"PILGRIMAGE OF JOY"

An Autobiography Of Carl Ketcherside

This autobiography was published first as a series of articles in Leroy Garrett's Restoration Review. Later it was issued in book form by College Press, a company associated with the Independent Christian Churches.  In my estimation this is the most valuable book one can read concerning the change movement currently troubling Churches of Christ.  This is the case because it reveals the roots and origin of the movement to change the faith, worship and practice of our churches.  Anyone who reads this volume will be convinced that what is being promoted today in many of our Christian schools and in scores of pulpits is the pure gospel according to Carl Ketcherside.

This book also throws considerable light on the later career of Daniel Sommer. The birth of Sommerism is described on pp. 89-90. The author enlightens us on the factious relations of the Sommer family which once exercised such an influence on the churches in the northern states. It was composed of men who knew the book but who were jealous of each other.  They fragmented both their family and congregations throughout the land (p. 199). It was Sommer whose radical legalism separated a group of small congregations who opposed Christian schools, benevolent homes for children and located preachers. Bro. K notes that Daniel Sommer "had a list of 100 things wherein the ‘new digressives' (i.e. us of the mainstream) were in error, where the old digressives were primarily wrong about instrumental music and missionary societies" (p. 88). Sommer's mantle fell upon the shoulders of Carl Ketcherside (p. 92). The long shadow of Bro. Sommer still affects many in our brotherhood. Most of the ultra-conservative splinter groups that have arisen owe their genesis to the influence of this man.

The first 30 years of Bro. Ketcherside's preaching career were spent as a leader in the camp of those who opposed most of what the mainstream of our churches were doing.  He had numerous debates with leading preachers and wielded considerable influence on all the churches in his camp. Leroy Garrett describes his transition "from that of a wing commander of a narrow sect...to that of an envoy of peace, unity and fellowship..." (p. 10). The book  records the "pilgrimage of one blighted by the factional spirit to one enlightened by an ecumenical outlook" (p. 13). In 1951 he experienced a spiritual conversion that took him from the extreme right of legalism to the extreme left of doctrinal liberalism.  But his conversion in no way dampened his dislike for the mainstream of the brotherhood. He simply moved his canon from the right to the left and devoted the rest of his career to its ruin.  He found a warm reception among the Disciples of Christ and Christian Churches, Pentecostal and Pre-millennial congregations. He was even well received by denominationalists of all sorts and kinds.  But it was only after his death that the seed he scattered took hold in the mainstream of our brotherhood. Today he is looked to as the pioneer of the change movement. If he could see the success of this errant movement, I am sure he would be delighted in the progressed it is having among our people.

This autobiographical study teaches us several interesting things:
I.   We see a demonstration of the pendulum effect in religious convictions. It is often the case when those that are legalistic and radically conservative realize the error of their way, rather than move to the middle where truth is found, they swing past it, landing far to the left and enamored with liberalism.  Extremism tends to breed extremism. This is the story of Bro. K's career.
II.  We see the success of patience and  a tireless effort to accomplish ones goal.  Ketcherside was a man who refused to be turned away or turned off and eventually gained a victory.  In the 50s and 60s  he was despised and rejected by virtually every preacher and church among us.  Now he is the hero of a sizeable number of our younger  brethren.
III. We see how a small step off the path of truth can lead one astray by miles. Bro. K. did not change from a ultraconservative to an ultra liberal overnight. But each step he took led him further from the confines of God's Word. At the end of his career nothing in the written Word restrained him.
IV.  We see the power of the printed page.  When Bro. K. could not get into our congregations to preach, nor into our colleges to spread his message, he published his ideas in a small journal called the Mission Messenger. He also wrote numerous books.  With the help of his sympathizers these materials were placed in the hands of college students and young preachers all over the country. Error, like truth, can be spread by publications.  While others talked, he wrote and published his tares and changed the thinking of many.
V. Although Bro. K. made a comfortable living as a preacher among the many churches under his influence, he made continuing warfare on  preachers who received a regular salary and churches who supported them.  He was able to adjust his conscience to accept financial support by not having a "contract or a fixed salary" (p. 97). At the same time he was quite at home and at peace with Christian Churches and their full-time ministers as well as any other kind of religious group that would invite him to speak for them.  He was very selective in his criticisms.
VI. In the second half of his career, Bro. K's thesis was that all preachers of Churches of Christ are guilty of partyism except for himself and those preachers who followed him.

VII.   We see his never ceasing hostility to the mainstream churches of Christ which refused to accept his leadership. In the first half of his career Bro. K fought mainstream churches because they would not allow him to impose his Sommerite doctrine of mutual ministry and anti institutionalism.  When he outgrew the limited confines of his small "sect" as he called it, he sought new, greener fields in ecumenical circles, but he still viewed the mainstream of churches of Christ with disdain and did his best to imposed his new views on them. In this he was highly successful. His personal mission was to give the mainstream churches grief. He made it a point to encourage every dissident, no matter, their stripe or kind, hoping to inflict wounds on the body.  He infiltrated through every break and tear to inflict his doctrine of change.  He encouraged and gave aid and comfort to every disgruntled dissident among us. He described those who left us as "‘freedom fighters' who had struggled with the dogmatism and sterile orthodoxy of the institution and had wrenched themselves free" (p. 304).  He obviously had himself in mind. In a visit to the Florida College lectures, he met privately with students in the dorm and at a church following the day's program. He wrote, that he had read "reports that at least fifty of the most brilliant students in the sect have been affected by my plea" (p. 285). Those who followed him were brilliant and those who refused him were sectarians.

Bro. K.  launched his new "spiritual crusade" in 1957. He entitled the 4th chapter of his book, "The Beginnings of Change." This term has become the logo of the liberals who embraced his agenda. The years he spent as a leader of his new movement were spent almost entirely working among Christian Churches at their conventions, colleges and encampments.  With all his talk about loving all who believe in Jesus, his acceptance of any and every kind of church that would have him come and speak, he maintained a inveterate hostility toward the mainstream churches of Christ that would not accept his leadership. He described his ecumenical years as a warfare:  "They were the first guns fired in my commitment to an unrelenting war against sectarianism and especially against my own" (p. 208). (It was churches of Christ that were the victims of his warfare.)  "I resolved not to go anywhere but to stay where I was, regardless of what happened" (p. 211), as he tried to impose his new ideology on the brotherhood. He says, "I urged all others to stay where they were until driven out" (p. 211). This was so they could help to implement the changes he desired. Bro. K.  pondered, "What would happen in such a place if there were just one person who ignored all of the divisions and simply recognized everyone who loved Jesus has his brother" (p. 295). This expressed his goal; to have one of his disciples at work in every church.  He was determined to infiltrate and occupy the citadels of the churches of Christ.

Bro. K. became the self-appointed representative of "non-instrumental" churches of Christ  representing us at virtually every gathering and forum of Christian Churches in the nation (p. 231).  Of course the others attendees either did not know, or refused to acknowledge, that he represented no one but himself and those forums were opportunities to promote himself and his new agenda.  At the World Convention of Churches of Christ (Disciples of Christ) in 1965, he spoke and notes, "I was the first participant from the non-instrument group" (p. 233). We can see that a multitude is following in his tracks.

Bro. K. was delighted when he was privileged to preach at the Riverside church in Wichita, KS where his polemic nemesis, Bro. G. K. Wallace, formerly preached. Robert Meyers was their preacher. He wrote, "Bob was not a traditional Church of Christ preacher, nor a preacher of Church of Christ traditions..." "Eventually Bob...became preaching minister at the Congregational Church in the city" (p. 243). Note that Bro. K. had no regret that Meyers had lost his fith and left he church, only joy that Wallace's former congregation had been overtaken. Bro. Meyers end is the ultimate destination of all change agents.

VIII. We can trace his ever expanding ideas of fellowship. He came to believe, "Wherever God has a child I have a brother or sister" (p. 17). In his context that of course included, Catholics, Orthodox, Pentecostals, etc. "It was a solemn thought to me that I had brothers and sisters meeting behind other signboards..." (p. 209).

IX.  We can identify his peculiar doctrines which became the theological basis of the modern change movement.

• "I began to wonder if I had ever been right upon anything" (209).

• His central message became, "The only unity that is ever possible is unity in diversity" (p. 17).

• "I became convinced that what we term ‘the Church of Christ' was not identical with the one body for which Jesus died, but had been fashioned into a party growing out of a historical attempt to restore the primitive order..." (p. 117). "... the first great error of the heirs of the reformers was the equating of the movement with the Lord's church" (p. 209). "The fantasy that we were exclusively the body of Christ on earth" (p. 209).  These words are parroted by every modern change agent.

• "Perhaps the most profound change came with the realization that the Church of Christ was simply another denomination and a sect..."  "We have been betrayed by circumstances into becoming a non-sectarian sect" (p. 279). "I was made to realize that the sheep of God were not all in any sectarian fold, but were scattered over the partisan hills" (p. 334).

• Bro. K "took the position that the body of Christ was given no title, and did not need a distinctive name since it had no rivals.  To name it was to denominate it..." (p. 194). To select a title that is found in the Scriptures gives added weight to the divisive arguments which always result. And, while the expression ‘the Church of Christ' does not occur in the sacred book, this does not deter some of the trivial arguments used to justify it as the name of the family of God" (p. 333). "It became obvious to me quite early that we had built up a system around the name we had selected and we were seeking to save a man by getting him into that system' (p. 333-334).

• "I dealt with the ‘five steps of salvation' and showed that we were not saved by climbing a little ladder into the kingdom..." (p. 211).  "We simply took the step of faith and the grace of God, as an unseen power drew us up into repentance and immersion..." (p. 211).

• "I discussed the nature of worship and showed the folly of the ‘five acts of worship' when everything that we did on earth under the sovereignty of Jesus was an expression of worship" ( p. 211-212). "I had grown up believing there were five acts of ‘public worship'..." "It was a mind-boggling experience, a kind of explosive high to realize that everything–and I do mean everything–was worship...how I mowed my lawn, fixed a flat tire, or shopped at the grocery..." (p. 336). "I could see clearly how the five acts (of worship jhw) had been blown up into something that could be used as a...baseball bat to beat people into submission" (p. 336).

• "We were no longer under a written code" (p. 220). "The new covenant was a person.  The apostolic epistles were not a code of jurisprudence. They were a collection of love letters" (p. 219). "The regarding of the New Testament Scriptures as a written code of laws has coupled with the idea that God provided an exact pattern to be meticulously followed in all ages has operated in such a way as to deny the lordship of Jesus..." (p. 285). "It does not take a lot of study to see the old covenant does not consist of 39 books, nor the new covenant of 27" (p. 337).

• "The brethren are guilty of profound error in their reasoning. They do not distinguish between the gospel of Christ and the doctrine of the apostles" (p. 286). "I learned the difference between the gospel and the doctrine of the apostles" (p. 337).  The gospel...the good news of what God did for us when we were helpless to do anything for ourselves. Its is to be proclaimed. It is God's message for the unsaved. One cannot evangelize saved people.  The doctrine is for those in the body.  It is not for the world any more than the gospel is for the church" (p.337).

• "The Spirit of God was illuminating me" (209).

• Speaking of the St. Louis Forum in 1975, "...we had twice invited women to appear as speakers in a survey of women's rights and privilege in the church..." (p. 331).

• Regarding fellowship he wrote, "It is foolish for mere weak mortals to talk about receiving one into the fellowship. It is absurd to talk about withdrawing fellowship from him' (p. 336).

• "I demonstrated that our restoration movement...was adapted to the cultural needs of man as the then existed on the frontier.  We no longer live in those times. We must launch a new movement dedicated to renewal , through recovery of the apostolic proclamation..." (p. 282).

• In Macomb, IL he found a small non-instrumental group and  "sought to get them to begin clearing the ground for accomplishing some things together with brethren in the Christian Church" (p. 320).

X. We are impressed by his pride in his own knowledge, genius, and importance. Bro. Ketcherside  was a man of massive ego. He confessed, "I think now that I thought more highly of myself than I ought to have thought" (p. 106).  He was a gifted and talented man who hungered for leadership in the church, but was "born" into the smallest, most narrow sect of the greater movement.  His entire career was devoted to making war on the main-stream of the church of Christ. He informs us that the Christian Church preachers at the North American Christian Convention gave him a standing ovation. They still do (p. 228). He tells us, "I became convinced that the position I held on fellowship was unassailable and invincible, and that all the objectors could do was to quibble and cavil" (p. 242). "I felt deeply that the things I was writing would some day be generally accepted. I was content to plant and water" (p. 214).  Concerning his paper, the Mission Messenger, "It was my contention that no one else could edit the paper as I had done. Thirty-seven years of trial and error had stamped it with the impress of my personality and thought' (p. 323). At Kendallville, Bro. K spoke on Heretics and Heroes. He "made the point that a heretic is a hero ahead of his time."  "Every thing that has been gained in religion has been gained by those accused of being heretics" (p. 229).

XI. We find his acknowledgment of his factious spirit.  "Our action served to create another schism in an already divided movement..." He admits, " I helped to create another arrogant and hostile party..." (p. 93). Although he admitted he was a factionist, a sectarian, and a party man, yet he feigned great offense when brethren wrote of his "Divisive Leadership" (p. 160).  He confesses, "I was among them as a factional representative" (p. 177). "It came home to me..with force that I had never really labored for the unity of all who believed in Jesus" (p. 177) "...I had actually ...contributed to the fragmentation of the ... movement..." (p. 177). "I had absorbed and sometimes even gloried in a sectarian spirit" (p 177). "I came to realize that I had been wrong all of my life in my usage of scripture to condone and defend our divisions" (p. 184).

XII. This book helps us understand why ACU and Pepperdine University have emerged as the leaders of the change movement.  Bro. K. visited the Broadway Church in Lubbock in 1966. Following the services Bro. Bill Banowsky arose and said of Bro. K, "There was one who was giving such a fresh and wholesome outlook to the churches, that he wanted to come and meet him, for the day was coming when men would say, ‘We had a prophet among us and knew it not' (p. 241). Today the Lubbock church is absorbed in the  change movement.  At the "Southern Christian (Church) Convention" in Kingsport, TN (1967), "There was no warm fraternization, except in the case of Bill Banowsky and Norvel Young, who seemed to appreciate being invited by the North American Christian Convention... Bill Banowsky especially treated the folks like brethren: (p. 244). Both Young and Banowsky later served as  president of Pepperdine. Bro. K. was invited to speak at the faculty meeting at Pepperdine (p.32). Pepperdine's chorus sang for his meetings at Westchester (p. 320). . In 1970, Bro. K. attended the ACC Lectureship "I was invited to speak one night at the Southwest Park Christian Church...a goodly number of professors from the school, together with several visiting speakers joined with a large delegation of students who were present" (p. 272). In 1977, he spoke at the Preacher's Worship at Abilene Christian College along with Harold Hazelip and Richard Rogers..." The position I advocated there is much more widely accept in these days" (i.e. 1990, how much more today!) (p. 296). Today we see the consequences of that flirting with the heretic.  Both ACU and Pepperdine University are in the camp of the change movement.... children  and heirs of Carl Ketcherside.

Factions that cause division in the church are always formed around influential preachers and editors. The change movement of our day had as it founder, earliest spokesman and leader Carl Ketcherside.  Everyone who is concerned about this destructive  movement would greatly benefit from reading this valuable book.