"Afraid of a Good
Man?"
James W Adams
San Augustine.
Texas
The human brain is a
marvelous and curious instrument. Why is it that some things, apparently
long forgotten, suddenly pop up from memory's storehouse? Almost
twenty-five years ago, when our now deceased brother, Cled E. Wallace,
was being subjected to some particularly virulent personal attacks by
brethren whose "idols" Brother Cled had challenged, he said to me with
reference to some of those attacks from men highly self-advertised as
eminently pious, "Jim, I've always been afraid of a good man." Of
course, Brother Cled did not mean a good man in the true sense of that
expression, but he meant a man who made a point of exposing his
humility, piety, and goodness (?) like the gaudy, neon-lighted facade of
a cheap ill-kept motel to the weary traveler in the camouflaging shadows
of the dead of night. I too have learned from sad experience that such
"goodness" (?) is only skin deep. Scratch the surface and the pent-up
poison will come gushing out.
A
Re-appraisal
More than a year ago, I
began a series of articles in Truth Magazine reviewing W. Carl
Ketcherside and his "unity" movement. In August, while in a meeting in
San Antonio, Texas, I developed a hernia requiring surgery at the
earliest possible time. I underwent surgery in October. The surgery was
completely successful but it brought a halt in my review. As soon as I
was well enough to travel, I fulfilled commitments in Florida and
Kentucky. Returning from them, I was plunged into a building project in
which my study was enlarged. This took about four weeks during which
time my study was in complete chaos. Two rather lengthy manuscripts
(actually three) were prepared next, the Florida College Lectures
attended, and then more meetings (four of them). So, I am only just now
getting back to my series. I am sorry, but I do not know how I could
have done otherwise.
During this time, I have
been reading, listening, and thinking. The interim has given me the
opportunity to read again all that I have previously written in this
series, study carefully the responses and reactions of those whom we
have criticized, hear William Wallace on two occasions in what amounted
to a defense of Edward Fudge, listen to the advice and comments of
numerous brethren (some friendly; some not so friendly), read a number
of volumes relating to material to be dealt with in future articles, and
re-think and re-evaluate the entire situation which obtains. Last, but
by no means least, I have spent much time in meditation and prayer as
well as Bible study seeking diligently the wisdom and knowledge which is
from above, and without which all is vain.
When I began this review
a year ago, it was not because I entertained in my mind the idea that I
could help or in any way change Brother W. Carl Ketcherside. In fact, I
am reasonably certain it amuses him immensely that I should suppose he
needs to change. My purpose was to rescue, if possible, a considerable
number of gospel preachers (particularly young men just beginning) from
active acceptance of and involvement in Brother Carl's concepts and
activities. From the beginning, I was not even very optimistic about
accomplishing this with reference to some of these young men who were
and are deeply steeped in Ketchersidean propaganda. My principal hope
was to save young men and other Christians (not preachers) who were not
yet involved in this error but who were or might be attracted by the
artful deception of such men as W. Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett.
Looking at the matter a
year and some twenty articles later, I find myself not unduly
discouraged with the results. Allowing for a reasonable degree of human
prejudice on my part. I yet feel that what I set out to do has already,
in a great measure, been accomplished. Conservative brethren have been
shocked out of a state of naive complacency relative to Brother
Ketcherside's ability to affect conservatives adversely. Considerable
light has been cast upon and heat applied to issues, men, and influences
which have been nurturing Ketchersidean concepts among conservative
brethren. Many young men preparing to preach who had been partially
committed to Ketcherside's views have seen their errors and have backed
away from them. Others not yet involved are now acutely aware of the
gravity of the situation and are studying the issues involved and
exercising proper discretion about vocalizing prematurely concerning
them.
It was never my
intention, the intention of Brother Willis, nor the aim of Truth
Magazine to apply any sort of "political pressure" to any person,
congregation, paper, or college with the aim of "lining them up"
relative to anything which did not constitute a sincere conviction of
truth, attained by personal study and embraced as a sincere act of
personal commitment. Any charge to this effect is, therefore, a blatant,
willful, and malicious falsehood. It is without evidence to sustain it,
hence can originate only in a distorted imagination and a malignant
disposition, regardless of declarations of dedication to being "loving
and loveable." Only one of Brother Cled's "good men" could possibly be
guilty of such an accusation. It was and is our aim to state clearly and
unequivocally our convictions concerning Ketchersideism among
conservatives and to oppose without personal malice, yet with all the
ability of which we are capable, every vestige of Ketchersidean
influence and teaching which we discover. We stand unalterably opposed
to every man who fosters or abets such, and we seek to awaken all in
positions of influence and power to the responsibility of active,
effective opposition there unto whether they be elders, Bible class
teachers, deacons, preachers, editors, writers, or college
administrators and teachers. For this stand, we make no apologies.
When we began this effort
to root out Ketchersidean subversion, we fully expected to be
castigated, our motives to be falsely judged, and our persons and
characters vilified and maligned. The "good men" with whom we deal have
lived up to our expectations in this regard. Our only surprise has been
in the individuals who have identified themselves with this class. In
making these statements, I do not complain nor do I seek sympathy by
maudlin appeals to emotionalism. If I do not have the faith and
fortitude to meet both issues and men involved in these matters
(whatever their tactics), I should abdicate the field of controversy. I
have never asked any quarter from teachers of error or their
sympathizers, nor do I propose to offer any. However, I stand ready to
offer the "right hand of fellowship" to any person, young or old, who
desires to take a firm stand for truth regardless of past mistakes. I
will do this without prejudice regardless of anything he may have
thought, said, or done against me personally, and I will use whatever
influence I may possess to undo any damage which may have been done to
his usefulness among brethren by reason of his previous commitment to
error. I do not consider myself an enemy of these brethren, as Paul
would say, "because I tell them the truth." I believe that for which I
am contending is right. I believe the situation with which we deal is
real, not contrived by us to satisfy either ambitious (lust for power)
or mercenary (lust for business) motives. I believe that which we oppose
to be destructive of the best interests of the cause of truth. Until I
am convinced otherwise, I shall continue to press the battle, and you
will not find me "taking the pulse of the brethren" to determine my
course, nor will you find me deterred by the unfavorable reaction of
some of them.
A Look
at Some Reactions to Our Efforts
Deal with principles, not
men. I doubt not that some of the super-charged reactions could have
been avoided had we dealt only with principles. Such an approach to the
eradication of error, however, is neither practical nor effective. No
battle for truth in the face of impending or developing apostasy can be
won by an objective study of principles alone. He who thinks it can is
either naive, ignorant, inexperienced in controversy, afraid, or all
four. It is the age-old problem of winning the argument and losing the
people. Our battle is not an academic dialogue but a struggle for the
hearts and the lives of men-living, immortal souls. Christ and His
apostles hesitated not to identify men with issues, hence to do so is
neither unloving, carnal, un-Christlike, unspiritual, nor unnecessarily
divisive. To register anger and disgust with and militant opposition to
pernicious error, its devotees, and its sympathizers have justifying
precedents in the conduct of Old Testament prophets, Christ, and His
apostles. No informed Bible student should think of denying this, but if
there is some respectable man among our conservative critics who has the
ambition to try it, I shall be more than glad to oblige him with a
head-on confrontation on this point either on the polemic platform or in
the religious press.
Polysyllabic adjectives
and undignified terminology. My adjectives seem to trouble some of our
neophyte scholars. This seems strange considering the fact that they are
at least in English whether they be polysyllabic or otherwise, which is
more than can be said for their learned Greek criticisms and Latin
solecisms. It seems proper to observe that what I write seems to be
pretty universally read and understood, otherwise our precocious
neophytes would not be so disturbed about what I have had to say.
Relative to my "dignity,"
I find it hard to please the good brethren. For years I have been
hearing, via the good old brotherhood grapevine, from my detractors
(some professing to by my friends) how "cold, unapproachable, and
unfriendly" I am. Now, they are greatly concerned about my "dignity," or
loss of it. One never quite makes it, does he?
The above is not intended
for friends, tried and true, who have chided me about the questionable
dignity of my remark that some of our neophyte scholars "give me a pain
which I cannot locate, and which might be too embarrassing to identify
if I could." For the genuine interest of friends, I am grateful, and by
the criticisms of my detractors, I am amused. Relative to the question
of whether such a remark falls beneath the level of acceptable dignity
in religious journalism, I beg to dissent both from friend and foe.
Perhaps it is so, but on the other hand, perhaps it is not!
If such a statement is
beneath the level of proper dignity in the religious arena, my Lord and
His inspired apostles were guilty of the same sort of undignified (?)
allusions. Jesus spoke of a "generation of vipers, ravening wolves in
sheep's clothing, whited sepulchers full of corruption and dead men's
bones, hypocrites, children of the devil, salt having lost its savor,
hence unfit for the dunghill." Incidentally, the King James Version does
not err in translating the Greek, koprian, by "dunghill." Check your
lexicon. Jesus also remarked that the church at
Laodicea
made him want to vomit, "spue them out of his mouth" (Rev. 3:16).
Having had considerable experience with nausea, I would say that the
Laodiceans Agave Christ a pain which he did locate."
Writing to the churches
of Galatia, Paul (erudite and cultured) expressed the wish that the
Judaizers which troubled them might "emasculate" themselves, "I would
they were even cut off which trouble you" (Gal. 5:12). Note the
following comment on this statement by H.A.W. Meyer, often referred to
by scholars as "the prince of New Testament exegetes." Meyer says, "The
vivid realization of the doings of his opponents . . . now wrings from
his soul a strong and bitterly sarcastic wish of holy indignation: Would
that they, who set you in commotion, might mutilate themselves! that
they who attach so much importance to circumcision, and thereby create
commotion among you, might not content themselves with being
circumcised, but might even have themselves emasculated!" (The Epistle
of Paul to the Galatians, Critical Commentary, pp. 300, 301).
Then, of course, the
writer of the letter to the Hebrews said. "Then are ye bastards and not
sons" (Heb. 12:8). Need I say more. I can, of course, as this is
but a sample. Just as super-refinement becomes coarse vulgarity, so
squeamish effeminacy in the use of terminology, under the guise of
refinement and spirituality, can so take the edge off the "sword of the
Spirit" as to blunt its effectiveness in combat with error. Such reminds
me of a blushing Simon Milquetoast who considers it coarse to discuss a
woman's legs in public, hence excites prurient interest by vulgarly
referring to her "limbs." He who becomes more dignified than the Lord is
just too dignified!
(To he continued.)
Truth Magazine, XVIII:30,
p. 6B7
May 30, 1974 |