Truth Magazine

By Sewell Hall

“Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?” This was the question Nicodemus asked the Chief Priests and Pharisees when they were condemning Jesus on nothing more than hearsay evidence. Nicodemus had actually been to Jesus and heard from His mouth what He taught. He knew that quite a different impression was to be had by giving Him an objective hearing.

The report has been widely circulated that members of the church of Christ think they are the only ones who are right, the only ones going to heaven, and that all others are bound for hell. The first impression in the mind of the average person is that this is a claim by one little denomination to superiority over all others, and to some kind of special connection with God. It is understandable that such a claim would be considered the ultimate in bigotry and narrow-mindedness. It is regrettable that such impressions have so often gone without correction.

Sometimes these impressions have remained because members of the church of Christ have been unwilling or unable to clarify their position. In other instances, persons hearing the charges have turned away in disgust, refusing to hear any explanation from those accused. If you, however, have taken this brief tract to read it through, you may justly claim that spirit of fairness possessed by Nicodemus. And we believe, too, that whether or not you agree with all that is said, your impression of the church of Christ will at least be altered.

The Problem Of Definitions

First, we need to understand that the same words may have different meanings for different people. A truck driver who reports driving his tractor sixty miles per hour may not be believed by a farmer who is unfamiliar with the language of trucking. The word “tractor” means one thing to a truck driver and quite a different thing to a farmer.

In John 2:19 we read that Jesus said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” Verse 21 tells us that “He spake of the temple of his body.” But His enemies did not take it this way. They assumed that he was speaking of the temple in which they worshiped, and they considered it a threat against that holy place. They used this as one of the charges against Him when He was on trial for His life (Matt. 26:61).

When we use the term “church of Christ,” most people assume that we refer to a denomination by the name “Church of Christ.” Let it be stated as emphatically as possible that if a denomination exists today named “the Church of Christ,” membership in it is in no way essential to salvation. In fact, membership in such a denomination would constitute factionalism such as was practiced by the Christians in Corinth who claimed to be “of Christ” (1 Cor. 1:12), and would actually jeopardize the soul of the individual. By “church of Christ,” we mean something entirely different.

The Church of Christ In The Bible

The meaning of the term “church of Christ” is not to be found in a modern encyclopedia, nor in a list of modern churches. Rather it is to be found in the Scriptures.

Jesus promised, “Upon this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18). This promise He fulfilled, and from the second chapter of the Acts of the Apostles through the remainder of the Bible we read of the church which He established.

The first local assembly was in Jerusalem. It had its beginning when the first gospel sermon was preached, and when the first persons heeded its call to leave the world, to obey Jesus, to be saved by His death, and to follow Him through life. The word translated “church” originally meant “called out,” so these people who were “called out” of the world were termed “the church.”

Soon this same gospel was preached in the city of Samaria. The results were the same: souls heard the call, left the world and were saved by Jesus. There was then a new body of called out people, a new assembly of saved ones -another church, the church in Samaria. This was repeated hundreds of times in city after city, always with the same results another church. In a few years there were churches in all major cities of the world. Wherever there were saved people, they were called the church in that place.

How were these churches designated? Among other things, they were called “churches of Christ.” For example, we read in Romans 16:16, “The churches of Christ salute you.” The same term is found in Galatians 1:22 in many of the more modem translations. Why were they called this? Because the saved people who composed these local assemblies had all been called out of the world by Christ; they belonged to Him; they were following Him. They were, therefore, “the congregations of Christ” or “churches of Christ.”

But these local assemblies, or churches of Christ, were all alike. Each assembly, being composed of saved ones, was like every other assembly in composition and loyalty. And as the saved in any given community were the church in that community, so all the saved in all the world were the church in the world-wide sense. In that sense, there was but one church. It was the body of Christ (Col. 1:18), and Ephesians 4:4 assures us there was but one body. Jesus called it “my church” (Matt. 16:18).

Was Membership In That Church Essential?

Leaving for the time being the question: Does one have to be in the church of Christ to be saved? let us ask it another way: Did one have to be member of that church to be saved?

Church membership and salvation were synonymous. Reporting the beginning days of the church are these words in Acts 2:47: “And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” Addition to the church was not the result of a decision by the saved man to “join the church,” or a decision by an official to “receive them into the church.” When one was saved, he was, at the same time, by an act of providence made a member of the church. If all who were saved were added to Christ’s church, that is exactly the same as saying that only those who were in the church were saved. They were not saved because they were in the church; they were in the church because they were saved.

The church was the object of God’s purpose. Those people whom God saved, His church, were the demonstration of God’s manifold wisdom – the real reason for the creation of all things. Ephesians 3:9-11 tells us that God “created all things by Jesus Christ: to the intent that now unto principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Acts 20:28 tells of “the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood.” And in Ephesians 5:25-26, we read that “Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water by the word.” No other body of people could claim these distinctions; nor could any individual claim them who was not a member of that body.

The church was the body of Christ. “And he is the head of the body, the church” (Col. 1:18). Christ reconciles men “unto God in one body by the cross” (Eph. 2:16), and “he is the Savior of the body” (Eph. 5:23). These blessings were promised to none outside that body or church.

The church was the fullness of Christ. The New Testament contains a veritable catalog of blessings to be enjoyed in Christ. It speaks of the “salvation which is in Christ” (2 Tim. 2:10). It tells us that in Him “we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins” (Col. 1:14). “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1). “In Christ Jesus ye are all the children of God by faith” (Gal. 3:27 RSV). In Ephesians 1:3, the apostle Paul sums it all up by saying, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ.” But in verses 22 and 23 he calls the church “the fulness of him that filleth all in all.” Using a physical illustration: If an inner tube is inflated until it is the fullness of the tire, it is then true that all the air in the tire must be in the inner tube. If the church was the fullness of Christ, it follows that all blessings in Christ were in the church, and that all who enjoyed the blessings in Christ were in the church. I To say that salvation was only in the church is no mor e than to say that salvation was only in Christ.

Apostles and early Christians considered it essential. Dr. Adam Clarke, a noted Methodist commentator, wrote in his comments on Colossians 4:5:

. . . The church of Christ was considered an enclosure, afield, or vineyard, well hedged or walled. Those who were not members of it were considered without, i.e. not under that special protection and defense which the true followers of Christ had . . . As to be a Christian was essential to the salvation of the soul, so to be in the Church of Christ was essential to being a Christian; therefore it was concluded that “there was no salvation out of the pale of the church.”

Was this a narrow-minded attitude for them to take? It was neither narrower nor broader than Jesus. It included all who had come to Jesus in obedience. The church was not some earth-based organization or human fellowship. It was rather, as we have seen, the term used of all who had been called out by Jesus and saved. When early Christians said that “there was no salvation out of the pale of the church” they were not excluding a single person whom Jesus had saved, for they believed that Jesus had added every such person to His church.

Is Membership In That Church Still Essential?

Many people today are willing to accept the conclusions reached in the above paragraphs. But somehow they feel that things have changed. The Standard Manual for Baptist Churches, by Edward T. Hiscox, puts it this way:

It is most likely that in that Apostolic age when there was but “one Lord, one faith, and one baptism,” and no differing denominations existed, the baptism of a convert by that very act constituted him a member of the church, and at once endowed him with all the rights and privileges of full membership. In that sense, “baptism was the door into the church.” Now it is different. . . .

We are at loss to understand just why it should be different. Though we acknowledge that many counterfeits have appeared, are we to suppose that God now recognizes more than “one Lord, one faith, and one baptism”? And does the Lord no longer “add to the church daily such as should be saved”?

For our own part, we confidently affirm that He who is “the same yesterday, and today, and forever” (Heb. 13:8) still adds to His church daily all who are saved. Consequently, we believe that every individual on earth who has been saved has been added to that same church to which He added the saved in the first century A.D. That church the Lord called “my church,” and it is His church now. Those not in His church are not in it because they have not been saved. Therefore all who are not in the church of Christ are lost. Or, to put it another way, only those in the church of Christ are saved.

We equally affirm that only the members of the church of God are saved; that only members of the church of the first born are saved; that only members of the house of God are saved. These are all scriptural designations for the same body of people who are also called in the Scriptures the churches of Christ. By this we do not mean that one must be a member of some denomination called “the Church of God,” “the Church of the Firstborn,” or “the House of God.” Neither do we mean, as noted in our introduction, that one must be a member of a human association or denomination called “the Church of Christ.” We would oppose membership in such an organization. What we do mean is that one must be among that body of saved people whom the Scriptures designate by these terms.

Questions Many Ask

Whenever we have opportunity to explain these thoughts to our friends, we usually find them agreeable to our conclusions. But there are further questions which they wish to ask.

Are you referring to the Universal Church? The church we read of in the Scriptures is universal. In fact, it is the only church that can claim that designation, for it alone includes all who are saved. Yet, it does not exactly fit the picture of the universal church which is in the mind of most people. Note the following:

1. It is commonly supposed that the universal church is simply a composite of all the denominations, but Christ’s church is not that. Modern denominationalism with its multitude of bodies, ecclesiastical authorities, faiths, and forms of baptism cannot possibly be the church of Christ described in the Bible, for in those days the apostle Paul wrote, “There is one body . . . one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4:4,5). Additional bodies, authorities, faiths, and baptisms are without the authority of Christ who is the head of His church and they win not be tolerated within it. The Spirit warns that those who practice “factions, divisions, parties … shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal. 5:20, 21, ASV).

2. Many suppose that faith in Christ is the only requirement for membership in the universal church. But, according to the Scriptures, men and women had to be saved to be members of the church, and salvation required more than faith alone. The people in Jerusalem who later composed the first of Christ’s churches were already believers when they asked, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37) The apostle Peter, inspired by the Spirit, did not tell them that they were already saved just because they believed in Jesus – that they were already in the church. Indeed not! He told them of something more that they should do to be saved:

Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost…. Then they that gladly received his words were baptized, and the Lord added unto them that day about three thousand souls (Acts 2:38,41).

It is clear from this that they were not added to the church until they were “baptized for the remission of sins.”

Are not all churches, Churches of Christ? The Lord did not provide us with a board of examiners to certify churches of Christ, nor would we attempt to set up ourselves in such a capacity. However, the Lord did supply us with a description of His church by which it should be possible to identify a church of Christ or to recognize a counterfeit. Observe the following characteristics of His church:

1. It must be composed of saved people. The passage studied in the last paragraph as well as many others (e.g. Mark 16:16, Acts 8:12; 16:30-33; 17:30; 22:16) demonstrate that to be saved one must believe in Jesus, repent of sins, and be baptized for remission of sins. Thus, the church is made up of those who have complied with these conditions.

2. It must be “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone” (Eph. 2:20).

3. It must abide in the doctrine of Christ, for to go beyond means loss of fellowship with God (2 Jn. 9).

4. It must be “endeavoring to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace,” acknowledging that “there is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God” (Eph. 4:4-6).

5. It “must worship Him in spirit and in truth” (Jn. 4:24), for Jesus said, “In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Matt. 15:9).

6. It must be careful to maintain its obedient relationship to Christ lest He “remove thy candlestick out of its place” (Rev. 2:5).

It cannot be reasonably said that a church is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets” when its organization is nowhere described in the Scriptures. A church can scarcely be said to abide in the doctrine of Christ if its doctrines can only be sustained by appeal to new revelations and books of recent origin. A church hardly acknowledges “one body, . . . one lord, one faith, one baptism” if it agrees that its own organization is not the body of Christ; if it has officers besides Jesus to serve as lords over the churches; if it must formulate its own creed (faith) to stand beside or in the place of the faith of the gospel; or if it offers, as some do, to “baptize you any way you want it.” Worship cannot be “in spirit and truth” if much of the activity involved is unknown to the truth of God. Yet, these things are characteristic of the overwhelming majority of the churches about us.

Perhaps more significant than all of this, however, is the fact that they are made up of individuals who have never complied with the conditions of salvation as they are set forth in the Scriptures. Many have never been “buried with Him by baptism” (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12). Many who were immersed were not “baptized for remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). They believed they were saved the moment they believed, before baptism, and that their baptism was merely a sign and an initiation into the “visible church. ” God’s word offers no salvation on these terms. Therefore, there is no reason to suppose that such individuals have been “added to the church” of Christ.

Must One Be A Member Of Your Church of Christ?

This question assumes existence of an association of churches of Christ, holding to some peculiar doctrine, practice, or organization which would separate them from other churches of Christ. For a third time, let us insist that if such an association exists, we are opposed to membership in it. Every individual who is saved anywhere on earth is added by Christ to His church (in no sense my church of Christ). If a group of such individuals worships and works together in such a way that He acknowledges them as His church, then surely nothing more than this is essential to salvation.

Must One Be Called A Church of Christ?

No individual should be called a church of Christ for the word church suggests an assembly or group of people, not an individual. Members of Christ’s church in Antioch of Syria were called Christians (Acts 11:26). This is the fitting name for any individual to wear who has been saved by the Lord.

Must One Call Himself A Member Of The Church Of Christ?

We have shown already that “church of Christ” is not the only scriptural designation for the Lord’s church. A saved individual may use any of the other scriptural terms to designate the church to which he has been added by the Lord. It would actually be unwise to use the name “church of Christ” exclusively. However, if one has been added to the Lord’s church, he should limit his membership to that church. He should not join some church which has been organized by men. Jesus said, “Every plant that my heavenly Father planted not shall be rooted up” (Matt. 15:13).

Must One Accept Your Doctrine And Practice?

We make no claims for the doctrine and practice of every organization wearing the designation “church of Christ.” Some such organizations give little attention to the teaching of the Scriptures. The doctrine or practice which must be accepted is that taught in the Scriptures. If a given church is following the doctrine and practice taught in the Scriptures, it is following the doctrine and practice which all must follow. If it is following some other doctrine and practice than that taught in the Scriptures, it is wrong regardless of the name it may be wearing.

Conclusion

As individuals who have believed in Jesus, repented of our sins, confessed publicly our faith in Him, and been baptized for remission of our sins, we believe that Jesus has saved us and added us to His church. We have never affiliated ourselves with any human organization, nor pledged ourselves to support any human creed or decision of any assembly of men. Hence, we call ourselves simply Christians, members of Christ’s church – or churches of Christ.

In urging others to do the same we are making no claim for any organization of our own but only for the body of Christ. We make no boast of salvation to be obtained through fellowship with us. “He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord” (2 Cor. 10:17). We call upon no one to accept any doctrine or practice of our own, but only to accept the doctrine and practice of the Scriptures and to help us, if we have missed it, to find it. We propose no name of our own choosing, but urge that all who are content to follow Jesus wear only His name. “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

We urge you to comply with the conditions of salvation stated by the Lord and His apostles. If there is a body of saved ones meeting near you home, following faithfully the Lord’s plan for His church, meet and worship with them. If you find no such assembly, recognize that you are, nevertheless, by virtue of your being saved, a member of Christ’s church. If you are saved the Lord has added you to it. Do not join some human church, but try to teach others the way of salvation. When they obey the Lord and are added to His church, you can worship and work together, taking Christ as your head and the Scriptures as your guide. You will then be the church of Christ in your community. It is possible that you might never have contact with any other assembly anywhere in the world, but if you are united to Christ you are united with all others everywhere who are united with Christ. If they are doing the work of Christ in their communities as you are doing the work of Christ in your community, then you are having fellowship with them in Christ.

This is the unity for which Christ prayed: “neither pray I for these alone, but for them also that shall believe on me through their word: that they all may be one; as thou Father art in me, and I in thee, that they may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou didst send me” (Jn. 17:20,21). All who are one in Christ are in His church only those in His church are saved.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 23, pp. 710-711, 724-725
December 4, 1986

By Steve Wolfgang

Readers of this journal are no doubt well aware of the biblical teaching on miracles (including glossolalia or the ability to speak in languages other than one’s native tongue). The Scriptures clearly teach that when such ability was present in New Testament days it was indeed miraculous, consisting of the ability to speak in a known language which one had not studied and which could be understood by those who had learned that language; that it was available to apostles and to those upon whom they laid their hands; that its purpose was to confirm that the speaker proclaimed a message from God; and that such confirming signs were temporary and would “fail, cease, and vanish” when God’s revelation was complete (Acts 2:4-16; 8:12-19; Heb. 2:14; Mk. 16:14-20; 1 Cor. 13:8-13). These concepts are well-known to careful Bible students, and it is not the purpose of this article to discuss them.

However, one is sometimes confronted with the claims of a cheap imitation of New Testament miracles in the form of modern-day “tongue-speakers. ” An argument frequently made by “speakers” of the gibberish or pseudo-languages which they pass off as “tongues” is that “it works,” that is, that many people can learn to speak such :’languages” without training. Thus, it is argued, such ability to ‘speak” must be construed as being produced by the Holy Spirit never mind that it is still not a true, understandable language as in the New Testament.

A recent study by Canadian psychologists puts the lie to such claims. The study is reported in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology (95: 1), February 1986, pp. 21-23. Psychologists at Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario invited practiced glossolalists into a sound studio, where they recorded their utterances. These tapes (audio and video) were “obtained from speakers who defined their glossolalia as religious activity, belonged to religious groups that encouraged glossolalia, and had been speaking glossolalia, regularly for over two years” (p. 22).

The psychologists then assembled a volunteer group of 60 Carleton University undergraduates (ages 18-44 years). Of the 36 men and 24 women, “none spoke glossolalia or had heard it spoken,” and several students who had heard or spoken glossolalia were excluded from the group. This group of non-glossolalists was then given the following assignment:

Your task today is to listen to a 1 -minute tape of a person speaking pseudo language. As you listen to the tape, try to get a sense of the language rather than trying to memorize certain phrases. Notice any rhythm, repetitions, or patterns in the utterances. Immediately afterward you will be asked to produce pseudo language yourself for a 30second period. This will be taped. Pay close attention.

After listening to a sixty-second taped sample of glossolalia, the subjects were asked “to do their best to speak pseudo language continuously for 30 seconds.” These “baseline” attempts were likewise tape-recorded.

Half of the subjects (having previously been designated as a “control group”), were then dismissed and asked to return in several days. The other half began immediately to undergo the first of several training periods, in which they listened to further samples of glossolalia, by both male. and female demonstrators, using both audio- and video-tape. Modeling and “how-to-do-it” type instructions were given, and then the subjects were asked to try to speak pseudo language themselves for thirty seconds, during which they received encouragement and direct instruction and feedback from the experimenter. A second training session several days later followed similar procedures, but utilized demonstration samples from different speakers. In both training sessions, the subjects in that group were allowed a “practice” session to see how well they could imitate or speak in pseudo language.

Following their own training sessions, each person in the experimental group was asked to make a final attempt to produce a thirty-second sample of glossolalia. The control group, which had heard only the initial demonstration and had not been trained in the interim, returned and heard only a final one-minute sample, following which each individual was asked to produce a thirtysecond continuous sample of pseudo language.

Then the “baseline” sample (taken from everyone in the control group and the experimental group alike) and the final sample from all the subjects were judged by

Two judges, one of whom was blind to subjects’ treatment or session, rated each baseline and postlest pseudolanguage segment. Both judges who were experienced listeners of religious glossolalia, and in addition, the judge who was blind to subjects’treatment or session had, for over a year, been a speaker of religious glossolalia.

The results are intriguing.

The present findings are consistent with the social learning hypothesis that glossolalia, can be acquired with relative ease by almost anyone with the requisite motivations. All of our subjects were unfamiliar with glossolalia, prior to their participation in this study. Nevertheless, after only two brief training sessions that included practice at glossolalia, encouragement, and modeling, 70 percent of them spoke fluent glossolalia throughout the entire posttest trial and all of the remainder spoke recognizable glossolalia throughout most of the posttest interval. Importantly, 21 percent of our subjects spoke fluent glossolalia. after their one baseline exposure. This finding is consistent with reports indicating that, in religious groups, some individuals begin speaking glossolalia on their first try and after only brief exposure to other glossolalics (Samarin, 1972).

Although our posttest was only 30 s long, it is worth noting that in naturalistic religious settings, even experienced tongue speakers often maintain uninterrupted glossolalia for only relatively short intervals, and they frequently intersperse their glossolalia with meaningful utterances of varying length (e.g., thanks or praises to God; Samarin, 1972). Moreover, glossolalia invariably involves a high level of redundancy. By periodically reorganizing relatively few basic sounds, even the novice speakers can continue glossolalia for extended periods of time if they so choose (Samarin, 1972). For example, the two experimenters in the present study learned glossolalia preexperimentally by using the same procedures that were later administered to subjects. With relatively little practice, both experimenters found it easy to maintain fluent glossolalia for as long as they wished.

Our findings that glossolalia can be easily learned through direct instruction, along with demonstrations that tongue speakers can initiate and terminate glossolalia. upon request and can exhibit glossolalia in the absence of any indexes of trance (Samarin, 1972; Spanos & Hewitt, 1979), support the hypothesis that glossolalic utterances are goal-directed actions rather than involuntary happenings.

The references cited in the articles include William J. Samarin’s interesting books, Tongues of Men and Angels. The Religious Language of Pentecostalism (New York: Macmillan, 1972). As is often the case with psychological research, this study merely confirms in “scientific” dress what many individuals who have observed glossolalia or otherwise dealt with modern-day tonguespeakers already knew by observation or even intuition: Twentieth-century pseudolanguages are learned behavior, acquired through motivation to imitate practiced glossolalists. They are not even biblical in the sense that what is uttered is not true language, but pseudolanguage – and not even this can be attributed to the power of the Holy Spirit, but rather to the “desires of the flesh and of the mind” (Eph. 2:3).

Guardian of Truth XXX: 23, pp. 707-708
December 4, 1986

By Mike Willis

Formerly known as “one of the seven deadly sins,” pride is rarely mentioned in discussions regarding the building of Christian character. Webster defines “pride” as follows:

1. An overhigh opinion of oneself; exaggerated self-esteem; conceit;

2. The showing of this in behavior; haughtiness; arrogance;

3. A sense of one’s own dignity of worth; self-respect.

Everyone must have a sense of self-respect. We learn to take a sense of pride in our appearance in order that we not dress slovenly or in filthiness. We maintain our cars, homes, and lawns in a respectable manner. However, when selfrespect becomes exaggerated, pride develops. Man begins to think too highly of himself. Warning of the danger of pride, an old Chinese proverb says, “He who stands on a pedestal has nowhere to step but off.”

Pride Is A Sin

Pride, an exaggerated, overhigh opinion of oneself, is a sin. “An high look, and a proud heart, and the plowing of the wicked, is sin” (Prov. 21:4). It is the mark of a generation without reverence for God (Prov. 30:13; Rom. 1:30). It stems from a corrupt heart (Mk. 7:21-23).

Pride Is An Avenue of Temptation

In describing how the Devil tempts men to sin, John includes the “vainglory” or “pride of life” (1 Jn. 2:15). There are many things in life in which men take pride; through these avenues the Devil tempts us. Some take pride in their (a) appearance; (b) education; (c) race; (d) job; (e) possessions (cf. Prov. 30:7-9). They brag about these things and want to display them to others.

What Pride Does

When one considers the fruits of pride, he will better appreciate why God considers it an abomination (Prov. 6:17). Here are some of its fruits:

1. Pride dethrones God in one’s heart. In Romans 1:30, Paul describes the Gentiles as “despiteful, proud.” The word “despiteful” (Greek: hubristes) means “an insolent man, ‘one who, uplifted with pride, either heaps insulting language upon others or does them some shameful act of wrong… (Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, pp. 633-634). William Barclay further described this character:

The basic evil of hubris is that when hubris enters into a man’s heart that man forgets that he is a creature and that God is the Creator (More New Testament Words, pp. 77-78).

A proud man has such as exalted view of himself that he dethrones, God as Lord over him.

2. He exalts himself. Paul told the Christian “not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think” (Rom. 12:3). The wise man wrote, “It is not good to eat much honey: so for men to search their own glory is not glory” (Prov. 25:27). Putting oneself up on a pedestal, even if limited to a pedestal in one’s own mind, is sinful and will lead to destruction.

3. He develops an attitude of superiority toward others. Thinking himself to be better than others, he begins to “look down his nose” at those he judges to be inferior to himself. His snobbish behavior makes him obnoxious to his fellow man (cf. the description of four intolerable things in Prov. 30:21-23 which describe men and women who, having been exalted, become proud).

4. He becomes a braggart. Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks (Matt. 12:34). The man who is full of pride in his heart begins to brag about that in which he takes pride. He becomes a boastful man, a braggart (cf. Rom. 1:30; 2 Tim. 3:2). This makes him more obnoxious to his fellow man.

5. He becomes self-willed. Proud men – men who exalt themselves and feel superior to their fellow man – usually become self-willed men. They think, “My way is best; my way is the only way; my way or else.” This leads to contention (Prov. 13:10), strife (Prov. 28:25), wrath (Prov. 21:24), and sinful speech (Prov. 14:3). Many churches across America are torn asunder by proud, arrogant, self-willed brethren who would rather see the church divided than to give an inch in judgmental matters. Such men are not qualified to be leaders in the church (cf. Tit. 1:7).

6. Pride prevents conversion. In order for a man to enter the kingdom of heaven, he must be “poor in spirit” (Matt. 5:3). He must become as a child (Matt. 18:3). So long as man has the feeling that he is rich, increased with goods, and has need of nothing, he will never recognize his true spiritual condition – wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked (Rev. 3:17). Not sensing his need of salvation and feeling self-satisfied, the proud man will not seek forgiveness of his sins through Christ.

7. Prevents confession of sins to God and others. Some people are too proud to admit that they were wrong. They lack the humility to go to those against whom they have sinned and say, “I have sinned against you; please forgive me.” They refuse to bow their stubborn necks to God and seek His forgiveness. Humility is confused with weakness, in many people’s minds.

8. Prevents service to others. Some are too proud to do the menial tasks in serving the needs of others. Jesus was the “God of the towel,” the God who took a towel, girded Himself, and washed His disciples’ feet. The proud man expects his feet to be washed but has no intention of lowering himself to wash another’s feet. Hence, the proud man expects others to serve him but he will not serve others.

Pride Leads To Destruction

The proverbs repeatedly emphasize that pride precedes destruction:

When pride cometh, then cometh shame: but with the lowly is wisdom (Prov. 11:2).

Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall (Prov. 16:18).

. . . he that exalteth his gate seeketh destruction (Prov. 17:19).

Before destruction the heart of man is haughty, and before honor is humility (Prov. 18:12).

A man’s pride shall bring him low: but honor shall uphold the humble in spirit (Prov. 29:23).

Paul warned, “Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor. 10:12).

Pride Is Hated By God

A proud look is included in the list of seven things which are an abomination to God (Prov. 6:17; cf. 16:5). “The Lord will destroy the house of the proud” (Prov. 15:25). Inasmuch as pride is hated by God and the proud will be destroyed by Him, men should learn to view pride as God does and to hate it. “The fear of the Lord is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate” (Prov. 8:13).

King Herod: An Example of Pride

A New Testament example of pride is recorded in Acts 12. King Herod killed James the brother of John. He then put Peter in prison, planning to kill him. The Lord miraculously delivered Peter. Later King Herod went to Caesarea. There Herod arrayed himself in royal apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration to the people. They shouted, “It is the voice of a god, and not of a man.” Herod accepted their homage.

However, God smote Herod “because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost” (Acts 12:23). Truly, his pride preceded his destruction in the most literal sense.

Conclusion

Let us remember our place in God’s creation: we are creatures who have sinned against an holy God. Let us not be guilty of self-exaltation. Rather, let us be humble children, subjecting ourselves to the will of the Lord who made us.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 23, pp. 706, 726
December 4, 1986

By Tom M. Roberts

In an age of almost unbridled institutionalism, it is difficult to speak particularly about the local church and our responsibility to it without being misunderstood. Advocates of church-supported institutions take for granted that any encouragement given to the local church automatically includes encouragement for the institutions they have attached to the local church. On the other hand, opponents to the local church (a.k.a. the “organic institutional body corporate – functional unit”) charge one with supporting “churchianity” instead of Christianity. Nevertheless, we must recognize and discharge our responsibilities in whatever way the Scriptures indicate, whether or not we are misunderstood. Let’s try to define our limitations and then proceed with an understanding of our subject.

Not Institutionalism

When one speaks of duties to the local church, it should not be assumed that such duties extend to any and every business enterprise that some promoter attaches to the treasury of the Lord’s church. We love our idols! Whether the college-in-the-budget, a local day-care center, benevolent society, or some other human enterprise, such institutions can scarcely be distinguished from the Lord’s church in the minds of their supporters. Colleges mix and mingle their buildings and budgets in such a fashion that one cannot tell where the college work leaves off and the work of the church begins. Personnel from various institutions act as though they are working for the church when they promote the affairs of the institution that pays their salaries. To criticize the institution is to criticize the Lord! To work for the institution is to work for the church; to work for the church is to work for the institution. This is the typical institutional mind set, the reason why institutions end up controlling the church, the “tail wagging the dog” syndrome so familiar to students of church history. If one doubts this, do a personal study of the development of Texas Christian University and its connection to the Christian Church. Let it be clear that we do not have this kind of concept in mind when we speak of local church responsibilities.

Not Church Universal

When one is baptized, he is added to the Lord (Rom. 6:3), which is the same thing as being added to the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). This is the aggregate of all the saved, “the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven” (Heb. 12:23). The Ethiopian nobleman belonged to this body (Acts 8:26-40) though he, in the beginning, belonged to no local church. This body of Christ, of which we speak specifically, has no obligation to meet, perform any congregational activity, appoint world-wide officers, collect a treasury or do anything as a collective body. It exists as a spiritual entity, so far as we are informed in the Scriptures, as a body denoting spiritual connection to Christ. Only the Lord knows their number and only He can add to or take away their name from that list which would be equated with the Lamb’s Book of Life (Rev. 3:5).

There are individual activities which we ought to do because of our relationship to Christ in this universal body. I am a Christian (and a part of the universal church) 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and every action of my life should reflect my spiritual connection to Christ. As a Christian, I vote, choose a job, perform as a citizen, act as a husband ought, and do all human activities under the realization that Christ is in me and I in Christ (1 Pet. 1:13-4:19).

Admitting this does not negate that there is a relationship in the local church that is in addition to those responsibilities that I have as a member of the universal church. As one who might move from place to place, I may leave one local body and join one in another city (Acts 9:26) while never ceasing to be a Christian nor ceasing to belong to the “general assembly” of saints.

The Local Church

But the Scriptures do teach that there is a relationship to the Lord we sustain in the local church. Those who would deny its existence collide headlong with many clear statements to the contrary. That the local church is an entity is seen from many factors, including: (1) local identity: the Corinthian church as distinct from the Jerusalem church, the Roman, the Philippian, etc.; (2) corporate action: as in discipline (Matt. 18:15-17), or the “lump” (1 Cor. 5:6), and “being gathered together” (v. 4) as distinct from individual members at Corinth; (3) principalagent relationship: the church chose a messenger to act for it in a distant place (2 Cor. 8:23); (4) ability to appoint servants and submit to overseers (Acts 6:3; 14:23; Tit. 1:5); (5) to pay wages (2 Cor. 11:8); (6) to have a treasury (1 Cor. 16:1, 2; 2 Cor. 11:8); (7) to have an individual candlestick assigned to a local church by the Lord (Rev. 1:20); and (8) the use of collective nouns, giving a group of people a single identity: “church,” “body,” “it” (1 Tim. 5:8), etc. Though not an exhaustive list, this should provide proof that God expects us to belong to a local body of believers and work within this group in an assigned way in service to Him. What, then, do I owe the local church?

Obligations To The Local Church I owe to the local church the same kind of allegiance which I give to the Lord, for it, too, is the body of Christ. True, there are many problems in the local fellowship due to the imperfections of us all. However, I must be able to differentiate between the human side of the church and the divine side. Whenever I think of a church having troubles, I think of the Corinthian church. But Paul did not give up on it because of its internal struggles, choosing rather to work to solve their sins. Note his tender address to this troubled group of saints in 1:2: “unto the church of God which is at Corinth, even them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints . . .” Contrast this attitude with that of the “church hopper” who jumps from church to church every time there is a problem, never staying at one congregation long enough to solve anything. They have no true allegiance to fellowship or unity, choosing to run away rather than mediate, to flee rather than stay and solve a problem. Such allegiance is cosmetic and superficial, itself a problem rather than a solution. Additionally, there are some whose allegiance is mixed: as much loyalty to the world as to the Lord. They love the church, but not in hunting season; they want to be used, but not when the fish are biting; they want to be active for the Lord, but not on Sunday night. Like Demas, their true colors finally show (2 Tim. 4:10). 1 owe better allegiance to the local church than such divided loyalties.

I owe to the local church the exhortation that we mutually need to remain steadfast. “And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and good works” (Heb. 10:24). There are many pitfalls in our walk with the Lord. Each of us can become discouraged. The Lord proved His wisdom when He made provision in the local church for us to help one another. Even wild animals know there is strength in numbers. I am told that wild asses will form a tightly knit circle with heels outward to ward off attacks of wolves. There are times when I need the help that comes from being with others “of like precious faith.” We neglect to receive a blessing when we fail to be with other Christians, exhorting and being exhorted. You see, the world is constant in its exhortation: TV, worldliness in fellow-employees, the sinful environment to which we are exposed daily, etc. The world has a grinding effect on faith and we need to have it renewed constantly. My brethren in the local church need it and so do I.

I owe the local church faithful attendance to its work. This will include participation in all its efforts, but especially so in opportunities of worship. Show me a one-hour-a-week Christian and I will show you a weak Christian. From the ranks of those who attend but one hour a week (or a month, or less) come no elders, no teachers, no preachers. They cannot be depended on for any kind of work on a regular basis. They are not steadfast (1 Cor. 15:58) except in their unfaithfulness. When the local church has a crisis, they are never present to help share in the work to overcome the adversity. They expect the building to be kept open, cooled, heated, cleaned, paid for and all the services staffed by those who see that the job is completed, but the church cannot count on them. I say it with sadness, but it needs saying: some brethren are so distant from the church and its work that a local church could close its doors and some members would not know it for six months! Contrast that with the attitude of the early disciples: “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and prayers” (Acts 2:42).

I owe the local church my financial support. While it is true that TV preachers have made a mockery of giving, it is also true that faithful Christians will support the work of the Lord with their money. Over and above opportunities for individual giving and good works (Gal. 6: 10), we are commanded to support the local treasury (1 Cor. 16:1, 2; 2 Cor. 8, 9). Some may label such giving cynically as “obeying and paying” but noble motives are immune to such carping. When one gives to the local treasury, one is giving to the Lord (Acts 5:1-11). It is proper to support the work of Christ through the “functional unit” (the local church) since it is not possible to support the church universal nor contribute to a fund for the “general assembly.” The local church will always have a need since the Lord assigned it evangelism, edification and benevolence. There will never be a surplus of money above that need. Money is the medium of exchange whereby the local church may pool its resources and carry out the work God gave to it. As a member of the congregation, I have a responsibility, yes, and a rare privilege, to share in the support of this blessed work.

I owe the local church a proper attitude toward each and every member. The Corinthians were “carnal” (1 Cor. 3:1), “puffed up” (5:2), contentious and litigious (ch. 6), factious (11:18), jealous and envious (12:15). These problems hindered that church until Paul stated that, in those conditions, “it is not possible to eat the Lord’s supper” (11:20). We hear of churches today that are split with hatreds and animosities, yet physically occupying the same building. The Lord addressed this attitude when He, said, “leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way, first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift” (Matt. 5:23ff). I owe it to the Lord and my brethren to “give diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3). Perhaps we have not learned the difference between “contending for the faith” (Jude 3) and being contentious. However, there is a joy of brotherhood and blessing of unity that ought to prevail in the local church that I can contribute to or hinder. Such unanimity is possible only when we have the “mind of Christ” (Phil. 2:5), “doing nothing through faction or through vain glory, but in lowliness of mind, each counting other better than self” (v. 3).

Conclusion

God, in infinite wisdom, provided a congregational setting for His people so that we might grow together, encourage and be encouraged, worship in peace and harmony and get a foretaste of heaven itself. In order to realize this blessing, we should sense an obligation to the local church to promote these things. If we do, we are made better in the process and are “fitly framed and knit together through that which every joint supplieth, according to the working in due measure of each several part, making the increase of the body unto the building up of itself in love” (Eph. 4:16).

Are you paying what you owe to the local church?

Guardian of Truth XXX: 23, pp. 718-719, 728
December 4, 1986