Principles of Heresy (Part Six)

In the 1950s and early 1960s, the churches of Christ were one of the fastest growing religious groups in America. The reasons were twofold: 1) We possessed an evangelistic zeal that brought about a measure of success, and 2) We thoroughly believed that we could show others Biblical truths they had not seen before concerning the nature of the church (kingdom), the requirements of worship, and the fact that the gospel included baptism for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). Ironically, some members of the church had determined to tear down every one of these truths from within at the very time others from without were responding to them. Such Christians are called liberals. While they promise liberty, they only deliver death.

Ira Rice he Root, was published in 1966; liberalism was already making inroads. One of the popular writers was Gary Freeman; we have been examining him and two of his four recommended friends. These we set aside for the moment in order to consider two works that had a measure of influence on members of the church in the 1960s.

The first of these, written by M.F. Cottrell, carried the title, Refocusing God, the Bible and the Church, published in 1962. Cottrell had become good friends with W. Carl Ketcherside, who exchanged his Anti views for liberal theology. Ketcherside published a magazine called Mission Messenger\later.

[I heard Ketcherside speak in the mid-1980s. His sermon contained autobiographical information. He claimed that he changed while in Europe. He claimed that he had carried around a lot of bitterness as an Anti but that his emphasis now was one of love. \affirmed. After the meeting, another brother, Don, who had traveled the 40 miles with me to hear him speak, engaged Ketcherside in conversation. The situation was this: Don worked with someone who continually was touting Ketcherside and Mission Messenger; so, he wanted to discuss a particular point with him, which he did. The septuagenarian immediately took offense that he was being questioned. Don quoted to him a paragraph that he had published, and Ketcherside asked him, \Don informed him that the quote was from Mission Messenger. \don\You wrote it.\anything further. We always kidded Don that he was the one person that Carl Ketcherside didn love.]

At any rate, Cottrell and Ketcherside, who were kindred spirits, persuaded one congregation in the Denver area to become liberal (Axe on the Root, Volume III 12). But what are the contents of Cottrell\fault with the Lord\everywhere one can look.

He charges, for example, that our faith is juvenile, and our concepts of God are antiquated. \could he possibly mean?\We ask. He expounds by saying, \Juvenile faith is always afraid of test or exposure, and unconsciously that is what many people today are afraid of.\He adds that \any threat to our concepts is almost equaled with catastrophe\(3:14).

What? We are afraid? Could he possibly be ignorant of all the debates that preachers in the Lord\church have had? Could anyone possibly be so oblivious to the fact that we test our beliefs constantly? Of all the religious groups on earth, who cites Acts 17:11 (Luke commending the Bereans for searching the Scriptures daily) or 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22 (\prove all things\) any more frequently than we do? We are the ones who do not defend any manmade doctrine; our emphasis has always been to determine what the truth is. So, we have no idea who these people are who are afraid of test or exposure.

Cottrell continues to mystify brethren with his definitions. He taught that real faith contains \less emphasis upon the mere intellectual concept\of God while permitting one to \see\God. This is better than faith that comes \only by hearing of the ear\which \keeps God at a distance\(3:15). As Brother Rice pointed out, this statement should be contrasted with what Paul said in Romans 10:17. Cottrell goes on to say that Job had \hearsay\faith while Abraham, Moses, and David \actually worked with the Creator\(3:16). Presumably, then all Christians today would have hearsay faith\even though we have the evidence God provided for us to believe (John 20:30-31). This path heads to Heresyville\and that\no hearsay.

10%?

James 2:10 next came under attack\at least the way church members understand the verse. James points out that if anyone keeps the whole law but offends in one point, \he is guilty of all.\Cottrell feared that many brethren think they must be \one-hundred percenters,\which makes brethren live in unnecessary fear that they are not measuring up (3:17). Two responses to this claim come to mind.

First, will brethren feel less uptight if we convince them that 90% compliance is all right? How about keeping three out of four laws? Can we relax a little then? How about if we choose to obey only half of His commandments. That way we could love God with all our heart but still hate our neighbors. How about if we just show 10% compliance with God\laws; no one should be nervous about that arrangement. Second, does Cottrell not think that we believe in God\grace for when we fall short? God knows we are human and sometimes weak (which is no excuse for not trying), and He forgives our shortcomings.

Who Are Christians?

Not only does Cottrell decry law, but he challenges John 4:23-24. In arguing for a broader, more liberal view, he suggests that \both God and His fellowship are quite larger than we have heretofore dreamed possible\and that He might \sustain a divine relationship via love and grace in lieu of \law and scriptural worship\\(18). What are we to conclude here\that God seeks true worshipers who worship Him in spirit and in truth\but He\willing to cast all that aside for someone who really loves Him? Never mind law\any law\even the perfect law of liberty (James 1:25), so long as someone really loves Him. Did Cottrell forget 2 John 6, which combines law and love? They are not mutually exclusive concepts: \This is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, that as you have heard from the beginning, you should walk in it.\

So that we might not miss the point, Cottrell uses an emotional appeal to try to establish his case. He writes of missionaries who go to a country where we would say, \There are no Christians.\He thinks he is showing the folly of our thinking by this example.

Yet after he arrives should he suffer an acute appendicitis it is always one of those \unregenerated sectarian\medical missionaries who removes his appendix while some nice, \but not-a-Christian\nurse waits upon him (she\sectarian too, you know) in a hospital that \unregenerated sectarians\built before both he and his religious movement were born. It comes with poor grace for people to come along claiming missionary work where the real missionary work was done hundreds of years ago (18).

Hmm. Well, he can\be speaking of 7th-Day Adventists, since they did not come into existence until the 19th century; however, they do build hospitals both here and abroad. But if an SDA doctor did remove an appendix from one of our missionaries, would that make him a Christian? The Bible mentions things that are essential to salvation (faith, repentance, baptism), but where is the verse that says the removing of an appendix saves someone from his sins? Or is this an example of someone who really loves God being exempt from obeying God\laws\even those regarding salvation?

What does the quoted paragraph teach? It implies that sectarians are Christians. What else can be the point? Therefore, they who teach \faith only\salvation must be Christians because they have devoted medical personnel! Would a Catholic staff be Christians, too? What if the doctor in this scenario were an atheist, as were those who built the hospital\say, in Russia? Would his successful operation cause him to be saved? Ironically, liberals are always proclaiming that we cannot be saved by good works\until they come to someone like the good doctor\and then they want him to be saved on his own merit!

All of the compliments are given to sectarians. Cottrell saves the harsh criticism for us. According to him, we are \Pharisaical lawyers,\\Bible technicians,\\scriptural legalists,\and spiritual \gourdheads\\(a reference to the tree that shaded Jonah) (21). As some brethren have pointed out, you have never been loved until you\been loved by a liberal.

The Epistles Don\Count?

The next quote from Cottrell\book will leave most people in a state of shock and disbelief.

While admittedly the gospels are descriptive, they are nevertheless dealing with the absolute concrete wherein life is depicted at its very best. Such is hardly the case when one studies the epistles. Having been written as emergency teachings and advice to correct certain errors of the hour, little opportunity was left for such inspired apostolic supplement to the Great Life. Hence, the greater issues of life as dealt with by Jesus had to give preference to various individual and congregational problems, which it appears often constituted of marginal error. While this was of course important, it points up what is stated elsewhere, namely: \All truths are equally true but not equally important\\(22).

Brother Rice correctly called attention to John 8:32; 17:17, and Matthew 4:4. These verses give no hint that some truths are greater than others. (Many use the term gospels as short for the gospel narratives of Jesus\life. There is only one gospel.) So. what does the quoted paragraph advocate?

The gospel narratives are more important than the epistles. (We don\know how Cottrell ranked Acts and Revelation.)

The epistles were supplemental to the Gospel and were necessary to put out little brush fires, but Jesus dealt with the greater issues of life.

The errors dealt with in the epistles were of a marginal nature and were not nearly as important.

The response to such assertions ought to be, \Who says?\Jesus told the apostles, \I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now\(John 16:12). He did not add, \But they\not that important anyway.\They also comprise the perfect law of liberty.

Our manner of teaching, Cottrell alleges, is to teach one gospel account of Jesus\life, then dash off to Acts for conversion examples, and then spend all of our time teaching the epistles. In doing so, he declares that \we gnawed at the marginal issues of \meat,\and other relatively unimportant concepts. As a result, we majored in minors\(23). Really? So, learning about elders leading the church is a minor concept (1 Tim. 3:15)? What of the kinds of spiritual gifts and the purpose for them (1 Cor. 12-13)? What about the second coming of Christ (1 Thess. 4:13-17)? Where else is the man of sin described (2 Thess. 2)? How should false gospels be handled (Gal. 1:6-9)? Where else do we learn that we are Christian soldiers (Eph. 6:10-17)? Is the loving relationship Christ has with the church a \minor\concept (Eph. 5:22-33)?

It just may be that Jim Woodroof read Cottrell\book and repeated this idea nearly three decades later when he wrote the following in The Church in Transition:

However, the Old Testament is but a prelection or shadow of the glory of Christ revealed in the Gospels (Heb. 10:1). Acts and the Letters are a reflection of that same glory. But the actual glory of the Lord is revealed in the Gospel records themselves\.

You won\get much nourishment eating the shadow or the reflection of a ham sandwich. Neither will you get any power plugging an electric motor into the reflection of a power outlet\.

Plugging into any part of the Scriptures, except the Gospels, expecting there to find power, is like plugging an electric motor into a reflection of a power outlet (34).

Who knows when this view first originated\or with whom? One thing is certain; whoever it was did not get the idea from the New Testament.