed to leap from the pages into my heart. "The law was a custodian to bring us to Christ, but after faith is come, we are no longer under a custodian." Later this became the basis of my book "The Death of the Custodian." Now I had to wrestle with the fact that faith had come. We were no longer under a written code. Everything took on a new perspective. I began to understand the grace of God. I began to see that love was the fulfillment of law. And I began to walk in the Spirit.
I doubt that any other concept I have ever had since I accepted the invitation of Jesus and opened the door to my heart to let Him come in and sup with me, has had the profound effect upon me that the thought of a personal covenant with God has had. The church, redemption, reconciliation, worship, and all other facets of the life of faith took on new depths. Above all else it placed scripture in a completely new and proper context. It became a loving guideline along the road of life.
I began to read the Bible with new eyes. I began to meditate upon it with a new heart. What a blessing it was to realize that the verbal revelation of God was suspended from love for God and one's fellows. "On these two hang the law and the prophets." I could see that what we called the church was simply the called and gathered. It was a universal community of the reconciled. It was the kingdom of heaven doing the will of God on earth as it is in heaven.
It was still several years before I fully realized that the kingdom was alive and energetic. It was flowing relentlessly like lava from above. There had been no previous trough constructed. Its form was determined by the contour of the terrain. It was mind-boggling for a former legalist to realize the pattern was not determined by a book containing a written code but by the world itself. The kingdom must be flexible enough to move upon that world. The means, machinery and modes of service were dictated by raw human needs.
The advent of 1961 brought with it what might be the highest level yet attained in the discussion of fellowship. Of course, as we later honed our thinking, we were able to present the cutting-edge of it more fully. But I was writing on the theme with a great deal of power and brethren were anxious to hear of it. It was evident that it was an idea whose time had come. It was now ten years since I had my spiritual encounter in Ireland, and I had returned home to investigate the revelation of God's divine purpose in my life with fresh insights.
I was booked for meetings from coast to coast. In everyone of these I invited questions from the audience. So new was what was being said that the queries were many. This proved to be the most interesting and exciting part of the studies. As an illustration I will refer to a meeting in Sullivan, Indiana. The restoration movement there was fractured into four separate groups. I was invited by the smallest. The little building had standing-room only on Saturday night and on Sunday afternoon we moved to the Four-H Club building where there were 42 congregations and 14 preachers in attendance. And this was in the dead of winter, on January 14 and 15.
During the next two years I crossed and recrossed the country. The Missouri Christian Lectureship, a powerful forum in earlier days, was revived by Grayson Ensign, president of Moberly Christian College. I spoke on "The Ground of Christian Fellowship." The speech has since appeared in a book and has been reproduced in a couple of booklets. It represented my most complete treatise on the subject up to that time.
Of special significance was an invitation to come to Louisville. It was issued by two congregations but was held at the Kentucky Avenue Church building. It was my first appearance among brethren of the pre-millennial persuasion. Brother E.L. Jorgenson was still alive and it was my pleasure to meet him and come to know him. The pre-millennial brethren had always been known for their freedom and openness toward others. I was well received and mutual love bridged any difference that existed. Later that year I went to Southeastern Christian College at Winchester, Kentucky, and spoke to the student body and friends of the college who came. We had a beautiful relationship and I returned to the college upon other occasions in the future.
As a result of these encounters I was invited to come to Shawnee Church in Louisville, where I held a meeting later in the year. Willis Allen was the minister and he proved to be a fine man and a great brother in the Lord. Through these contacts I came into contact with the brethren at Portland School and with those who carried on The Word and the Work. I became quite convinced that they had been misrepresented and unmercifully ill-treated by preachers of the dissenting view.
Not everything was rosy, however. It was during this year that Brother Roy Loney launched a new little journal called The Gospel Message. It was intended to provide a medium for those who thought I had departed from the faith. It did not create a new party but served to perpetuate an old one. Brother Loney had been invited to speak in Saint Louis in years gone by and he did his best to divide the brethren in Saint Louis and to gain a foothold. He wrote to a number of the brethren making false accusations and insinuations, but the letters were generally handed to me and his efforts came to naught. The brethren who wrote to him were sympathetic because of his deafness and he took their sympathy for this to be sympathy with his divisive attitude. It was not.
One thing of especial interest that occurred during this time was arranged by Jim Mabery. He was a great brother and ardent for the work of Christ. Brethren arranged to celebrate my fortieth anniversary of preaching the Word with a "This Is Your Life" presentation at Green Parrot Inn, in Saint Louis County. Old friends attended I had not seen for years. A special recording for the session was sent by Brother Winstanley and some of the saints in Great Britain. Our children and their companions sang special numbers. There were several hundred present for the event and it was a thrilling experience master-minded by a professional. Anything Jim arranged was sure to be a success, and he had working with him his good wife, Ina Lee.
During the year word was received of the death of Walter Crosthwaite in Great Britain, on May 23. He passed across the Jordan at Ulverston, in Lancashire, and with his going I lost a precious friend and sensed the closing of an era. His noble stand for the purity of the gospel had earned for him the burning hatred of some, but the warm friendship of others. I cherish the memory of the time spent in his cheerful little home more than anything else which happened on my journey to England.
He was unshakable in his convictions and those who grew up at his feet were fortunate indeed. He spanned the time when the church was beginning to go off the deep end over the compromise with "liberal theology" and saw it become affiliated with the World Council. He was the leader of the Old Paths Brethren who resisted the drift of the tide. God needed such a man for such a time and raised him up. He and Levi Clark had a profound impression upon my life. I will never forget my association with them.
During the year I also went to Lakewood, California, for a meeting with the congregation there, which was ably shepherded by Bro. Bill Jessup. Lakewood was established by Ernest Beam, a pioneer in the attempt to unite the forces of the restoration movement. In my ignorance and the party spirit I had opposed his effort. He was hounded and harassed by men infinitely smaller than himself during his life and probably died of a broken heart, feeling that his efforts were a failure. They were not, of course, for the planting of the seeds of freedom is never a loss.
I studied his work intensely when I began to realize the merit of it and came to the conclusion he had made two mistakes in his method of going about it. I resolved to avoid those mistakes. Our meeting lasted five nights from October 16-20. More than 400 attended every meeting, crowding the little building to standing-room only. Every evening we had prayers for unity in a little room just off the patio. Some evenings the room was virtually full. The Vernon Brothers sang for the meeting. It was my first occasion to meet them. Harold Clark led the congregational singing. A busload of fifty came from Pepperdine College every night. The question periods each day were very lively. Some questions were earnest attempts to find a solution. Some preachers asked things only to disrupt. But God was with me and I found a ready answer for all.
It was about this time that Reuel Lemmons unleashed an attack upon me in the Firm Foundation. An excellent editorial writer and a man of tremendous ability, generally when he assailed a person in print, which he did very rarely, that person curled up and played dead. It is an outstanding phenomenon of the restoration movement how much power is centered in editors. A withering blast from one of them and you have had it. Brother Lemmons entitled his editorial in which he named me several times, "Blind in One Eye."
This time it did not work. It seemed rather to publicize my effort to bring sanity to a body intent upon consuming itself. Thousands heard of me who did not know me before. I received scores of letters, many of them from Texas. It was apparent that many people were fed up with the sterile "status quo" and the establishment for which Brother Lemmons was one of the chief spokesmen. There was a grassroots yearning to become free from the domination of a self-imposed clergy group. An articulate coterie of brilliant young people was beginning to form which would make itself heard and felt.
The work was given impetus by a "Concourse Toward Unity" held at Denver, Colorado, July 1-7, which was attended by 500 people from 21 states, Mexico and the Philippines, to discuss the problems we faced in order to be united. M.F. Cottrell was one of the speakers. He fired the audience with new hope. Man after man spoke on the subject in a dynamic way. When it became apparent that there was a unity of purpose one of the congregations sent for C.E. McGaughey to come. He made a stereotyped speech demanding unity upon matters of opinion and stating there could be no unity without conformity. When he finished he knew that he had made a miserable failure.
Brother Cottrell and I invited him to have lunch with us. He reluctantly accepted. Brother Cottrell told him that he needed to come into the twentieth century and get off his hobby horse. Brother McGaughey said he intended to ride the horse right up to the gates of heaven. Brother Cottrell told him that if he did a voice from inside would tell him to tie his horse outside and come on in. There would be no hobbies in heaven. Conditions were changing when brethren from every segment of the movement could share together in love as they were doing there.
It was this year I was first invited to come to camp at Macrorie, Saskatchewan. Paul Tromburg was laboring at Outlook and I had visited the work there. At the time the men met in the daytime, but the evening meetings were open to the sisters. The camp has since changed and is now a Family Camp with more than 200 registered. Back in those days it was heavily weighted with people from the non-instrument Churches of Christ, but it now involves about half of those who use the instrument and the other half of those who do not. It is sponsored by a congregation which has no instrument but does not make a test of fellowship out of it. The question is never mentioned by any speaker and causes no problem. It is a tremendous annual affair which brings together in a primitive setting brethren from almost every province in Canada, as well as from several states. I have returned almost every two years since that time and have seen great strides in our reception of one another in Christ. The interesting thing now is to see people from various other backgrounds coming and being treated with love.
On September 17-21 I was invited to Rosemead, California, for a fellowship forum by Robert E. Hanson. The house was packed every night. One evening two carloads of brethren drove in. They sat together around Glenn Wallace. When I had finished my speech, Brother Wallace arose and said I had insulted the Lord's church of which he was a member and he demanded an opportunity to reply. It shocked the audience. They could not think of anything I had said which could be so interpreted. I arose slowly, walked to the speaker's stand and looked at Brother Wallace for a long time with a smile upon my face. You could have heard a pin drop. I told him that if he felt offended he should be given an opportunity to reply, and that next afternoon he could do so for fifteen minutes.
The building was crowded to capacity the next day. I introduced Glenn and told the audience he had a few things to say. He put on quite a show, pounding the organ with his fist and declaring it was the real problem. When he finished his harangue, I simply ignored him, and arose and quietly said, "It is now time for questions from the audience. Who will be first, please?" Brother Wallace bounced out of his seat and asked if I was going to answer him. I said, "No, I do not find anything which requires an answer, so we will proceed according to our regular format."
He and the seven others who came with him stalked out, murmuring something under their breath as they went. We proceeded with the meeting.
It must have been about 1963 that Mission Messenger began to be influential internationally. Included in reports to be found in the paper for that year are some from Australia, Canada, Okinawa, England, The Netherlands, Chile, Scotland, Thailand, Denmark and Finland. It was great to receive letters and subscriptions from such far-away places, but this eventually proved our undoing. Nell was taking care of all the wrapping and bundling of the papers, as well as looking after the subscription list. Some people moved so frequently that it actually amounted to us sending the paper to them and paying them for reading it.
Eventually the paper was going to more than 8200 homes on every continent. We had to stop. Nell was actually working for twelve hours some days. After giving notice of intent for three years we reached the end of our row on December 1, 1975. Although we ceased publication then we still receive a great many subscriptions. Persons who have never heard of us before, will read an old paper and send in a dollar asking to be put on the list. We claim to be the only publishers who ever discontinued because they were too successful.
It was on January 31, 1963, that J.D. Thomas of Abilene Christian College published in Gospel Advocate, an article entitled "Brother Ketcherside's New Fallacy." It was full of such manifest error that I wrote B.C. Goodpasture asking for space in which to reply. He would not grant it. So I wrote to Brother Thomas and made an offer for fair examination of my ideas at Abilene. I wrote as follows:
"Since I am sure that you believe in the right of sincere brethren to present their appeal in love, to be heard, can it be arranged that I come to Abilene for three sessions of two hours each, for public examination of my thesis? If so, I suggest that in the first two sessions I present objectively my position as to unity of the believers for one hour, and then submit to an hour of public questioning by a panel composed of three brethren, yourself being one and the other two being men of your selection. I further suggest that in the third session, after presentation of my views, I submit to questions (either oral or written) from the entire audience, yourself acting as chairman of that meeting.
"It would be understood that neither yourself nor Abilene Christian College concurred in or endorsed my views, but simply that as free men we met in interest of truth. I pledge upon my honor, that I will conduct myself with gentlemanly courtesy to all of the brethren, and if I cannot lessen areas of conflict I will not widen them."
At the time I had confidence that I might be invited to Abilene on the above fair and equitable terms, so that the perceptive students could hear and then reach their own conclusions. My hopes were dashed when, on February 9, I received the following curt note from Brother Thomas:
"Dear Brother Ketcherside: In reply to your recent letter inquiring about a public discussion of your present views, I wish to state that, for good and sufficient reasons, I would not be interested in trying to have such a discussion. Sincerely yours, J.D. Thomas."
I kept on trying, thinking that conditions might have changed. Every year I published my offer to come to any college among us and subject my views to the scrutiny of faculty members. I then saw a letter written to the president of Abilene Christian, by Norma Parks, and after reading the reply to it I gave up on ever receiving a fair hearing before the student body. It was obvious that the administration and the doctors were fearful of what might happen. They could attack my views at will and refuse me the opportunity of being heard in an equitable exchange.
This was the year in which I was first asked to speak at the North American Christian Convention. It was held at the Long Beach Convention Center. I was appalled to see the sectarian attitude so rampant in one meeting. Fortunately, the brethren have "cleaned up their act" since that time, but the demonstration they put on in that meeting was one of the most childish and blatant exhibitions of party spirit I had ever seen exhibited. My speech was delivered on the evening of June 27, and it had an electrifying effect. It was the first time a non-instrument brother had spoken and it received the first standing ovation ever accorded up to that time.
Since that time, Leonard Wymore has tried to feature one or more men from the non-instrument segment. Bill Banowsky, Norvel Young, Marvin Phillips, Ira North, Leroy Garrett, and others have spoken and been well received. I substituted once for Joe Barnett from Lubbock, whose secretary telephoned the night before his appearance and said he was sick. The meeting is the largest and best attended of any within the restoration movement. I have addressed the saints three times and thoroughly enjoyed it. It is strictly a preaching convention. No business is transacted. No resolutions are drawn up. The brethren believe in the autonomy of the local church. It is a great big get-together of people from all over who meet and enjoy one another's company. Leonard Wymore is one of God's noblemen.
During the year I spoke at numerous colleges, among which were Manhattan Christian, Manhattan, Kansas; Nebraska Christian, Norfolk, Nebraska; Puget Sound College of the Bible, Seattle, Washington; Johnson Bible College, Kimberlin Heights, Tennessee; and Minnesota Bible College, then in Minneapolis, but since moved to Rochester. In every one of those I found students who were eager to hear the message of peace on earth to men of good will.
There were two opportunities afforded to really cross over lines. In Nebraska I was invited to Dana College, on March 22. It is a liberal arts school under supervision of the Augustana Lutheran Conference, and a great many of the students were Scandinavian by birth. It was interesting to me to see the ritual in chapel. It was much like that to which I was accustomed in my earlier days in the Missouri Synod. After speaking to the students publicly I went down to the lounge and conversed with them privately and in small groups for another hour. I found them turned off by the liturgy.
The other occasion was on October 27 when I went to Kendallville, Indiana, to deliver a Reformation Day address. It came three days before the anniversary of Martin Luther's nailing of the 95 theses against the church door in Wittenberg. We had a joint meeting of all the Protestant Churches and I spoke on "Heretics and Heroes." I made the point that a heretic is a hero ahead of his time. All a heretic has to do is to be dead a hundred years and he will become a hero. One generation hurls stones at a heretic, which the next generation picks up and makes a monument from them.
Everything that has been gained in religion has been gained by those accused of being heretics. Luther, Huss, Zwingli, Calvin and Wesley, were all branded as such by their contemporaries. It is often easier to label one a heretic than it is to deal with what he is saying. Luther faced an Establishment which was well entrenched. The Elector of Saxony said, "I am not at all surprised that it has made so much noise; for he has committed two unpardonable crimes; he has attacked the pope's tiara, and the monks' bellies."
I pointed to the need of another reformation with Luther's words: "I will say what I mean, boldly and briefly; the Church needs reformation. And this cannot be the work either of a single man, as the pope, or of many men, as the cardinals and councils; but it must be that of the whole world, or rather it is a work that belongs to God alone. As for the time in which such a reformation should begin he alone knows who has created all time. The dike is broken, and it is no longer in our power to restrain the impetuous and overwhelming billows."
It was during this time that Martin M. Mitchum, who was an elder in the Christian Church at Rolla, Missouri, and a man with great insight, decided to take definite steps to do something tangible about the unity of believers. He invited Don DeWelt, Howard Short, and me to engage in public dialogue on fellowship. Don was from Ozark Bible College. Howard was editor of The Christian, now called The Disciple. This was before restructure had taken place among the Disciples of Christ, and we had a meaningful discussion. Each of us spoke fifteen minutes and then sat down together to field questions from the audience. All three of us came away with a greater feeling of respect for each other.
I have often wondered since what would have happened if such discussions could have continued among top-level men. Would it have made a difference? Was the sectarian spirit so engrained and crystallized that we would have to go on to the bitter end? Or do things have to work out their own accord and in the good time of God, as Luther indicated? We talked about these and many other things as we drove back to Saint Louis that night.
But one of the outstanding gatherings was at Wynnewood Chapel in Dallas, Texas. It was held June 30-July 7. Speakers and teachers were Darrell Bolin, Leroy Garrett, and myself. This launched a series of meetings which were held annually. Sometimes there were two meetings per year. They were notable for their openness and for their freedom of spirit. As time went on, brethren from every background were given an opportunity to speak. Brother Degroot and Ralph Graham from the Disciples of Christ, Jack Holt from the anti-cooperation wing, Ervin Waters from the one-cup brethren. We invited brethren from every segment and they came. One day Pat Hardeman came and asked a lot of insistent questions. He was with Florida College at the time. We were surprised a little later to learn that he had gone with the Universalist Church. Sometimes things warmed up quite a bit as brethren brought with them some of their clan. They came to listen to their man and as soon as he had finished they walked out.
J.D. Phillips joined with us in teaching and it was great to share with him. He was editor of "The Truth." His knowledge of restoration history was amazing and we were greatly blessed by the anecdotes which he told. Bill Thurman taught one year and gave fresh insights into the Word. There was nothing static about the meetings. They changed from year to year as the personnel of the congregation changed. There was much to learn in the exchange of ideas. Looking back on things I can see that these meetings were within the will of God. They were a part of our struggle for the meaningful life. The influence of Leroy, calm and unruffled, was a real part of the gatherings.
In December I finished a reprint of articles by Reuel Lemmons and my reply to the same. I said: "Better days are ahead for all of us. There are signs everywhere that attitudes are changing. Brethren are becoming more bold in their declarations against orthodoxy and legalism. Of course we anticipate further areas of personal attack and boycott, but this is a small price to pay for freedom in Christ Jesus. Be sure that we shall not allow ourselves to become embittered or cease to love. Our hope of sharing with Jesus over there depends upon our exhibiting love to all of the brethren over here."
That year, the Hartford Forum featured talks by Russell Boatman on "The Basis of Authority"; Harold Key on "Fellowship and Endorsement"; Roy Key on "Legalism and Faith"; Grayson Ensign on "Is Unity Possible in Diversity?" and by Leroy Garrett on "The Vocabulary of the Holy Spirit." I spoke on "The Relationship of Immersion to Fellowship." A great time was had by all.
Henry David Thoreau wrote, "Only that traveling is good which reveals to me the value of things at home, and enables me to enjoy them better." It was in 1964 we built our new house, and moved into it shortly before Thanksgiving Day. It was five minutes from the air terminal and Nell could drop me off there, and come and get me on my return without ever going to the public parking lot. The house was designed to enable us to handle the paper and my books, and proved to be ideal for our need.
And we needed something to make travel more convenient. During the year, among many other places I spoke at Milligan College; at the Bond County Fellowship Meeting at Mulberry Grove, Illinois; at the alumni meeting at Lincoln Christian College; at the Southern Illinois Christian Convention; at Roanoke Bible College in Elizabeth City, North Carolina; at the Tri-State Fellowship in Weirton, W. Va.; at the Statewide Fellowship Meeting in Boise, Idaho; at the Statewide Rally at Little Rock, Arkansas; at Ozark Bible College, Joplin, Missouri; at the Arizona Christian Convention, at Phoenix; and at Oregon State Christian Convention, at Turner, Oregon. This was but a little of my travels during the year.
In the meeting at Milligan College, I first came in contact with Dr. Robert Burns, and liked him from the start. I had corresponded with him many times but it was a great privilege to know him personally. At the time he was minister for the great Peachtree Christian Church in Atlanta and a genial gentleman.
Present with us also was Dr. James DeForest Murch, of Silver Springs, Maryland. He knew the history of the restoration movement like few others I have ever met. He had just edited a history of it called Christians Only. He had always been intensely interested in unity as evident in the Witty-Murch discussions. He was a co-founder of the National Association of Evangelicals, and editor of their journal United Evangelical Action. He was founder and president of the National Sunday School Association, the National Association of Religious Broadcasters, and the Evangelical Press Association. He was also managing editor of Christianity Today. He was author and composer of the song "I'll Put Jesus First In My Life." We began a great fellowship which lasted until his death, and the times he spent in our home meant much to me.
On March 4, 1964, Harvey Bream and I met in a 31/2 hour public conference with Dr. Clyde Funkhouser, District Superintendent of the Methodist Church, at Fairfield, Illinois. The subject was "Current Views on Christian Unity." Harvey was editor of The Restoration Herald but has since become president of Cincinnati Bible College. The encounter was great and confirmed me in the belief that we needed to cross over lines for dialogue.
It was about this time I formulated a policy with reference to other journals. I was under attack from some of them in every issue. I was being called a heretic, a Judas Iscariot, a Benedict Arnold, a compromiser, and a liberal. It was not popular in those days to affirm that every child of God in the world was your brother. So I simply resolved to mention the various papers and urge my readers to send for a copy and read what was being said about me for themselves. It proved to be a good method of dealing with the situation and I pursued it as long as I continued to publish. It was about this time someone sent me a little motto which read: "Love Your Enemies, It Drives Them Nuts."
During this year Leroy Garrett made a monthly out of his paper which had previously been edited as a quarterly. This gave him the opportunity to write articles which were geared more closely to the times. The result was a great increase in the number of subscriptions. The paper has been a monthly ever since and has accomplished profound good. Leroy has never been free from attack, much of it unprincipled, but his patience and tolerance have turned this to great growth. By this means much has been accomplished to the glory of our Lord.
The following year, 1965, brought three things to pass which were of note in my life. First, I was invited to speak at the World Convention of Churches of Christ, in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The World Convention was begun by Jesse M. Bader to provide a chance for the various restoration groups to meet together and listen to one another. The first one was held in Washington, D.C., in October, 1930. There were more than 9,000 present.
I was the first participant from the non-instrument group who had ever been present. When I arrived in San Juan, there were 6000 people present from 32 countries. The evening meetings were held at Herman Bithorn Stadium on the outskirts of town. Buses were used to transport people to the place and back to the hotels. The address of welcome was made by Florentino Santana, who was president. I was on the speaker's stand with Ray Blampied, president of the college at Dunedin in New Zealand, who was to be the first speaker. Brother Blampied's speech was characteristic of those who take a liberal theological approach to the sacred scriptures. It was apparent that many of the common folk did not like it very much.
Mine was entitled "Our Enduring Heritage" and my closing paragraph said, "Our enduring heritage! My entertainment in infancy, my instruction in youth, my inspiration in manhood, my invigoration in approaching age, my illumination on the coming journey through the valley of shadows! Oh, may I never forget it, but love it, revere it, and through it be faithful unto Him whose word it is. And amidst the clamor of disputed claims, the shouts of sharply separated scientific scholars, and the propositions of antagonistic professors and pundits, may I never forget that it is better to know the Rock of Ages than to know the age of the rocks."
I was hardly prepared for what transpired. People from the Congo, from South America, and from Australia, pressed around me to shake my hand. They were thrilled to hear someone defend the Word as inspired of God and revealed from heaven. After my speech I was sought out by various ones who wanted to discuss the bearing of my remarks upon their national life and conduct. I began correspondence with some of them, and we continued to write to each other for years. It was as if God had arranged everything to His glory.
The next speaker after I finished was George R. Davis of National City Christian Church in Washington, D.C. He spent his entire time defending the president, Lyndon Johnson, who was a member of his congregation. The contrast in speeches was so great that a lot of brethren from other parts of the world were turned off. One of them said to me, "We came thousands of miles to hear about the Savior, and it is a new wrinkle to learn that his last name is Johnson."
The second thing which meant a lot to me was the study in depth conducted at Highland Church in Louisville, August 2-6. It was strangely successful, bringing together brethren from 12 states, 4 continents, and 6 segments of the restoration movement. Brethren affiliated with congregations which held the premillennial view were always intensely interested in souls. They had gone to the remotest parts of the earth with the message of life and had labored under great difficulties to tell the story of the cross. It was a blessing to have some of them in our audience.
The third thing which affected me was the cessation of the American Christian Review, after 110 years. This truly marked the end of an era. It did not make the impact it would have made if it had stopped a few years before. For a long time it had been simply picking up and reprinting older articles and it was no longer geared to the times. It had outlived its usefulness and was ready to die. But it brought a touch of nostalgia to me. It was the first religious paper I had ever seen. When I was a mere lad it came to our home. I used to lie flat of my stomach on the floor and read every word of it.
Brother Daniel Sommer was born of German immigrant parents in 1850. After a boyhood of poverty and hardship, he enrolled in Bethany College when he was nineteen years of age. On January 28, 1873 he married Katherine Way, daughter of Francis Way, an elderly Quaker. In 1886 he purchased the American Christian Review which had been started and printed by Benjamin Franklin, until his death near Anderson, Indiana, in the autumn of 1878. Brother Sommer changed its name to Octographic Review, in honor of the eight writers of the new covenant scriptures. A great many of his humbler readers did not understand the meaning of the word "Octographic" so by the time I arrived on the scene it was changed again to Apostolic Review. Eventually, it was returned to its original title.
It was W.T. Moore who said, "The restoration movement does not have bishops -- it has editors." For years our fate as a people was wrapped up with the Apostolic Review. Indianapolis was regarded as our headquarters, although anyone of us would have been quick to affirm that we had no earthly headquarters, but heaven was our home. Brother Sommer was a commanding figure. What he said was accepted as "law and gospel." When he read the Sand Creek Address and Declaration, and issued the ultimatum that those who persisted in the unscriptural clergy system, and in worldly ways of raising money for the support of the gospel, would no longer be regarded as brethren -- that did it!
The fate of the Sommer family was our fate. When Sister Sommer became editor she debarred Daniel from writing and would not publish his material. Upon her death the editorship went to Chester and Bessie. D. Austen, who thought he should have been chosen, broke with them and started his own paper. It now became fashionable to speak with disrespect of the Review and with pride of the Macedonian Call. But editors have "feet of clay" and it was not long until D. Austen proved to be untrustworthy, as we saw it.
I am glad to be delivered from the unholy mess we created by our strife. But I want to see others also made free -- free to love, to receive and to welcome all who are in Christ Jesus. Better times could come immediately if all of the papers among us would begin to urge upon us community instead of conformity. We will never see everything alike. If we did it would be but a short time until we differed about something else. What gain will come from calling for division where God has commanded peace?
Certainly, it would acquire an about-face. But what have we gained by pursuing the direction we have been going? Have we united the Christians in all of the sects? Have we brought peace to a body troubled with fighting? Is the heartache and bitterness, the hostility and hatred, to be our heritage to the bitter end? Will we continue to strike down every man who pleads with us to turn away the sword from shedding the blood of a brother?
Do not most of our divisions represent our faith in opinions rather than in Jesus? Do they not exemplify our trust in our own infallibility? Do not the words of Oliver Cromwell apply to us today, "I beseech you, brethren, in the name of God, to consider that you may be mistaken." Are not there thousands upon earth who love Him as sincerely as we do, who revere His word and seek to follow in His path? What do we gain by giving them a shove instead of a helping hand? Shall we continue to shake our fist, rather than to wave our hand at a passing pilgrim?
Editors have gained too much power among us. They dominate our thinking. They determine our stand upon issues. They domineer in the realm of faith. And they make us pay for it. Let us choose wisely whom we shall follow.
The year of 1966 was destined to be one of violence at home and abroad. We were still entangled in war in Vietnam which was taking such a toll in lives and finance. And right in the middle of the year police in Chicago discovered the bodies of eight student nurses brutally murdered in the townhouse they shared. Fear gripped the hearts of those within the "Windy City" until police apprehended Richard Speck, an ex-convict, and charged him with the killings. Two weeks later, Charles J. Whitman, an architectural student at the University of Texas, climbed into a tower and killed 15 persons and wounded 31 others before he was himself killed.
On March 16, astronauts Neil A. Armstrong and David R. Scott made the first of five successful two-man Gemini spacecraft dockings, linking up with an Agena Target vehicle. On June 7, James Meredith, whose enrollment at the University of Mississippi in 1962 touched off massive riots, was shot from ambush on the second day of a projected hike of 260 miles from Memphis, Tennessee, to Jackson, Mississippi, to encourage Negroes to vote. Once again we demonstrated how great our technological skills were for handling acute problems of space, and how far behind we were in handling the agonizing problems of human behavior on earth.
The year was noteworthy in the restoration movement circles of which we were a part also. March 4 marked exactly a hundred years from the death of Alexander Campbell. I went back and read once again the touching story of his dying as written by Dr. Robert Richardson, who preached the funeral discourse in God's Acre, at Bethany, before hundreds from all walks of life who came to honor the memory of this great man.
On September 1, the 150th anniversary of his "Sermon on the Law" was celebrated. It was this noble defense of the Good News from heaven given before the Redstone Baptist Association in 1816, which aroused so much hostility and created such animosity toward Campbell. He was ahead of his time. Today his message would hardly create a ripple on the surface of the muddled theological waters, but when delivered it cut right to the heart of things. It seems peculiar that the creeds of men are no longer the great issue among believers in Christ.
We had a gathering at Bethany during the year. It featured men and women from all of the major divisions of the movement. All of us stayed in the dormitory which gave us an opportunity to talk together between sessions. We also ate in the cafeteria and shared insights as we ate. Our discussions were held in Richardson Memorial Lecture Hall, and were generally very gracious. Brother Cawyer, an elder from Abilene, Texas, and a man I had known since childhood, tried to start an argument over music and kindred matters but served only to let off some of his own steam. No one was there to debate. During the sessions I heard Dr. Perry Epler Gresham deliver one of the finest speeches about Campbell that I have ever heard. He was an orator of the old school, and a real patron of a lost art.
On Sunday we held our meeting in the old brick meetinghouse which has been preserved, although only used upon occasions like this. We sat in the straight-backed seats and sang only hymns that dated back more than a century. We had no instrument. A sister had prepared a loaf as it used to be done, and we used the two silver chalices from which to drink the fruit of the vine. They had been used by the congregation in its earlier days, and were brought from the Campbell museum for the occasion. It was easy to envision the saints of old gathering in their simplicity and humility, with the freed slaves sitting on the back rows.
It was the same house in which the venerable Thomas Campbell had given his farewell address on June 1, 1851, at the age of 88 years. With his hearing greatly impaired and totally blind, he had to be transported to the place on a horse-drawn sled, prepared for the occasion. His text was Matthew 22:37-40. I was chosen together with Seth Wilson of Ozark Bible College to do the preaching. I was pleased to address such a select group upon the Lord's table as a symbol of our unity. We parted at the door after having demonstrated the power of the Good News to unite the hearts of those who truly love Him.
During the year it was my privilege to address the Seventh Consultation on Internal Unity of the Christian Churches held at Enid, Oklahoma. Men from the Independent Christian Churches and Disciples of Christ periodically met to discuss their division and determine what grounds there might be for resumption of a working relationship. I was invited as a kind of "neutral" to serve as a Biblical lecturer at each session. It was there I first presented the thinking which later found its way into print as "The Death of the Custodian -- the case of the missing tutor."
I postulated that our relationship with heaven was covenental, and that it was by grace and not by law. We must choose between love of law or the law of love, and the choice must be individual. It was in this series I first coined a number of phrases which I have since employed, such as "legalism has made us good lawyers, but God designed us to be great lovers." The series was well-received but it became apparent that the brethren were far apart theologically. But it served to convince me of one great thing which has proven to be invaluable to me. Unity will never become a kind of organizational get-together. In the final analysis it is personal.
On June 15, I brought out the first edition of the book "Voices of Concern," edited by Robert Meyers, at the time a minister for the Riverside Church of Christ, and a professor of English at Friends University, in Wichita. Bob was eminently qualified for the work of bringing out such a volume. He had been chewed up by the brotherhood "meat grinder" and thrown to the lions at Harding, much to the discomfiture of the lions. He graduated summa cum laude from Abilene Christian College, received an M.A. from the University of Oklahoma, and a Ph.D. from Washington University. He took special courses at Oxford University and at Salisbury, in England.
The book featured one chapter each from seventeen outstanding men and women who were or had been affiliated with the Church of Christ. It was written in compassion and with a tinge of sorrow that it had to be produced by these people at all. In a well-phrased preface the editor wrote, "Their hope was that this book would so alter conditions that no other volume of this kind would ever need to be written." Almost from its inception it came under attack and was subjected to bitter criticism. It could not be ignored. The writers were not ignorant, but were among the most brilliant thinkers produced within the Churches of Christ in this generation.
Not everything written about it was bad. It was reviewed in numerous periodicals, many of them outside the Church of Christ. Their favorable reports caused it to be widely read. It represented a complete reversal of policy and a new approach to journalism among Churches of Christ. We were attacked because we had disclosed sad and sordid things which had always been swept under the "brotherhood rug." For years the references to it in "Church of Christ journals" were all of vinegar mixed with gall. But "the cat was out of the sack" and there was no way now to capture the feline quietly. It is interesting that, after the book went out of print, we still received many calls for it. Even now, after fourteen years, people write us wanting to know where they can obtain a copy, and offering premium prices for it.
Meanwhile I was busy traveling. I conducted a Forum on Fellowship at Lancaster, California; and a Conference on Evangelism at San Jose Bible College. I spoke at the State Christian Convention at Clovis, New Mexico; at the Mid-State Christian Men's Preaching Rally, at Mt. Zion, Ill.; at the Christian Student Fellowship, at Lexington, Kentucky; at the Christian Evangelistic Society Convention, at Pittsburgh, Penn.; at the Commencement and Preachers' Institute at Alberta Christian College, in Canada; at Kingdom Builders' Fellowship at Sumner, Illinois; at the School of Ministry, Milligan College, Tennessee; at the Blue Ridge Clinic, Hillsvale, Virginia; at Mountain States Christian Men's Retreat, Bluefield, West Virginia; and at the College-Career conference in Southern California.
These were but a few of the places to which I went during the year. I was also editing the paper, bringing out books, and doing a full service effort in Saint Louis. Everywhere I went I took the message that all of us could be one in Christ, and none of us give up any truth he had ever held. I defined fellowship as the sharing of a common life -- eternal life. Many were not ready for it. Brethren were afraid of it. They had lived so long behind the walls of their self-imposed exiles that they felt protected and shaded. The elders of the Chestnut Drive Church of Christ in Doraville, Georgia issued a "white paper" in opposition to the things "Mr. Ketcherside" said in the fellowship in Atlanta. I was not recognized as a brother by these unfortunate persons. I mentioned it without rancor in Mission Messenger and urged everyone to write for a copy and read carefully the negative opinions it expressed. It was obvious that in Church of Christ circles fellowship was conditioned upon what you were against, rather than who you were for.
I was not deterred by the attacks upon me, either made clandestinely or openly. When I first sat down several years before and worked out the strategy for my attack upon the sectarian spirit, I recognized that it would be unsuccessful if I allowed myself to become ruffled or lost my ability to show love for those who counted themselves to be my enemies. I resolved to remain calm and cool under fire. Regardless of the misrepresentations of my position I must never stoop to the employment of such methods. It has paid off to be fair, just and equitable.
The Hartford (Illinois) Forum, held in December of 1966, was on the theme "The Holy Spirit in Our Lives Today." It brought together men from the Disciples of Christ, Christian Churches, and three different segments of the Church of Christ brotherhood. Some were charismatic while others were opposed to it. There was not one untoward moment. We came together as brethren and left with the feeling heightened above what it was when we came.
When Roy Key, of Ames, Iowa delivered his gracious message on "The Holy Spirit and Our Prayer Life" he touched a responsive chord in every heart. Bro. Key grew up in the Churches of Christ. All of his family were still members of it. But he was so abused and mistreated by brethren that he was literally driven out. During his address he told the touching story of Roland Hayes, the talented black singer who sang before the crowned heads of Europe, but who later returned to the old plantation where his mother had been a slave. There was hardly a dry eye in the house as Roy painted the picture of his confrontation with the old master and mistress and the forgiveness he felt in his heart. It was a great meeting, a good one, and it made all of us regret when it was over and we had to return home to the division that existed.