The Restoration Summit (as it was usually billed), held in Joplin, Missouri, on August 7th-9th, 1984, involved 50 members of the Independent Christian Church and 50 from the churches of Christ. It is ironic that almost from the beginning, several leaders backed away from the word summit, saying that it was a bit pretentious. Many referred to it as merely the Joplin Unity Meeting. The previous article (9-7-14) took us up to the last day of the meeting, in which several expressed unity, but none of it was based on anyone’s decision to give up the instrument nor to adopt it. The only discernible basis for unity was simply for both sides to continue doing what they had already been doing but have fellowship anyway. This concept is not Biblical and was not acceptable to some of our brethren who had been invited to participate. All quotes here are from the original article I wrote and published in the Southside Mirror on October 28, 1984 (16:44).
Rubel Shelly
It has already been reported that ten discussion groups had been established. In each one were five from the churches of Christ and five from the Independ-ent Christian Church. One of the ten members of each group had been appointed leader and undoubtedly had certain guidelines to follow. Rubel Shelly was one of the group leaders.
At one time, Rubel Shelly had been well known for his outstanding preaching and teaching in the churches of Christ. He appeared to be solid and right down the line on doctrinal, as well as moral, issues. His book, Young People Make Moral Decisions, remains an excellent study book on morality. In the early 1980s, questions emerged concerning what he had begun teaching, and he made an appearance at the Freed-Hardeman lectures, in which he assured everyone he had not changed—and that he still taught the same gospel that he always had. That was not true.
In 1984 (the same year as the Joplin meeting), he wrote, I Just want to be a Christian (re-published in 1986). Brethren who read the material knew he had changed. My review of that book can be found by typing in the title and the author on the Internet. About the third entry will be “Rubel Shelly’s Teaching on Fellowship: An Analysis of I Just Want to be a Christian.”
Not only did Shelly’s changing views show up in his book, they also showed up in Joplin. His group took it upon themselves the goal of trying to define what a Christian is. Below is what that group, under Shelly’s guidance, came up with for a definition.
A Christian is one who “accepts Christ by grace through faith, as expressed in repentance and baptism.” Is this your definition, reader? Have you noticed what is conspicuously absent? Nothing is said about baptism being for the forgive-ness of sins. Lest anyone think I’m being picky in insisting on “for the forgiveness of sins” being spelled out, please know that the secretary of Shelly’s group, after giving the “group’s” definition, somberly added, “That includes more than those who are in this room.”
Those in the room were members of the churches of Christ and the Independent Christian Church. Whom did he mean? The Disciples? Naw! Mormons? No, I rather suspect he meant Baptists, though he did not say it. One man from our group suggested we consider Baptists as brethren. Some even among us are suggesting that those who are baptized to follow the Biblical example instead of for the forgiveness of sins should be considered Christians. That is not true. One must obey the gospel and know his sins are being forgiven as he is baptized. No one can ignore truth and its relation to salvation; Jesus said it was essential (John 8:31-32). Baptism for just any reason cannot save anyone. It appears that Rubel Shelly is trying to open the doors of fellowship wider than God has authorized (16:44).
That assessment, made over thirty years ago, was accurate. Shelly was indeed attempting to broaden the borders of the kingdom. Before long he was fellowshipping as brethren those who were immersed for just any reason, as well as those who had not been at all. In fact, Shelly has “progressed” so far that he will fellowship just about anyone except faithful brethren. Looking back on what happened at Joplin, it was merely an invitation to compromise and to broaden the base of fellowship beyond Biblical borders. Some in the Independent Christian Church were already willing to accept various members of denominations as brethren, which showed that they have no true understanding of the distinctiveness of the Lord’s Church in the first place and that, in the second place, they think of themselves as a religious denomination.
We in the true churches of Christ do not, and never will, share the view that the existence of religious denominations is acceptable to our Lord Who prayed for unity of those who believe in Him (John 17:20-21). Furthermore, we cannot extend fellowship to those who have never been saved from their sins. Salvation is not determined by men but by God. If no repentance occurs (as is often the case with “Sinners’ Prayers”), no salvation exists. If a person is not baptized (immersed) in water in order to have his sins removed, he just got wet. Salvation can only come as the result of obeying the truth (John 8:31-32), and the truth is that one is buried in the water as a person laden with sins. While immersed, the blood of Jesus cleanses and washes those sins away (Acts 22:16; Rev. 1:5). When raised up, the individual has been washed, sanctified, and justified (1 Cor. 6:9-11). Sprinkling cannot accomplish that. Being baptized to join the Baptist Church does not accomplish that. Christians cannot fellowship those whom God has not cleansed.
The Case of the Disappearing Tract
It is not unusual for any lectureship or special event to have some religious materials of interest available for those in attendance. Several tables had various items. One brother had brought several hundred copies of a tract about a speech that H. Leo Boles had given at a unity meeting in 1939. He probably did not have permission from the organizers to display them, and when the tract was called to the attention of these men, they unceremoniously removed them. Probably, they were well within their rights to do so, but one cannot help but wonder, “What were they afraid of—the truth?”
Brother Boles had pointed out that unity could not exist while the instrument was being used. It is a simple principle to understand. We cannot conscientiously worship with the instrument. They say they can worship with or without it. No one needs to be a genius to figure out how to have unity under these conditions.
- Carl Ketcherside
Although most brethren have not heard his name today, in the past the majority of brethren probably did. He was among those who initially was more conservative than the Scriptures. He once taught, among other things, that a preacher could not stay in one location, and he based this on a false distinction between the words gospel and doctrine. He preached a very limited view of fellowship. Later, he flip-flopped entirely and became so liberal that he would fellowship just about anyone.
I heard him speak in the 1980s, and he attributed his change to a sort of mystical experience he had somewhere in Europe. However, he maintained his gospel / doctrine theology; he just changed the applications of it. Now he advocated that we must only be united on what pertains to the gospel, but on doctrinal matters we can disagree. Nowhere in the New Testament can such a dichotomy be found. Acts 2:42 by itself refutes the idea. Sometime on Wednesday a box containing manila envelopes appeared on one of the tables. No name was attached to it, but they were free.
Each packet (and I removed six of them) included four items. The largest was a book by Ketcherside titled “…That the world may believe…”: A Study of the Covenants. Also enclosed were two issues of Ketcherside’s Fellowship, which were magazines dated 1973 and 1974. The last item, surrounded by a red cover, was a copy of “The Lunenberg Letter,” in which a lady from that city in Virginia had asked Alexander Campbell some very pointed questions about the role of baptism in salvation (such as discussed above). He did not answer her directly and in fact went a long way around the barn to avoid answering. All of this originally appeared in the Millennial Harbinger of 1837 (16:44).
The three items by Ketcherside simply contained expressions of his false doctrine. The copy of the Lunenberg letter, however, was included in an effort to suggest that brethren not be so rigid when it comes to fellowship. Campbell took a loose view of baptism in the letter and suggested accepting those who were pious but not baptized properly over those who had been but were cantankerous brethren. However, the lady from Lunenberg was correct in what she wrote, and Campbell was wrong. Again, it was clear that someone had an agenda in setting out this propaganda. The original article continued with that thought.
What were these Ketcherside materials doing at the unity meeting? I could not imagine, for there can be no faster way to kill a unity meeting for most of us than to invite Carl Ketcherside to participate in it. Well, he wasn’t on the program, but who had brought his materials? I asked a few people; no one seemed to know anything about how they came to be there. This was indeed puzzling.
During the announcements Thursday morning, we were informed that College Press would be open for any of us to tour or browse through. With visions of book bargains dancing in my head, I hurried over after the final “Amen,” in hopes of finding several Restoration Reprints. After meeting several friendly people, including DeWelt’s wife, I got down to business (16:44).
Don DeWelt was the owner of College Press, located in Joplin, Missouri. They published new books, but they specialized in publishing books from some of the restorers in the 19th century that would have been unavailable otherwise. Some of these were by Abner Jones, Robert Milligan, J. B. Briney, and others. Some were historical narratives, and one covered five of Alexander Campbell’s debates. Whereas Alan Cloyd had been one of the organizers on “our” side, Don DeWelt had been one of the key men on “their” side. As friendly as the folks at College Press were, they had actually figured in the answer to the mystery.
While enjoying myself in this fashion, some men carried in boxes of materials. One box held manila envelopes. Surely it couldn’t be. “What are those?” I asked innocently.
“Some materials by Brother Ketcherside,” came the answer. My heart sank. “I have one, thanks.” To myself I added, “Actually I have six.” So! The Ketcherside propaganda had been supplied by College Press. Sigh. And for what purpose?
No matter how sincere are the people; no matter how noble the motives; no matter how the joys of fellowship are emphasized; no matter how much love is preached—the Bible still says there is but one faith. Unity can never be achieved at the expense of truth and doctrine (Eph. 4:5; Jude 3-4; 2 Tim. 3:8; Rom. 6:16; 16:17; 2 John 9-11) (16:44).
Aftermath
Except for one year when there were two, there has been an annual Restoration Forum every year since 1984. Many of the men invited to the Joplin meeting never attended another meeting, having discovered that no sincere effort toward unity was being made. One of those was my friend from Lincoln who had encouraged me to attend the meeting. He remained a faithful gospel preacher, as surely some others did, also.
Out of curiosity, when Restoration VII was held in Lincoln, Illinois, I attended a few sessions to see what had happened in the intervening years. Mostly, it was aimed at getting those who do not use instruments of music to compromise. It was surprising to note that Olan Hicks was present (although he was not scheduled to speak). He is mostly known for his errors on marriage, divorce, and remarriage. Sixteen years later, when I debated him on this subject, he confessed what many already knew—that he had no problem with using instruments of music in worship. However, it was a revelation to many of those present, and he lost whatever credibility he had with the audience on the basis of his stance on that issue.
According to an article from the Goshen Christian Church, whose minister is Kim Huffman, some additional things have occurred with respect to unity meetings. In an article called, “The Restoration Movement,” we find the following summary.
Efforts have been made to restore unity among the various branches of the Restoration Movement. In 1984 a “Restoration Summit” was held at the Ozark Christian College, with fifty representatives of both…the Christian churches and churches of Christ. Later meetings were open to all, and were known as “Restoration Forums.” Beginning in 1986 they have been held annually, generally in October or November, with the hosting venue alternating between the…Christian churches and churches of Christ. Topics discussed have included issues such as instrumental music, the nature of the church, and practical steps for promoting unity. Efforts have been made in the early 21st century to include representatives of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). These efforts followed the “Stone-Campbell Dialogue,” which was a series of meetings beginning in 1999 that included representatives of all three major U.S. branches of the Restoration Movement. The first full meeting in 1999 included six representatives from each of the three traditions. Meetings were held twice annually, and in 2001 were expanded to include anyone associated with the Restoration Movement who was interested in attending.
Remember how in 1984 the Independent Christian Church was eager to disassociate itself from the Disciples of Christ? Only fifteen years later, many wanted to include them in Restoration discussions. This is the way that Satan works: he gets people to depart one step at a time. When they are comfortable with one change, he then introduces the next step (and so on). The Disciples of Christ may have split off from the original idea of “restoration,” but that is exactly the point. They do not agree with the fundamental principles of respect for the Word of God; they deny its teachings at every turn. One of their men told me more than 40 years ago that he had read a very convincing paper that suggested that Joseph rose to power in Egypt because he was a homosexual—an idea that is as preposterous as it is blasphemous.
We have nothing in common with such thinking, and it is foolish to waste one’s time considering any kind of unity with them. The Bible still teaches baptism for the remission of sins and the concept of one church, along with the belief that truth exists and that we can know it. Either we stand with the Scriptures, or else we can believe and practice anything we want. It will not matter what—since anything else would be wrong. Brethren ought to remain firm and not seek unity with the devil.