Truth Magazine

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

By Weldon E. Warnock

Traditional bias and preconceived notions are difficult to overcome. They taint our perception of the Scriptures. Brother Pruitt has this problem in his approach to singing. He is accustomed, as well as myself, to congregational singing. Therefore, he concludes the early church must have done it just like he experiences. But such was not the case as was shown in my August 21, 1986 article in Guardian of Truth.

A child of God may sing any where and at any time, whether it be a solo or in unison with other saints, if he sings to the glory of God and the edification of those who hear. Paul and Silas sang praises to God while incarcerated at Philippi (Acts 16:25). James wrote, “Is any among you . . . merry? let him sing psalms” (Jas. 5:13). 1 Corinthians 14:26 states, “. . , when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm . . . … And, of course, we must not overlook 1 Corinthians 14:15; Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16 and Hebrews 2:12.

I have conducted radio programs on behalf of the church where four or five brethren sang. This was worship to God, but the whole church did not participate. Some of our Sunday and Wednesday Bible classes have singing interspersed in them. Is this wrong because the whole church does not sing simultaneously? Certainly not! We also worship God in song at funerals, as well as in prayer and teaching. Many times at funerals only three or four brethren sing. Have they sinned in worshiping God through song when the whole assembly of people does not sing? Again, the answer is no! Whether a few or all sing on a radio program, in a Bible class, at a funeral or in the assembly of the whole church, we have done only what God has authorized.

Brother Pruitt has trouble with 1 Corinthians 14:26. He simply passes it off as an assembly where spiritual gifts were exercised. True, 1 Corinthians 14 regulates spiritual gifts, but there are principles in the chapter that remain. It was an assembly of the church (v. 23) and individuals sang solos (v. 26). We still have assemblies and we still have singing and the principle that allowed individual singing in the assembly at Corinth will allow the same today. Even brother Pruitt admits solo singing at Corinth. Hence, both of us are in agreement on that point. Let us keep in mind that this was at the same period that Paul wrote Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16. We conclude, therefore, that the Ephesians and Colossian passages did not (and do not) preclude the type of singing in 1 Corinthians 14:26. Neither did solo singing preclude congregational singing. We all must sing when we come together for worship in song, but not necessarily simultaneously. Here, brother Pruitt makes a law where God never made one.

The word, “simultaneous,” means “at the same time.” Brother Pruitt says this is the way we have to sing. His position would eliminate our part songs where we have alto, tenor or bass leads. Some songs have only soprano leads until the chorus, and in some cases the women are predominant with their soprano voices while the men are totally silent, waiting for the bass and tenor parts to begin. Brother M.C. Kurfees wrote, “His (Paul) admonition for Christians to sing is in the following words: ‘Speaking one to another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs’ (Eph. 5:19) He uses the reflexive pronoun (emp. mine, wew), ‘speaking one to another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.’ He does not say whether this speaking in psalms and other kinds of musical compositions shall be done by all in concert or by one at a time: hence, either is correct” (Gospel Advocate, May, 1913, p. 464).

Brother Pruitt would have you believe I just quoted a bunch of denominational writers in my former article that he is reviewing, but he inadvertently or conveniently omitted such honorable and knowledge able brethren as M.C. Kurfees, R.L. Whiteside and Marshall Patton whom I quoted as being in agreement with me. Ironically, brother Pruitt says we should see Barnes’ Notes. Barnes was a Presbyterian.

As to expediency we all (at least most of us) recognize that all things are lawful but not all things are expedient (1 Cor. 6:12). That is, all things lawfu! are permitted, but not all of those lawful things are proper. Such is the case with solo singing today in our assemblies of the whole church. Kurfees recognized this. R.L. Whiteside realized this. Marshall Patton stated this. I believe this. The apostle Paul taught this. Brother Pruitt says he cannot see this. Well, that is his problem, not mine.

A funeral is under different circumstances and its very nature would not, generally speaking, promot6 theatrical pomp and display, at least among us. This is why I maintain that solo or quartet singing at a funeral is expedient, while not expedient in our church assemblies.

“Surely our good brother has given little thought to his reasoning.”

Guardian of Truth XXX: 21, p. 651
November 6, 1986

By Irvin Himmel

A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches, and loving favor rather then silver and gold (Prov. 22:1).

We occasionally hear it said about someone, “He is out to make a name for himself.” We understand that to mean that he is seeking notoriety or fame. A big name is not necessarily a good name.

Value of Good Reputation

To have a good name is to possess a good reputation. The name which one earns for himself through righteous deeds is far more important than the name on his birth certificate.

It is said of Jesus during His youthful years, “And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man” (Lk. 2:52). What a contrast that is with some of today’s youth who care not about being in good standing with either God or man!

Cornelius, the centurion, despite his being a Gentile, was “of good report among all the nation of the Jews” (Acts 10:22).

When seven men were about to be chosen to minister to the temporal needs of certain widows among the disciples in Jerusalem, it was recommended that they be men “of honest report,” or “of good reputation” (NASB).

One of the qualifications of a bishop is that “he must have a good report of them which are without” (1 Tim. 3:7). A man with a bad reputation cannot be expected to exert a good influence.

To have a truly good name is a genuine asset. One should guard his reputation against whatever might ruin it. A good past makes an excellent future reference.

Reputation and Riches

There are several reasons why a good reputation is to be chosen in preference to riches.

(1) A good name will secure what money cannot buy. Some who are loaded with wealth have a bad name, and no amount of money can purchase a good reputation for them. People trust someone who has a good name. The accumulation of wealth does not make one more trustworthy.

(2) A good name has a higher quality than material wealth. Riches may bring someone great fame, but there is a difference between great fame and a good name. A good name is “a name for good things with God and good people” (Matthew Henry).

(3) A good name enables one to do more good than riches without a good name can do. A good reputation opens doors of opportunity. Esteem and respect are worth more than silver and gold.

Abraham had a good name and great riches. God promised him, “I will bless thee, and make thy name great” (Gen. 12:2). And the Bible describes him as being “very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold” (Gen. 13:2). The point of our proverb is that if one must choose between a good reputation and riches, the former should be chosen. Moffatt translates Proverbs 22:1 as follows: “Reputation is a better choice than riches; esteem is more than money.”

Reputation and Character

Reputation refers to one’s overall qualities as judged by people in general; the estimation in which one is held. Of course, men sometimes err in their estimation of other people. It seems likely that the proverb is referring to a good name as one is judged in the eyes of others who are good and righteous people.

Character refers to the sum of distinctive qualities belonging to an individual. One’s reputation is not always a true measure of his character. However, a good name that is based on good character brings goodwill and admiration from all who value goodness.

Both character and reputation are important. Every child of God must endeavor to develop the best qualities of character, and he should try to keep a good name.

Many things can destroy a good reputation. Sometimes vicious people deliberately set out on a character assassination mission. The slanderer differs from a murderer only in that he kills the reputation rather than the body. A careless and foolish act can seriously damage one’s reputation. White lies often leave black marks on a reputation. It takes a very short time to lose a good reputation but a long, long time to regain it.

“A good name is better than precious ointment. . . ” (Eccl. 7:1). If you have a good reputation, be careful to protect and defend it. And do not be guilty of saying or doing anything that would damage the good name of someone else.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 21, p. 646
November 6, 1986

By Tom M. Roberts

Introduction: Christians, Elders, Preachers often miss out on fellowship, love and a close relationship with each other because they fail to extend themselves toward one another. What should be the most tender and fulfilling relationship on earth becomes empty and cold. We are cheating ourselves of life’s richest moments. The solution: “Be ye enlarged” (2 Cor. 6:11-13; 7:2a).

I. Background Study: Paul and the Corinthian Church.

A. Acts 18:1-11 – the beginning of the church with Paul’s labors.

1. 1 Cor. 6:9-11 – they had been sinners.

2. 1 Cor. 1: 1-2 – they became saints.

B. Paul had supported self with labor and received support from other churches so as not to burden the Corinthians.

1. 2 Cor. 4:7-15 – all things were for their sakes.

2. 1 Cor. 4:9-13 – he suffered for their sakes.

C. Now, after all this, some were turning away from Paul.

1. 2 Cor. 10:7-12 – “they say” indicated enemies of Paul in the church.

2. Some members had cut off their love of Paul “straitened” their affections; stingy in their love; pressured to cut him out of their heart.

D. His solution: “Be ye enlarged”; “Open your hearts to us” (Text).

1. The scarcity of love was not that Paul was stingy in giving it but that the Corinthians had cut off their ability to receive it.

2. To be restored to previous fellowship required only an “opening of their heart.”

3. We also should be “enlarged” toward God and man.

II. Be enlarged toward God.

A. Many are unable to receive blessings from God due to their own “straitened” (narrowed, restricted) attitudes.

1. They think God’s way is too hard.

2. They believe God’s law too hard.

3. They think Christians have no joy in their lives.

B. When, in reality, their own attitude is the problem.

1. Matt. 13:10-16 – they have closed the eyes and ears and cannot receive.

2. Note v. 16: “Blessed” are those who see and hear.

3. Compare Psalms 23; Deut. 28:1-14; Mal. 3:10.

4. God has not quit loving and giving; we have stopped receiving.

III. Toward Man.

A. Churches become cold; brethren “bite and devour,” no real interest in work of the church; always blame someone else.

B. Problem often with self: “be ye enlarged.”

1. Use the seed principle: 2 Cor. 9:6 – don’t be stingy.

2. Lk. 6:38 – give and it shall be given.

3. Matt. 7:12 – the Golden Rule.

4. We are often robbing ourselves.

5. Don’t be stingy in giving or receiving the love of God or brethren.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 21, p. 654
November 6, 1986