Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

David Lipscomb’s article on “Bible Colleges” in the 23 December 1869 Gospel Advocate is one of several pieces he wrote on the subject through the years. He was extremely cautious about the arrangements brethren made from time to time for the joint endeavor of individuals and he clearly opposed any efforts to latch such institutional arrangements onto local churches. The Gospel Advocate did not function as an organ of local churches or exist on their money. It was the medium of himself and friends sympathetic to the cause which he pled. Yet, even of this organized effort to teach in print he said, “It is the truth, not the paper, that is dear to our heart” (Robert E. Hooper, Crying in the Wilderness: A Biography of David Lipscomb, p. 193).

At times Lipcomb’s scriptures on organized efforts seemed to exclude as sinful threats to the local church nearly all if not all organized endeavors of individuals which disseminated truth. Actually, it is clear that this is not what Lipscomb meant because he edited the Gospel Advocate for many years and established an orphan school and a Bible college. In an exchange with J.W. McGarvey during 1869, Lipscomb objected in principle to the College of the Bible in Kentucky University at Lexington. He asserted in the 23 December article that “the Church and its work in saving the world is the school for studying the religion of Jesus Christ ….So we frankly confess our misgivings as to the effect of the Bible Colleges on the purity of faith and simplicity of life of the people of God.” This seems to say that the local church is the only school where the Bible may be taught and studied. When Lipscomb established his school in Nashville, Tennessee, he provided Bible classes along with secular courses for all students but avoided the Lexington approach of a heavy Bible curriculum for young men who wished to preach. Both Lipscomb’s and McGarvey’s schools provided opportunities for studying the religion of Jesus Christ.

Five Dangers Limpscomb Feared

Lipscomb’s article of 23 December 1869 makes five charges against Bible colleges, especially as schools of Bible study for young men who wish to preach. Such schools do the following things, if we summarize Lipscomb’s objections:

1. Involve separation from the practical surroundings of the church.

2. Provide theoretical instruction instead of active service.

3. Foster a clergy-laity distinction.

4. Cultivate tastes prejudicial against work among poor and uneducated people.

5. Breed educated arrogance.

Further examination of these objections shows that they are not only potential pitfalls of a Bible college education but also of all formal education. All formal education given by various schools and colleges may be said to do the following things:

1. Involve separation from practical surroundings, i.e. the surroundings where the person will practice the things being taught and learned.

2. Provide theoretical instruction instead of active service, i.e. instead of learning by doing, on-the-job training.

3. Foster a tendency for an educated group or class, of people to become an educated caste.

4. Cultivate tastes which differ from those of people who cannot afford formal education.

5. Breed educated arrogance, i.e. a spirit which criticizes the com petency of people who have not had formal education.

These are the arguments Lipscomb reiterated many times in many forms while he argued that the church is the school for studying the religion of Jesus Christ. Though Lipscomb did not oppose all formal education and said a preacher might get one, if his five generalizations are applied indiscriminately to formal education in various fields of study, we would reach the following conclusion:

The factory is the school for studying manufacturing.

The court is the school for studying law.

The hospital is the school for studying medicine.

The farm is the school for studying agriculture.

The construction site is the school for studying carpentry.

The market-place is the school for studying business.

The office is the school for studying secretarial service.

The garage is the school for studying mechanics.

Of course, it is true that practical, on-the-job training has unique advantages over so-called formal education. The advantage of formal education is freedom from certain duties for a temporary period which permits the student to concentrate all his powers on what is to be learned, hopefully under the guidance and instruction of mature, experienced men. Actually, churches as well as individuals have conducted study with both on-the-job and more formal arrangements with profit.

The relative values of each kind of training formal and practical depend ultimately on the men who conduct the training. Students or teachers in either type of training can emphasize bookish and academic concerns as ends within themselves, or emphasize books and learning as tools for personal study and for service to other people. Brethren in either type of training can cultivate a burning desire to carry the gospel to all kinds of people, or can cultivate an inordinate desire for money, fine dress, elegant surroundings, study of human philosophies, and ease of life. Students or teachers in either training can cultivate an injurious spirit of presumption, arrogance, and prejudice which fosters an air of suspicion and hesitancy toward people who had the other training. Therefore, David Lipscomb calls attention to some real dangers that will always be with us, dangers we shall escape only by diligent vigilance.

The plain truth is that Satan attempts to sow seeds of arrogance, suspicion, vainglory, strife, bitterness, and dissension in the midst of all our efforts to perpetuate the truth. Satan has sown seeds of apostasy and division by turning churches aside from doing their own ordained work, to the work of financially supporting various human service organizations, including Bible colleges, in the name of the church at work. God still has His thousands who have not succumbed to this old ploy. Yet, among these people Satan can sow other seeds of apostasy and division if he can promote arrogance, suspicion, vanity, strife, bitterness, and discord. This evil Satan labors to accomplish among the churches and their efforts to spread the truth. He labors in the same way among individuals and families, both as to their private endeavors and their joint endeavors in various service organizations. Such joint endeavors include any number, of schools, foundations, papers, publishing businesses, religious bookstores, and the like, all of which keep themselves distinct and separate from local churches.

Inordinate pride can boast equally, “I took formal training in Bible at such-and-such school,” or, “I did not take Bible study at any such school, but studied Bible in such-and-such local church.” The spirit of rancor can demand equally, “In order to have my respect as a Christian, you must approve of and share in the work of such-and-such gospel paper, incorporated; such-and-such literature foundation; such-and-such Bible college; and, such-and-such bookstore,” or else, “You must not approve and share.” So long as these individual service organizations keep themselves separate from churches and church treasuries, such organizations should not be interjected as issues in any local church. The minute they interject themselves into the business and treasuries of local churches, human service institutions infringe on the churches by interfering with their free function or autonomy which God revealed in the New Testament pattern.

The Wisdom of Vigilance

Vigilance has always been necessary to keep service organizations in their sphere separate from the church, just as vigilance has been necessary to keep all the efforts of individuals, families, and churches faithful to God’s Word. The comments Lipscomb made through the Gospel Advocate, one medium for individual teaching efforts, about Bible colleges, another such medium, reflect that vigilance. There was a danger of Lipscomb’s vigilance becoming over-scrupulousness, so that he might erect a hedge taking in more ground than that taken in by God’s Word. This process accounts for many of the traditions the Jews had added to the Law of Moses. Our opposition to liberal tendencies can pass from a balanced, Bible vigilance to a human, punctilious legalism. Lipscomb stood in the shadow of this danger for several years on the Bible college question, but stepped out of that shadow in 1891 when he helped to establish the Nashville Bible School, which later bore his name as David Lipscomb College. He avoided the abuses about which he complained in the article of 1869, but David Lipscomb College in the passing of time promoted apostasy when it sought and promoted the idea of church support of colleges. Athens Bible School (kindergarten through high school) in Athens, Alabama, and Florida College (junior college) in Temple Terrace, Florida, are schools currently keeping themselves in the realm of individual and family efforts separate from local churches. Doubtless similar schools will rise in the future.

Many service organizations ‘and corporations separate from the church exist today and others will arise. None of them should ever become sacred cows above question, warning, or criticism. If Lipscomb’s 1869 article borders on over-scrupulousness, still it is filled with the wisdom of vigilance. The friends of individually-organized endeavors should foster an atmosphere of vigilance for their own safety, as well as the safety of the churches which have suffered repeatedly from the financial aspiration of these institutions. Beyond teaching common principles of honesty and teaching the imperative for such institutions to remain separate from churches, brethren both in and out of such endeavors should be free to tend to their own business. Within the limits of these principles of truth, the endeavor of one individual or group is none of the business of another individual or group. We may thwart Satan’s effort to sow discord if we can remember that lesson. Also, let all of us who would warn against the spirit of presumption, arrogance, and apostasy in human service organizations do so with balance. Let us be sure that in the name of such warnings we do not ourselves become guilty of arrogance, suspicion, vanity, strife, bitterness, and dissension.

Guardian of Truth XXV: 12, pp. 181-183
March 19, 1981

By Mike Willis

In last week’s editorial, I discussed half of the problem of the church and the individual. I attempted to demonstrate from the scriptures that the position that whatever the individual may do, the church may do is false. The other position which some seem to be taking is that whatever the church may not do, the individual may not do. We are seeing expressions of this with reference to colleges which operate Bible departments and foundations such as Cogdill Foundation. Some brethren are opposed to both of these on the basis that they believe that God has given the church the exclusive responsibility of teaching the gospel.

Some of these brethren have opposed church support of colleges on this basis through the years, although the majority of brethren have opposed church support of colleges on a different basis. However, some have reached the conclusion that since the church cannot send a contribution to a college, neither can an individual. Hence, what the church cannot do is what the individual cannot do.

Using the same points of comparison mentioned last week, I want to show that the individual can be engaged in many activities which the church is forbidden to be engaged in. This will demonstrate the error of the thesis “what the church cannot do, the individual cannot do.”

The Individual Can Do Many Things Which The Church Cannot Do

There are many areas of liberty in which an individual may choose to become involved that a church has no God-given authority to become involved. This can be seen in a number of different manners; let us consider a few of them.

1. The community obligations. I have a number of obligations toward my fellow man because I am a member of a community. In addition to my responsibility to conduct myself in a way that glorifies God, I have a responsibility to help as many needy people as I have the opportunity to help (Gal. 6:10; Lk. 10:25-37). These are obligations given to me as an individual, not to the church as a collectivity.

As an individual discharging my God-given obligations. I have every right to work with other individuals in discharging these obligations. I can pool my resources with other individuals to build hospitals, orphan homes, old folks’ homes, unwed mothers’ homes, and any number of other service institutions. T’he scriptures have not legislated regarding the kinds of organizations which can be used in discharging these personal obligations; therefore, I can work with others as I see fit in fulfilling my obligations before God in this realm.

Throughout the controversies over church support of human institutions, brethren have correctly argued that they were not opposed to the existence of colleges or orphan homes; they were opposed to the church support of these institutions. I think they argued correctly.

2. The home. I have a number of God-given obligations with reference to my family. So far as I am able to determine, I have every scriptural right to pool my resources with other families in order to discharge these family obligations. In discharging my obligations to educate my family, I have the liberty to pool my resources with others to provide whatever educational opportunities I choose for my family. In discharging my obligations to provide clean recreation for my children, I have every right to pool my resources with other families to rent the facilities of a camp area and run it in accordance with the moral principles revealed in God’s word, if I so desire.

Although the church cannot become involved in these activities without violating the word of God, individuals have the right to pool their resources in order to discharge their personal, individual responsibilities. The Lord has not legislated how to provide these things for my family.

3. The government. I also have certain responsibilities toward my country, as a citizen in this country. 1 have the liberty of working with other citizens in discharging these responsibilities. Hence, if I want to become a member of some political party which might direct this country in the direction which I think it ought to go, I have the scriptural right to become a member of that party or organization. I can join other concerned citizens to voice my opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment, the showing of nudity and profanity on television, abortion on demand, or whatever other political ideas I want to support. Although the church cannot be involved in any of these activities, the individual has a right to function individually and in conjunction with other individuals in discharging his God-given individual responsibilities.

4. Business. God has given to me certain responsibilities in business; I must be engaged in gainful employment to provide for my family. If I choose to pool resources with several other people who need to be engaged in gainful employment to support their families to form some kind of business partnership, I have every right to do so. Although the church cannot be involved in business enterprises, the individual can be involved in such activities. Hence, I can pool resources with other individuals in discharging this personal, individual responsibility.

These areas demonstrate that an individual has the right to do a number of things which the church cannot do. Hence, the thesis, “whatever the church cannot do, the individual cannot do,” is false. No one, to my knowledge, would question anything that I have said to this point. However, the water becomes muddy for some people when we turn to individual responsibilities in reference to the dissemination of God’s word, the teaching of moral obligations, and other matters related to the Scriptures.

My Individual Responsibilities in Religion

Sometimes brethren want to treat my individual responsibilities in religion as if they were unique. Frankly, I can see no difference in discharging my individual responsibility to support my family, to care for the needy non-Christians, to work as a good citizen in the government, to work as an individual member of my family, and in discharging my individual responsibilities to teach God’s word and to meet the benevolent responsibilities which I have toward Christians.

As an individual, I have a moral obligation to disseminate God’s word (Acts 8:4; 2 Tim. 2:2). The obligation which I have in this area is not discharged when the church sends money to support a gospel preacher to some needy area. I have personal, individual responsibilities in teaching God’s word which the church cannot do for me. So far as I am able to determine, I have the right to work with other individuals in discharging these personal, individual responsibilities, even as Paul, Silas, Timothy, and Luke labored together in discharging their individual responsibilities. Consequently, I see nothing wrong with individuals pooling their resources to publish some kind of paper to spread the word of God as Leslie Diestelkamp, his family, and other interested saints do in publishing Think. Whether they decide to give the paper away or to sell it is their own choice. I see no greater virtue in selling such a paper than in giving it, the comments of some preachers to the contrary notwithstanding.

Furthermore, I see nothing sinful in several individuals pooling their resources to publish good literature designed to teach God’s word. Publishing organizations which print and distribute the Bible and books about the Bible can be created and supported by individuals in discharging their personal responsibilities.

I have every right to join with others in working in moral instruction. If I choose to join a temperance society, the Alcoholics Anonymous, or any other organization designed to teach moral principles, I have violated nothing in God’s word, so far as I am able to determine. I have the right to join with others in the discharge of my personal, individual obligations.

So far as I am able to determine, several of us have every right to pool our resources to conduct a gospel meeting in any area we choose. If several of us pooled our resources to rent a tent, property, seats, and a microphone to conduct a meeting in some area in which no church existed, I do not understand that we would have violated any scripture in so doing. We would not be robbing the church of its glory, doing the work of the church, or anything else which might conflict with our obligations to the local church. We would simply be discharging our individual responsibilities in conjunction with others who were discharging their individual responsibilities. We would not be doing the work of the church in such an arrangement any more than when we pooled our resources to discharge our responsibilities to our families, our governments, our communities, and our businesses.

If several of us decided to pool our resources to assist some aged, needy saint, we would have every right to do so. The fact that we pooled our resources to help this saint would not constitute a violation of any Scripture in spite of the fact that the church might also have a responsibility to this same individual. Whatever several of us did together in discharging our personal responsibilities would have nothing to do with the church’s responsibility toward that individual.

Conclusion

Some brethren among us are taking such a radical position on collectivities that they are making it necessary that all collective action in spiritual matters be discharged through the local congregation. Several Christians cannot pool their resources to assist widow indeed without forming a “sinful” collectivity, according to this position. Such results in a position that says “whatever the church cannot do the individual cannot do,” a premise which I have sought to demonstrate to be false in the article.

If someone knows where God has legislated regarding how I am to discharge my individual responsibilities with reference to caring for needy people and teaching the word of God, I would like for him to show me that legislation. I know of no passage which says that the work of teaching the word of God has been given exclusively to the church. It simply is a false conclusion which some have reached which says that whatever the church cannot do (such as contribute to a college in which the Bible is taught), the individual cannot do.

Do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that a person must contribute to a college with a Bible department in order to be a faithful servant of God. I am not saying that an individual must pool his resources with other individuals to discharge any of his responsibilities, whether we are discussing his responsibilities in business, the home, the government, or the community. He does, however, have this liberty. Inasmuch as it is a liberty, it cannot be forced on others. It must be treated on the basis of Romans 14. With the hope that this sheds more light than heat on the subject of the individual and the church, this material is submitted for your consideration.

Guardian of Truth XXV: 12, pp. 179-181
March 19, 1981

By Dudley Ross Spears

In the May issue of Basil Overton’s paper, The World Evangelist, the good editor takes up the issue of general benevolence among those who are not Christians and after asking the questions, seems not to be able to find the right answer. Basil Overton is totally anti in his editorial. He is anti-saints-only benevolence from the church treasury. It would be extremely interesting to see Overton get positive and show from the Bible where the church has divine right to engage in general benevolence among those who are not Christians. It would be interesting to hear what he would have to say about churches supporting purely secular benevolent institutions or orphanages operated by the Masonic Lodge or some denomination.

If the church is not limited in benevolent work from the treasury then it must be either semi-limited or unlimited. Which is it, brother Overton? If the church, from the common funds, is unlimited in benevolent work, what objection could be registered against donating to the Red Cross, the Heart Fund, the United Way, or any number of other such organizations? If it is just the doctrinal aspect or denominational affiliation involved in some benevolent institutions, could the church help an indigent Catholic “Priest” or “Nun?” Would brother Overton object to such a practice?

Overton says that if some affirm that 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2 means that church funds were to be restricted to “saints only,” then it would be inconsistent for preachers to be supported out of the treasury. The good editor has apparently never learned that 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2 is instruction covering the collection of funds and is not an exhaustive treatment of the disbursement of the same funds. The passage says that the collection was to be taken “upon the first day of the week.” It was for the “saints” who were in need. To have used the funds for other than saints would be misappropriating the funds. But there are numerous other passages which teach how the New Testament churches spent their money which includes supporting the preachers of the gospel (Phil. 4:14-16; 2 Cor. 11:7-8).

More of the same type of faulty reasoning is seen in the editor’s confused thinking when he says that money from non-saints could not be taken into the contribution. He issues the challenge to any church that teaches that only saints who are in need are legitimate objects of congregational benevolence to tell him that no money from non-saints is taken into the treasury. Our answer is simply that there is authority only for the relief of needy saints from the treasury and only saints are commanded to contribute and there is absolutely nothing said about non-saints either contributing or not contributing. That is not the problem at all. We do not solicit non-members for money but we surely do our members. We cannot say it is a sin for a nonmember not to contribute into the common fund, but surely must say it is sinful for a member not to contribute. See the difference, brother Overton?

Brother Overton has been wrong about the difference in individual Christian action in benevolence and collective action in benevolence ever since I have known him and that goes back .over twenty years. He wonders why 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2 means “saints only” when a local church does benevolence and why 1 Corinthians 16:5 does not mean “saints only” when individual Christians do benevolence. There are other passages which teach individual Christians to help saints and non-saints (Gal. 6:10). Other passages teach individual Christians to provide for their own relatives and not burden the church (1 Tim. 5:16). Thus it is right for individuals to help those outside the fellowship of the church “as we have opportunity,” but if brother Overton knows of a passage that teaches the local churches of Christ to do a general work of benevolence among non-members why doesn’t he produce it and stop being so negative about the whole matter of benevolence? No, it is not a sin to help those who are not Christians in relieving their needs – it is a sin to take funds from the treasury and relieve them. Brother Overton and those who stand with him seem more bound up with the treasury of the local church than anyone I can think of. They leave the impression that the only benevolence that is done must be financed collectively through the common treasury of the church. He needs to think more about this matter.

Guardian of Truth XXV: 12, p. 178
March 19, 1981

By Dan Walters

Are you spiritual? This question is necessary because the New Testament teaches that not all members of the Lord’s church, not all baptized believers, are spiritual. Contrary to certain denominational doctrines, a person does not immediately change from being carnally minded to being spiritually minded at the point of conversion. He does not receive some miraculous infusion of the Holy Spirit which transforms him into a spiritual person. Paul told some of the members of the church in Corinth that they were “yet carnal” and that he could not speak unto them as “unto spiritual.” He used the instances of “envying and strife, and divisions” as proof that these brethren were not spiritually minded (1 Cor. 3:1-3). In speaking to the Galatians Paul directs “ye which are spiritual” to restore any brother overtaken in a fault (Gal. 6:1). This implies that certain brethren were spiritual and others were not.

It is also true that certain “things” are spiritual, while others are not. Paul told the Corinthians, “If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?” He had preached the gospel to them and he asserted his right to financial support. The gospel is here regarded as a “spiritual” thing, and financial support as a “carnal,” or material, thing (1 Cor. 9:11). In Ephesians 5:19, Paul speaks of “spiritual songs” to be used in worship, thus implying that not all songs are spiritual. A song might be of a secular nature, and so it would not be spiritual, but carnal. Nevertheless, the song might be harmless and appropriate for a Christian to sing at certain times. For instance, the song “Happy Birthday” is a carnal song. All songs used in worship should be spiritual in nature.

Basically, the spiritual is that which by nature or association is invisible and immaterial, while the carnal is composed of, or associated with, matter. Since all matter is doomed to perish, and spirit is not, we might say that the difference between the carnal and the spiritual is the difference between the temporal and the eternal. There is certainly such a thing as spiritual evil; Ephesians 6:12 mentions “spiritual wickedness in high places.” But most references to the “spiritual” in the New Testament involve that which is good – that which is associated with God. So we shall confine ourselves to a discussion of what it means to be spiritual in the positive sense.

Abraham was a spiritual giant because he could see beyond the physical realm, the environment that can be detected with the five senses, and could appreciate the invisible, eternal things of God. He desired a heavenly city, “a city which bath foundations, whose builder and maker is God” (Heb. 11:10). With the eye of faith, he could see future events promised by God as if they had already been accomplished. Most importantly, he had a correct sense of priorities: he placed a much greater value upon heavenly things than upon earthly things.

Although a Christian should be spiritually minded at all times, we are specifically taught that our worship to God must be “in spirit” (John 4:24). When we sing, pray, or take the Lord’s Supper, our bodies must be necessarily involved. But the emphasis should not be upon form, or ritual. While being careful not to overstep the bounds of God’s authority, we should be primarily concerned with our mental attitude during worship. It is the spiritual meaning of the song, of the prayer, and of the Supper that should occupy our attention.

Men often confuse form with substance. While a student at Harding College, one of my professors attempted to impress upon our minds the spiritual superiority of worship at Harding and at the College Church, as compared to the small-town and rural churches that many of us had previously attended. This gentleman was rather “cultured” and he preferred great formality in worship, including the almost exclusive use of the “great hymns” (i.e., those which did not include a chorus, were slow and stately, did not have a bass lead, etc.). He did not consider the fact that most of these songs were written by nonChristians and were intended to be sung to the accompaniment of a pipe organ. They were to him “more spiritual.” The few times that I attended the College Church in Searcy, I found no evidence of abundant spirituality. One sermon I shall never forget had for its text something that Pat Boone had written! The student body at Harding included the good and the bad, but I do not recall that the lives of my fellow students and of my teachers reflected a spiritual level any higher than that of the average congregation in Possum Trot or Hoot Owl Junction. The singing at Harding was more acceptable to the musicians; the preaching was more acceptable to the grammarians. But was the worship more acceptable to God? I am content to let God be the judge.

What can we do to help make our worship more spiritual? For one thing, we can take the emphasis off of fine church buildings, preachers with great secular learning, and highly trained singers. We can talk more about the Christian’s personal relationship with Christ and how that true worship must proceed from the heart. We must make it clear that when we read and study the Bible this is Christ’s way of revealing His will to us, and that a Christian must have a desire to grow in knowledge, in faith, and in love in order to reach spiritual maturity. It must be understood that this process cannot be limited to the assembly, but must be a continual effort of each individual Christian every day of his life.

Each Christian in a given congregation is at a different point in his spiritual growth. This growth will continue as long as life itself. When a Christian stops growing, perhaps believing that he is totally spiritual already, then he begins to die. There are things that contribute to spiritual growth, and there are other things that are the enemies of spirituality. Carnal worship of the kind practiced by the Roman Catholic Church and many Protestant churches is such an enemy. It is a reversion to the carnal ritualism of the Mosaic Law. People who favor this type of worship feel that they must have their statues, pictures, elaborate architectural forms, pomp and ceremony, and instruments of music in order to make them feel close to God. Under Moses’ Law, such material aids served a symbolic purpose; but shadow has now given way to substance. We now experience the spiritual reality of Christ. To go back to the “weak and beggarly elements” is like a healthy young man depending upon a crutch to help him walk. It is not only unnecessary; it will cause him to grow weak so that he cannot function without the crutch.

The greatest hindrance to spiritual grow among members of the Lord’s church is materialism, or “covetousness,” as the New Testament expresses it. This hindered the worship of God’s people even in Old Testament times. God spoke these words to Ezekiel concerning the condition of the Israelites: “And they come unto thee as the people cometh, and they sit before thee as my people, and they hear thy words, but they will not do them: for with their mouth they shew much love, but their heart goeth after their covetousness” (Ezek. 33:31). This is the sin that keeps Christians from putting God and His kingdom first in their lives. One Christian puts a greater value upon making money than upon worshipping God; so, he works on Sunday instead of meeting with his brethren around the Lord’s table at the appointed time. He may try to salve his conscience by coming to the evening service and taking the Supper at that time. Some say he has no right to do this; others stoutly defend his right. But we are missing the real point which is, did this brother put the Lord first? Parents will miss the services to take their children, some of whom are also members, to school affairs. They will forsake the Lord to hear a denominational preacher deliver a baccalaureate, and then, wonder why their children later forsake the Lord permanently for worldly interests. Young Christians will go on a senior trip or some other out-of-town excursion and will make no effort to locate a church on Lord’s Day morning. Such is evidence that these Christians are not spiritual, but carnal. They are carnal because of their love of money or love of pleasure. Christians must be made to understand that everyone must choose whether to serve God or mammon. Those who go through life trying to serve both are only deceiving themselves. We do them no service by winking at their behavior.

Another great enemy of spiritual growth is the prevalent belief that only the leaders in the church need to attain a high degree of spirituality. Most of us do only as much as we are expected to do. If the young man who is planning to be a carpenter or a lawyer is not expected to know as much about God’s will as the young man who is planning to spend his full-time preaching, then he will not devote himsef to a study of the Bible. If the young lady who knows that she is not permitted to become a public proclaimer of the gospel is allowed to believe that she is thus relieved of the responsibility of understanding the more profound points of religion, then she will continue to be satisfied by the “milk” of first principles and will make no effort to digest the “meat.” It must be emphasized that the individual responsibility of a Christian to grow in knowledge is not dimished one whit by the fact that he will never be an elder or a full-time preacher. Spirituality is more than mere knowledge, but it cannot exist without a knowledge of scripture. That is the foundation upon which it rests.

To be spiritual, it is necessary to be led by the Spirit (Rom. 8:14). The Spirit does not lead us today by supernatural means, but by the written Word. A knowledge of all spiritual things may be obtained by a study of God’s book. It is a deadly mistake to confuse spirituality with a vague mysticism or transcendentalism. So-called knowledge of spiritual beings and laws which is based upon mere human speculation is a fraud. A person who claims such knowledge, as did the ancient Gnostics, is deceiving himself. By intruding into the unseen without scriptural guidance, a man is walking in darkness and is cutting himself off from the nourishment which comes only from Christ through His Word. Such a man will become “vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind” and will never increase “with the increase of God” (Col. 2:18, 19). His supposed spirituality is in fact carnality.

Spiritual perfection is only to be found in the Godhead. The more like Christ we can become by concentrating upon His example and His teachings, the more spiritual we shall be. “But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord” (2 Cor. 3:18).

Guardian of Truth XXV: 12, pp. 179, 186-187
March 19, 1981