Truth Magazine

By Ken Green

The Danger of Self-Love, Paul Brownback, 157 pp. Moody Press, 1982. Price $5.95

“Self-love.” “Self-esteem.” “I’ve got to be me!” “Positive self-image.” “Self-worth.” “Feel good about yourself!” “Look out for number one!”

Many of the modern-day religious publications give much space to this concept of being fond of yourself.

Having been personally influenced by such writings, I approached this volume with reservations. As I studied the material, however, I began to realize that some valid points were being expressed. I do not agree with all of the conclusions that Brownback has reached, but I am convinced that humanistic philosophy has influenced the great emphasis currently being given to the subject of self-esteem.

The primary thesis of this book is that the focus of Scripture is the exaltation of God and not man. He who boasts is admonished to “boast in the Lord” (1 Cor. 27:3 1). Brownback says, “What I was hearing from the advocates of self-love seemed to me to be opposed to this flow of Scripture. It appeared that Psalm 139:14 was virtually being rewritten to read ‘Iwill praise me, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.”‘

The writer begins with “some initial concerns.” He shows that this teaching is one that was virtually unheard of in the evangelical world until about 1974. It is not quite that new as an idea, however. “It was a prominent theme in secular psychology in the 1940’s coming to full bloom in the 50’s and 60’s.

Brief descriptions are then given of the rise of evolutionary thought, and the shift in modern thought to existentialism. Paul Vitz, in his volume, Psychology as Religion: The Cull of Self- Worship, notes: “The central concept (of existentialism, K.G.) is probably that of ‘being there’ (Dasein), by which is meant the intense fundamental awareness of one’s experience.”

The effects of this approach to life are briefly traced as to the individual and society. Particular notice is given to its effects on the different aspects of psychology, i.e., behaviorism, Freudian psychology, neo-Freudian psychology (inspired by men such as Abraham Moslow, Carl Rogers, and Erich Fromm).

Brownback believes that the writings of William James have served as an impetus for much of what is being said about “self” today. Some quite interesting quotations are given from James’ works on psychology.

A chapter is devoted to “The Self’-Theory of Erich Fromm. ” Fromm was one who pioneered the concept of “unconditional love.” Acceptance is not to be based in any way on performance. This finds application in self-love, as well as love of others.

Another chapter is given to “The Self-Theory of Carl Rogers” who was deeply influenced by Fromm, and who took the ball and ran with it. Some of the recent writings in Evangelical publications are then quoted and discussed. Bruce Narramore’s books (You’re Someone Special: Freedom from Guilt) are given more review than any others, but writings by James Dobson (Hide or Seek); Anthony A. Hoekema (The Sensation of Being Somebody) are also criticized.

I am not convinced that a fair evaluation has been given to all these writers. I have not read all the books cited, but I have read the writings of Dobson and feel that the self-worth and self-love he advocates is biblically based.

Some quotations are given from Narramore that I certainly find objectionable. But these appear to be based on unscriptural doctrines that are common to the evangelical world, rather than humanistic psychology. For example the quote: “When God looks on us, Ile sees us ‘in Christ.’ He doesn’t see our dirt. He sees us just as clean and pure as Jesus Christ Himself.”

The author of this book considers current teaching on self-love as a substitute, having “taking the place previously occupied by teaching on the victorious Christian life or sanctification. Ten years ago when a person came to his pastor with a sin problem, the pastor probably would ha ve opened the Word of God and shared the liberating truth of the power available to the believer through the Holy Spirit to live in victory.

“Today there is a good possibility that the pastor would remind him of his need to accept himself. . .”

I don’t know Brownback’s doctrinal presuppositions on sanctification, but I have a notion that I would not agree with them. And I’m sure there are “pastors” who would not encourage one with “a sin problem” (Don’t we all have that?) to repent and renounce the sin; but the writers critically reviewed in this book would certainly not be among them.

It is observed that in 2 Timothy 3:1-5, “lovers of self” is given as one of the characteristics of the perilous times. The Greek word is a compound made up of the word “self” plus philia, “the type of love described by contemporary self-theory, a feeling type of love.”

A biblical alternative to self-awareness and self-love is suggested by Brownback: “We believe the biblical alternative to the wave of concern over self-image is to have no self-image at all. ” He lays stress on the fact that we will be best adjusted when we forget self, or die to self, and live for God and others. The yoke of the ego is exceedingly heavy. The yoke of Christ is one of humility, selflessness, and service.

Discussion is given in this book to the Greek words agape and philia and the different concepts they denote. But I don’t believe enough attention is given to this in application. The idea of Matthew 22:36-40 implying self-love is discredited by Brownback. I believe, however the passage does necessitate agape love for self. This love is not the “fondness for self” that is the main focus of the book, but a true and healthy concern for self inseparably linked to one’s concern for others.

The author overstates his case at times, in my opinion. But for the most part, I feel that he has made an important contribution with this work. He has helped me see this matter from a different perspective. After all, the Lord did say,

“Blessed are the poor in spirit.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 2, pp. 54-55
January 15, 1987

By Irven Lee

“He hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead” (Acts 17:31). “When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: and before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: and lie shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left” (Matt. 25:31-33). “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad” (2 Cor. 5: 10).

These verses on the judgment are familiar to Bible students. We need to know that we do not make the final decisions (see 1 Cor. 4:3-5). We are to be doers of the law and not set ourselves up as if we were infallible judges, “Everyone of us shall give account of himself to God.” “Why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at naught thy brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ” (read Rom. 14:1-13). Are some too willing to announce before the time what the destiny of those who may not follow some scruple will be? The dogmatic announcer may have something in his eye. He may be able to see the other man’s eye better than he can see his own.

We are to contend for the faith and warn against soul destroying sins (read 1 Cor. 6:9,10; Gal. 5:19-21; Col. 3:5,6). The Judge has spoken on these matters, and we are free to quote Him. We may also quote what He has said about preaching some other gospel (Gal. 1:6-10). It is not a sin to use great plainness of speech as we reprove and rebuke (2 Tim. 4:1-5; Tit. 1:13; 2:15). Man is to use righteous judgment in discerning the difference in good and evil (Jn. 7:24; Heb. 5:12-14). Man is going too far when he becomes too reckless in announcing the eternal destiny of each individual that passes by. There may be too frequent use of the expression: “You are going to hell, ” or ” I f you do not, you are going to hell.” Are we sure in each case? Do others not know that we do not sit on the throne? We might warn more effectively if we would stick more closely to our teaching job and leave the decision making to the Master.

On the other hand, some seem only to know the first two words in Matthew 7:1 – judge not. These people overlook the context and the teaching of the Lord. We should all desire to be so well taught and of such disposition that we may be “perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). We are expected to have skill in the proper type of judging (1 Cor. 6:2-5). Righteous men have ability to evaluate the evidence in many matters and make wise decisions.

We do not know the secrets of all hearts, and we do not have a full comprehension of the mind of God, so we need to restrain ourselves in separating the flock into two groups and preparing a list for the Lord. He may not accept all our decisions. The church is in much distress now over many questions that are being discussed with more heat than light. Knowledge that “puffeth up” may be more common than love that edifies or is upbuilding. It may be hard to distinguish between the judging that is very necessary and that which is forbidden. There is a big difference in the two types of judging, and we need to learn what is proper.

One is not necessarily in grievous error if he does not agree with me in some matter of expediency. We need to be aware of the consolation, comfort, fellowship and mercy to be found in the hearts of Christians. “Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 2:3-5). This is not the mind of bitter men who so often shout at their brethren: “You are going to hell.” Let us have more love in our hearts for our brethren and let us not judge them too harshly.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 2, p. 46
January 15, 1987

By Johnie Edwards

A lot of preachers that I know have left full-time preaching to do other things! There are some factors that brethren need to know that contribute to a good number gospel preachers leaving full-time work.

Poor Attitude Toward The Work of A Preacher

Some churches look upon the preacher as but a hired hand. In fact, while teaching a Bible class during a gospel meeting, a member referred to preachers as hired hands. This disturbs me, for the Bible never refers to a gospel preacher as a hired hand. He is called an evangelist (Acts 21:8); a minister (1 Tim. 4:6), a preacher (1 Tim. 2:7), but never a hired hand! Too many, I am afraid, think only of the work of a gospel preacher as one being hired to do much of the work that they need to be doing.

Lack Of Personal Concern

Many times a preacher moves his family to a new area where he knows no one. He is in a strange place, away from his own family and he gets lonesome. You see, the members know each other, many are near their own families and they just forget about the preacher. The members get together for family gatherings and the preacher is not usually included. One preacher told me that he and his family were out sick for a couple of weeks and not one person called to check on them. This seldom happens to most families. Young preachers especially need to be shown more personal care than most church are willing to show. When Paul said, “but that the members should have the same care one for another” (1 Cor. 12:25), this includes the preacher and his family!

Taking The Preacher For Granted

There are some churches without preachers because they took their preacher for granted. They knew he was always there and always did his work, so they just sort of forgot about him. The members never invite him to their homes for a meal or other gatherings they might have, so the preacher gets to thinking that nobody cares. A preacher might put out a bulletin for a number of years, study hard, preach good sermons, write newspaper articles, do a radio broadcast, teach classes, make Bible class material, do the work of an evangelist and go for weeks, months or even years without one single person saying, “I like the bulletin,” or “I think you are doing a good job,” or “If I can be of any help, be sure to let me know” or some gesture that lets the preacher know that you are really behind and are supportive of the work he is doing. Preachers are very human and need encouragement as does everyone else. What about taking the time to show some appreciation of yours?

The Lack of Financial Security

A lot of good preachers have been forced out of full-time preaching due to the lack of financial support for their needs and security for their later years. A lot of preachers don’t mention this because brethren are sometimes quick to judge the motives of the preacher as “just preaching for money.” A man can work in a factory for 35 years and end up with $75,000.000 to $100,000.00 or more in retirement benefits while a preacher may preach that long and not even have a rent receipt. Most preachers are not paid enough to allow them to save for retirement. We must remember that “the laborer is worthy of his hire” (Lk. 10:7). We would do well to think on these things and make whatever amends we need to.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 2, p. 51
January 15, 1987

By Mike Willis

Our society has an attitude toward worship that teaches that God is obligated to accept whatever worship we offer to Him. Some in our society devise their worship to please themselves and then expect God to accept it.

This concept is contrary to everything God has revealed about worship. God has revealed how men should worship Him. Men please God in worship when they worship according to the revealed pattern of worship. Whenever man steps outside the pattern of divine worship, he displeases God.

A past generation of Christians heard many lessons on this theme and understood the dangers of changing the worship of God. I am not so sure that is the case today. During the Christmas season just past, I saw several references to liberal churches of Christ participating in the celebration of Christmas in one manner or another. The 14 December 1986 issue of Bering Today, published by the Bering Drive church in Houston, Texas contained the following notice:

Our Christmas Celebration This Sunday

This Sunday is our Christmas Celebration. A number of wonderful, uplifting activities have been planned for our church family to enjoy together.

CHILDREN’S CHRISTMAS PARTY for all children, 9:45 to 10: 10 a.m. in the Children’s place.

MORNING WORSHIP SERVICE at 10: 15 a.m. “Born in a Manger To Sorrow and Shame,” Bill Love, Speaking.

CHORUS PROGRAM: “A Christmas Rose,” immediately following morning worship.

CHRISTMAS DINNER – catered by the Table Servants Ministry

COLLECTION DAY for food and money for our Outreach Christmas Baskets. . . .

From the Central News Bulletin (21 December 1986), published by the Central Church in Nashville, Tennessee, the following is taken:

Children Enjoy Christmas Party

The children of the Central church, including those of our members and all the children who ride the buses, enjoyed a very happy occasion last Saturday afternoon when they met at the church building for the annual party . . . . The highlight of the occasion was the presence of Santa Claus . . . .

The Tennessee Magazine (November/December 1986), published by the Tennessee Electric Cooperative Association, announced that on 18 November 1986, the Main Street Church of Christ in Springfield, TN would present a Christmas Demonstration on “A Time To Enjoy.”

The 6 November 1986 issue of the Gospel Advocate contained a dicussion of the celebration of Christmas from two points of view. Thomas W. Franklin wrote that the celebration of Christmas was as unauthorized in worship as instruments of music. However, he recommended that “the best way to handle Christmas, Easter or any other unauthorized and non-biblical special day is to ignore it and continue with our regular worship and teaching programs” (p. 668). He criticized the practice of using the Sunday before Christmas as a day to “lambaste the observance” of Christmas because it develops “negative views toward the church” (p. 660). Hence, his point of view was to say nothing about the practice and continue with the regular program of worship.

Larry Stalley wrote an opposing point of view. He observed that “just because something is not commanded in Scripture does not mean it is prohibited.” Then he added,

Fourth, when my daughter asks for a piece of bread, I don’t give her a stone; when she asks for a fish, I don’t give her a snake (Matthew 7:9,10). Why is it that when people want to rejoice about Christ’s birth during December, many in the chruch try to discourage it by their comments and teachings? Visitors come to church asking for a sermon about Jesus, but instead many are given a stone. One man who visited the church on Christmas Sunday wanted to hear an appropriate sermon regarding Jesus. Instead, the preacher spoke on adultery. He told himself he would never come back; he had asked for fish and had been given a snake.

Personally, I believe we abuse opportunities when we don’t take advantage of “the spirit of Christmas.” Instead of drawing people nearer to the Lord, we often repeal them by our anti-Christmas spirit and our negative approach . . . . By no means should anyone make the observance of Christmas a commandment (Galatians 4: 10), but on the other hand, no one should prohibit its celebratory spirit by all the people because of the lack of commandment (Colossians 2:16; Romans 14:4-6).

Neither editor Furman Kearley nor query editor Guy N. Woods made any comments about either article.

In addition to this, I noticed in this year’s bulletins a conspicuous absence of articles which show that the religious celebration of Christmas is an unauthorized practice which is a perversion of worship. In the past, gospel preachers used this occasion to teach Christians that the denominational celebration of Christmas was an invention of men which renders worship vain. This year, I saw only two or three such articles. Does this lack of teaching in the bulletins reflect a similar absence of this teaching in the pulpit? If so, what lies ahead for us is what our liberal brethren are presently facing – the first acceptance of the religious celebration of Christmas in their corporate worship. We need to be reminded of the danger of tampering with divinely revealed worship.

Examples of Worship Which God Rejected

1. Cain’s worship. Genesis 4 reveals the instance when Cain and Abel brought sacrifices to God. Cain “brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord” (4:3) and Abel “brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof” (4:4). Abel offered his sacrifice “by faith” (Heb. 11:4) and “the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering” (Gen. 4:4). One can only do something “by faith” when he has a revelation from God and obeys the revelation communicated to him (Rom. 10: 17). Hence, Abel’s worship was accepted because he offered his worship according to the pattern God revealed to him. Cain’s worship was rejected by God.

2. Nadab and Abihu. The Lord revealed that the priest was to take fire from the altar of burnt offering to light the incense on the altar of incense (Lev. 16:11-14).

And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord (Lev. 10:1-2).

Though these men offered worship, their worship was not accepted because it was not according to the pattern revealed from God. Tampering with divine worship is serious business, as shown by God’s immediately smiting these men with death.

3. Jeroboam (1 Kgs. 12:25-33). When Jeroboam lead the Ten Northern tribes in rebellion against Rehoboam, he instituted another kind of worship. He established worship places in Dan and Bethel, instead of Jerusalem. He brought in idols made of gold in the image of calves. He made priests from every tribe and changed the feast days. “And this thing became a sin” (1 Kgs. 12:30).

Jesus Taught On Worship

There are many who gather around a manger on December 25th to reverence baby Jesus who have no interest in hearing what the adult Jesus taught about worship. In Mark 7:1-13, Jesus warned against perverting divine worship with the traditions of men.

1. He distinguished the traditions of men from the commandments of God (Mk. 7:7-8). He apparently thought that men could distinguish the two.

2. He stated that those who teach the traditions of men make hollo w pretenses of worshipping God and render their worship vain. He said, “This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from men. Howbeit in vain do they worship men, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Mk. 7:6-7).

3. He observed that men will lay aside the commandments of God in order to keep the traditions of men (Mk. 7:8). Men have a greater allegiance to their own inventions than to the revelation of God.

4. He observed that men make void the word of God through their traditions. Men’s traditions released men from obligation to obey the commandment of God (for examples, note the action and purpose of water baptism, observing the Lord’s supper, etc.).

Consequently, Jesus commanded that men worship God according to the revealed word of God rather than departing from the word of God in order to follow the commandments and traditions of men.

Conclusion

If Christians ever begin to look upon the religious observance of Christmas as a harmless practice of the word, they will soon decide to join the world in observing the day in worship to God. When that occurs, Jesus’ teaching regarding worship will have been rejected in favor of the commandments and traditions of men.

Sometime, brethren, whether it be in December, January, or July, we must teach our world, our children, and the brethren the danger of perverting the worship of God. In order for a generation to grow up seeing no harm in the religious observance of Christmas, all that must occur is for those of us who know better to fail to teach on the subject. What have you heard lately on this subject?

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 3, pp. 66, 86-87
February 5, 1987