Truth Magazine

By Jimmy Tuten

All the world is a stage and everybody is in a wild scramble trying to get on it. The controversy over so-called cultism in the church, cultism that is to have been initiated by the Crossroads brethren has seen its share of ingathering, both pro and con. Some on both sides of the issue have rashly entered the fracas. Charges and counter charges, explosive innuendoes and insinuations, libelous and slanderous statements have done nothing but confuse the issue for the average child of God. The only thing that is not hard about this issue is confusion. This is attributed to the fact that a lot of brethren seem to feel that it is more blessed to give criticism than to receive it. I wish brethren would learn that uncovering another congregation’s faults will never cover their own. I do not endorse Crossroads. But I find myself wanting to defend her from the well-meaning, but over-zealous zealots who have not bothered to walk in her shoes. Before condemning Crossroads, one should check reports for accuracy. My goal in this writing is to help our readers understand what the issue is involving Crossroads, why questions are raised about her work. When one compares the real issue with whole spectrum of opposition, one will be able to better discern what it is we are dealing with in this conflict.

Who Is Crossroads?

Crossroads is a collectivity of God’s people who work and worship in facilities near the University of Florida law school in Gainesville, Florida. These brethren, in spite of existence in an age of undramatic gains in membership have accumulated an enviable record. Two years after the present facilities were built in 1975, this church was forced to expand. It had reached its capacity. This capacity was doubled through this expansion and 1978 found her facilities too small again. A search has begun for a new site to accommodate 10 times its 1,000 member congregation. Growing from less than 300 in 1970 to over 1,000 in 1978 is quite a feat! With this growth has come notoriety in Gainesville and in the brotherhood in general. The Crossroads membership has an uncommon religious zeal and an evangelistic fervor that has given her a reputation unlike that known among churches of the Lord today. But all is not well in this beehive of activity: Rumblings first came from the dormitories on the University of Florida, then from the suburban developments around the city, telling of concentration camp tactics which fostered hate and disrespect for other religions. Crossroads was said to be discouraging thought, engaging in excessive pressure strategies, and was maintaining a cult-like control over its membership. Since Guyana, “cultism” hangs over Crossroads like a sinister shroud.

Denials And Affirmations

Evidence will bear out the fact that Crossroads brethren have denied in the past that such problems existed. Though this denial no longer exists, they are still saying that where problems do exist, others are at fault. Certainly she is not responsible for what is said and done by the fatigued-with-the-system individuals who have left Crossroads and she cannot control the excessiveness of those who go out propagating her principles. Remember too, that a number of people have picked up on her “philosophy” who have never attended Crossroads. I know of one such individual who causes serious problems in a southern city and, naturally, Crossroads was accused of infiltration and insurrection within the troubled congregation of that city. Check Lucas, the preacher for Crossroads, and her elders have made positive affirmations regarding her work. Those who are interested in pursuing this matter should write Crossroads for material explaining her program. Be sure to. get a copy of brother Lucas’ brief, seven point discussion of “The `Crossroads Philosophy.”‘

While he did cover in a general way the valid objections lodged against them, many side issues go unanswered. In all fairness to Crossroads, this writer does not see enough evidence to support the allegation that she is a cult. Given the general mood of the public after Jim Jones with a little yellow journalism, interpretations of a number of actions are bound to have cultic-like aspects. Above the general concept of liberal views of a church at work, I do not see proof that Crossroads is the center of a national movement (Times-Courier, Charleston, Illinois, April 7, 1979). It is reports like those that have appeared in public journals that have produced a general consensus that there is some sort of cultic conspiracy among churches of Christ. It simply is not true and it is time that we stopped increasing public suspicions with our talk of “cultism” at Crossroads. This is a serious charge and we had better have facts to back it up.

A Survey Of Criticisms

Brethren who have investigated the matter for themselves understand that Crossroads does indeed have a program of work “that is praiseworthy” (Baxter Tape). It is succeeding in fulfilling a deep concern for university students. The key to the “Crossroads Philosophy” is total commitment. This is something all gospel preachers know is Biblical and they have preached it as a personal responsibility of the Christian. The second aspect of the program is concern for the lost, something no child of God can eliminate from his life. Crossroads has established a procedure that is appealing in many respects. This method begins with soul talks, a term not found in our vocabulary until Crossroads. The term is not appealing in itself, but since the discussions taking place in “soul talks” deal with the soul of man, the term is as Scriptural as others we use. Bruce Williams (Campus Minister of Florida State in Tallahassee, sponsored by the Call Street Church of Christ) defines “soul talk” as “a small discussion group conducted in various dormitory rooms and apartments, hosted by committed Christians living in those areas.” Brother Lucas, in the October 14, 1979 issue of “At The Crossroads,” says “soul talks are not: `encounter groups,’ `sensitivity sessions,’ `group confession sessions,’ unstructured, interdenominational religious `rap sessions,’ a meeting of `prayer partners’ (discussed later, jt). To the contrary, Soul Talks are: `small group evangelistic Bible studies (some call them `life talks,’ `Bible talks,’ etc), discussions about the soul, Bible study groups hosted by committed Christians” and “Bible studies led and directed by competent Christian teachers approved by the elders of the church.” “Soul talks” are where about a dozen Christians meet once a week at a regular time and place. While the leader of each “soul talk” selects the appropriate topic to be discussed, members help and invite visitors. They are designed for various age groups, men, women, high school, college, etc. The average member attends one soul talk per week. What right thinking Christian would criticize this?

After a person is converted he is yoked to a prayer partner. Believing that Christianity is a “one another religion” (Rom. 12:5), where members are to “edify one another” (Rom. 14:19), a “prayer partner” arrangement implements the “one another” commands of the Bible (At The Crossroads, October 21, 1979). We are told that the “prayer partner” arrangement “has no connotations of `superiority,’ but the emphasis is on mutual ministery,” often described as a “spiritual buddy system.” Crossroads denies that they assign members, or require a pairing off. They merely encourage. In this arrangement, the partners confess to each other, pray for each other, with the older disciplining the younger. Certainly this is feasible, but whether or not this sytem is best, questioned.

Then What Is The Problem?

(1) Apparent, overt demand of one’s time. It is a stressing of the fact that nothing is to take precedence over “soul talks” to the point of abuse. This is demonstrated by the fact that some were indeed so pressured to attend soul talk studies that the fulfillment left little, or no time for family relationship, for holding down a job that might conflict, or other responsibilities. Many churches have complained that those involved in soul talk programs have no time to devote to “activities of the local church where they attend” and almost constitute a “church within a church” (T. Pierce Brown in a telephone conversation with this writer). Generally speaking, could not this charge be hurled at us, not just Crossroads, at most any time by anyone not particularly “sold” on a program of personal work that we espouse? What about those who feel that “attending every night of a meeting is too much?” What brethren must learn is that it is not necessarily “the program” that is time demanding as much as it is a personal failure to distinguish a division of responsibilities. We must learn to proportion church activities and individual obligations. Have we forgotten our formula for work: A + O + C = R (Ability plus Opportunity plus Common Sense equals Responsibility)? Why not teach young people this principle rather than denouncing them or labeling them a cult simply because they naturally have little obligation to people and things not considered an obligation?

(2) Confessing intimate sins of thought and action to more mature prayer partner. The fact that two people work closely together in such an arrangement naturally leads to abuses. How easy it is to need someone to talk to, to confide in and to find that person in a “prayer partner.” This is a risk that we all face in our inter-relationship in the church. But to look upon someone in whom we have confidence as a “spiritual mother” or “father” who controls our thoughts does indeed “ape the Roman confessional box” (Gospel Advocate, February 22, 1979, p. 120). What about persuasion? I know a couple of co-laborers who in times past would have convinced me that their proscriptions and anathemas were as binding as those of a parish priest, if I had let them! Who among us have never experienced attempts at “thought control” over our thoughts at one time or another? Thought and mind control is wrong no matter when it happens and where it occurs. James 5:16 is pertinent, but it is not limited to a certain group or particular individual in the sense of a “spiritual father.” As to this matter of “raping the mind,” I ask, “is this not a nebulous charge?” If after “public confession” at our assembly a brother or a sister is reminded of sins they continue to commit, is this “thought control,” or a rape of the mind?

(3) Crossroads Philosophy constitutes true religion. The brethren at Crossroads have been charged with advocating strongly that salvation is through the Crossroads church only and consequently attempt to lead people out of other churches (even churches of Christ) into Crossroads. The University Avenue elders, Gainesville, Florida, in a letter dated January 21, 1979 expressed it like this: “The idea is that believers who have activities and philosophies nearly identical to those of the Crossroads leadership are true Christians. This idea is divisive and is particularly devastating . . . . It has conflict between those who espouse the Crossroads philosophy and those who do not support the type of changes they advocate.” While in the next installment this factor will be covered under “Exclusiveness,” I want to say here that I never thought I would hear a congregation of God’s people saying to another such collectivity, “You think you are the only ones going to heaven!” I do not find any grounds for this charge as far as brethren are concerned. May I suggest that things are so dead in the so-called “mainline” churches, that a congregation displaying the kind of zeal Crossroads gives out is bound to do two things: (1) Cause alarm. After all, does it not point out even clearer the fossilness of the status quo? (2) It is just natural that the untaught youth of these churches would flock to Crossroads. After all, they want to be “where the action is!” I think our liberal brethrens’ true colors are showing in this matter, and there is a tinge of enviousness.

(4) Delaying and withholding baptism: Crossroads is criticized for withholding baptism from candidates “normally considered acceptable by New Testament standards” and rebaptism of baptized believers after they have submitted to Crossroads philosophy. Too, talk about “man-made judgments” in this respect is absurd. In Acts 8, Philip made a “man-made judgment” when he acted on the response to his question. We all have to exercise such in baptizing people. Have you ever refused to baptize a “child” who responded to the invitation and who could not give sufficient evidence that he believes? Have you ever refused to baptize someone who.failed and/or refused to repent of some sin? Would you baptize a person whom you knew was living in adultery? Is this not “withholding baptism?” Is this not the exercise of human judgment? As for rebaptism, I will baptize anyone who doubts the sincerity of a former baptism. This is involved in “make your calling and election sure” (2 Pet. 1:10). Not all “baptized believers” are Christians. This is the fallacy of brother Ketcherside’s “I fellowship all baptized believers” position.

There are other matters that need to be dealt with, such as so-called harassment, “religious zombies,” preying on emotionally weak, vulnerable people, etc. Space will not allow it.

Next Installment: “Crossroads: What It All Boils Down To.”

Truth Magazine XXIV: 33, pp. 533-535
August 21, 1980

By Mike Willis

When God chose Israel to be a holy nation unto Him, they became His peculiar people. Notice the statements by Moses to this effect:

Ye are the children of the Lord your God . . . . For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God, and the Lord bath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth (Deut. 14:1-2).

For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God bath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth (Deut. 7:6).

Israel was a peculiar nation unto the Lord, i.e., they were God’s own property. He had called Abraham and brought the nation into existence; He had established a particular covenant with them (Ex. 19:5, 6). Hence, they stood in a unique relationship to the Lord.

As God’s own people, Israel was expected to be separate from the nations around her. The intermingling of the culture of Israel with pagan nations would only lead to moral and spiritual deterioration of God’s people. Hence, the word of the Lord commanded them not to intermingle. Hence, in the conquest, Israel was forbidden to make alliances with the Canaanite people.

Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou guest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: but ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves: for thou shall worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; and thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods (Ex. 34:12-16).

Israel had to maintain her separate identity as a people belonging peculiarly unto the Lord. She was a separate nation.

The Church: The Israel of God

Today the Lord’s church is His Israel (Gal. 6:17). She is His “chosen generation, royal priesthood, holy nation, and peculiar people” (1 Pet. 2:9). The principle of separateness applies with reference to the church just as it did with reference to Israel of God. The church is made up of people who are not conformed to this world (Rum. 12:1-2). The difference in the Christian and the world around him is so great that the world thinks “it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you” (1 Pet. 4:1-3).

The Lord has commanded the Christian not to intermingle with the wicked religions of the world. Paul wrote,

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship bath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion bath light with darkness? And what concord bath Christ with 13e1ia1? or what part bath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement bath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God bath said, I will dwell in than, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, with the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, with the Lord Almighty (2 Cor. 6:14-18).

The Lord’s people of this day and age are to be separate from the world in which they live. As a matter of fact, when the world feels that there is no difference in the people of God and them, the people of God have compromised the Word of God (Lk. 6:26).

The Distinctiveness of God’s People

Let us, therefore, consider some of the areas in which the people of God are clearly distinguishable from the world around them.

Distinct In Speech. The speech of God’s people will be distinctive in reference to the religious jargon used. The world around us, because of its distinction between its clergy and laity, has a distinctive religious vocabulary which is different from that of New Testament Christians. The religious world around us speaks of its preachers as “Reverend,” “Pastor ” “Father ” “Rabbi,” and a number of other special titles. Matthew 23:1-12 forbids the usage of special religious titles because there is no special “clergy” among the people of God.

Christians need to be careful in their usage of the word “brother” not to allow it to become a substitute for a special word to differentiate a clergy from a laity. When I am in a group of Christians who are being introduced to someone and the rest are introduced as “Mr.” but I am introduced as “Brother,” I am afraid that someone has a mistaken concept of what the proper usage of that word is. We are all brethren, not just the preachers.

Similarly, the Lord’s people use distinctive terminology when referring to the church. The names by which the church is called include such things as “church of Christ” (Rum. 16:16), “church of God” (1 Cor. 1:2), and several other terms. However, there is no usage of such names as Baptist Church, Episcopalian Church, Methodist Church, and Catholic Church in the Bible. Consequently, God’s people will only refer to the church by names which are found in the Scriptures.

The usage of a distinctive speech sets God’s people apart in a world which refers to its clergy by titles absolutely condemned in God’s word and to their churches by names not found on the pages of God’s book anywhere! When we ask our religious neighbors for authority for their unscriptural names and unscriptural titles, we will not have to worry about becoming a distinctive, separate people; we will be excluded by them as a bunch of religious legalists with whom they want nothing to do.

Even as we will be clearly distinguishable by the usage of our speech to refer to the people of God, we shall also be a distinctive people by the purity of speech which we manifest. There are several aspects of the purity of one’s speech which separate us from the world around us, such as the following:

a. Our speech is truthful. Jesus said, “But let your communication be, Yea, yea; nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil” (Matt. 5:33). Paul wrote, “Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbor: for we are members one of another” (Eph. 4:25). Christians are characterized by purity of speech in that their word can be trusted. When a Christian gives you his word, he will keep it; his word. is his bond.

A Christian who promises to be at a certain place at a certain time will be there. A Christian who promises to pay his bill will pay his bill. A Christian who relates the circumstances of a conversation will be careful to accurately represent what happened. His word can be trusted because he speaks the truth.

b. Our speech does not abuse the Lord’s name. Again, Paul wrote, “let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers” (Eph. 4:29). The Christian is one who does not take the Lord’s holy name in vain. He is different from the world around him in this regard. In an age when pre-teenage children are generally characterized by vulgar profanity, the Christian is separate from the world in that he does not take the name of the Lord in vain.

c. Our speech is not filled with filthy jesting. Paul told Christians that neither “filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting” (Eph. 5:4) ought to characterize the saints of God. Our ungodly age tells filthy jokes as a form of entertainment. A Christian will not tell filthy jokes or listen to others tell them. The man who refuses to laugh at these kinds of filthy stories and who refuses to tell them to others will not have to worry about blending in with the crowd. The ungodly world will see to it that he remains separate from them.

d. Our speech avoids gossip, backbiting, and railing. A Christian is a man who avoids gossiping about his brothers and sisters in Christ and his neighbors. He does not try to destroy another’s reputation; he does not try to exalt himself by abasing someone else. I have been among congregations where large portions of time was spent in running down rumors and getting them stopped. Christians are not to be characterized by this kind of conduct. Instead, Paul wrote, “Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: and be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you” (Eph. 4:31-32). A person who has these traits to characterize his speech will be like an oasis in a desert of sin.

e. Our speech is characterized by spreading the gospel and edifying one another. The Christian is to be busy fulfilling the Great Commission; hence, the Christian will be actively talking to his friends and neighbors about Jesus Christ (Mk. 16:15-16). When he sees a brother or sister overtaken in sin, he will go to that person and talk to him about his soul (Gal. 6:1; Jas. 5:19-20).

Brethren, when these kinds of characteristics become a part of our speech, we will be a separate people unto God. The world will not want to have anything to do with a people who live a pure life, rebuke sin, and appeal for others to be obedient to the word of God. These people will become isolated on the job; their comrades will have little desire to be with them.

Though no one desires isolation, each of us should desire to be different from the world in which we live. Our speech is one of several things which distinguishes us from the world around us. (Continued next week)

Truth Magazine XXIV: 33, pp. 531-533
August 21, 1980

By Hoyt Houchen

Question: “Is it scriptural for a woman to write an article for Truth Magazine? What is the difference in preaching publicly in the pulpit and writing a public article?”

Reply: There is a difference in a woman writing an article for a journal that will be read by men and a woman and publicly preaching and teaching when men are present. This difference may not be noticeable on the surface but I believe if those who are perplexed about the matter or who object to public articles written by women will carefully consider some points, they too will see the difference.

Women write most of the pre-school and elementary level Bible class material which is purchased and used by congregations throughout the world. Men read this material. Elders in the churches where it is considered for use read it over and evaluate it. We do not consider the woman in this case as usurping authority over the man (1 Tim. 2:12).

A man who is teaching a Bible class may assign an article to a-woman on some Bible subject. The man (the teacher) or some other man may read publicly what the woman has written. She refrains from pulpit preaching, or public teaching in an assembly where men are present; therefore, she is simply teaching in modesty and is not having dominion over a man.

Many of the songs which we sing in our worship, praise and edification are written by women. Several were written by Fanny J. Crosby, a blind woman. If articles which appear by a woman in a magazine are on par with pulpit preaching then consistency would demand of us that we cease singing all songs in our worship, praise, and devotion that are written by women. We would have to check every song to see if it were written by a woman and if so then we could not sing it. Is a woman to be prohibited from writing an article but allowed to write songs of praise and edification? Is she permitted to write in a song book but not in a magazine published by brethren?

There is another point for consideration. The magnificat of Mary (Lk. 1:46-55) is recorded for all to read (men, women, and children); it is recorded in the same book which forbids a woman to “usurp authority over the man” (1 Tim. 2:12). But if the record of the magnificat is accepted upon the basis that Mary was “inspired,” as. some would contend, then it must be remembered that certain women in the New Testament also possessed the miraculous gift of teaching, Philip’s four virgin daughters for example (Acts 21:9). Yet, although these women were inspired, the prohibition of women having dominion over the man, or usurping authority over the man, was in effect. So, whether a woman was inspired or not, she still was not allowed to place herself in such a position that would violate that prohibition. We must conclude, then, that whether a woman is inspired- or uninspired is not the issue: The contention that’ Mary’s song of praise is acceptable because she was “inspired” is not a valid argument.

All of us should desire and strive to do the will of the Lord in all matters. This kind of attitude is appreciated. The question is simply whether a woman’s article or articles which ,appear in a religious. paper is a parallel to pulpit preaching. It is my conviction that it is not for the considerations presented. A woman who writes an article that is published simply makes a contribution to study and edification in her own modest sphere. In the New Testament there were certain woman who helped in the preaching of the gospel without preaching publicly and having dominion over the man which we all agree is prohibited in the scriptures (see Rom. 16:1-3; Phil. 4:2, 3).

I am sure that some readers do not agree with what is set forth in this reply, but I have offered these thoughts and considerations as my own convictions. We should all attempt to regulate our beliefs and actions according to the word of God, endeavoring to be as consistent in our practice as possible but not legislating where the Bible does not.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 33, p. 530
August 21, 1980

By Herschel E. Patton

What is it? A disease? Do I have it? Is it fatal? Curable? Yes, it is a disease (spiritual). Yes, you have it – you were born with it, and yes, it is fatal if untreated. It can, however, be successfully treated. Narcissism is defined as “concern for self, feel good about self, erotic feeling aroused by one’s own body and personality” (Webster).

The word has it’s origin in Greek mythology. “Narcissus, in Greek Mythology, the handsome son of the river god, Cephissus and the Nymph, Liriope. He rejected the love of Echo and was punished by Nemesis; being compelled to fall in love with his own reflection in a pool of water. He pined away until he was transformed into the flower of the same name. The Narcissus was considered the symbol of premature death . . .” (Funk & Wagnall’s Encyclopedia).

Dr. Aaron Stern, a noted Psychoanalyst, has written a book entitled ME, The Narcissistic American, in which he writes of this inborn trait, basically the love of self, and its destructiveness. He points out that the baby is born narcissistic, concerned only with self, caring not whom he awakens in the middle of the night or displacing other siblings in the family, for his own desires. Dr. Stern says that unless the child is disciplined to think of others, it is headed for a life of misery and destruction. The doctor continues, “When narcissism is for survival, as with the infant and the founding of a country, it is not as destructive as when one is established, successful, and affluent; that no nation has survived success and the guest for immediate satisfaction.” He mentions the fall of ancient Rome as an example.

Diagnosis And Treatment

The treatment for this destructive, inborn, disease, Dr. Stern says, is in learning self-discipline, self-denial; in learning to love others. He says “too much narcissism causes one to loose the capacity to love others and other things. The more you love and do for others the less narcissist you are.”

Dr. Stern, of course, is right in his diagnosis and needed treatment, but his suggested treatment of this disease is from a social base only. Like so many psychologists, Dr. Stern is an evolutionist and does not believe in God. To treat this destructive disease, he would “program” people, as you would a dog, to deny self-expression, to avoid pain or displeasure, and to receive a greater reward. Society, what it accepts or rejects, would be the basis for determining one’s actions. If society accepts living together without marriage, homosexuality, lesbianism, and incest, there would be no need for restraint of desires, but if society rejected such life-styles, inflicting censure and punishment, then you would be happier and more content to deny self in consideration of others. Continual censure, rejection, and pain from others as one bumps into them in pursuit of personal desires will cause emotional disturbances, leading to physical illness, says the doctor.

While the consequences of being narcissistic and practicing self-denial in preference to others are, indeed, as Dr. Stern points out, what he fails to recognize is the fact that some actions are wrong in themselves, that they should be abstained from for soul preservation, and that a society free from “hang-ups,” as some are want to say, is itself a narcissistic society “gone to seed,” like the ancient Rome – destroyed because of this. There can be no successful treatment of this disease apart from God and His Word.

Is It In The Bible

Really, Dr. Stern has discovered and written about nothing new. This disease, narcissism, its origin, nature, consequences, and remedy is revealed in the Bible, only it is called “selfishness,” “self-love,” “self-willed.”

Jesus warned of those “who trusted in themselves that they were righteous” (Luke 18:9). The Holy Spirit warned of men who were “lovers of their own selves” (2 Tim. 3:2). The apostle Paul warned “every man not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think” (Rom. 12:3), and exorted the Galatians to “bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself” (Gal. 6:2-3).

The self-willed, humanistic course of the Gentile world is thus described by the apostle Paul, “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were they thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools . . . changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image . . . changed the truth of God into a lie . . . changed the natural use (of women and men) into that which is against nature . . .” (Rom. 1:21-32).

It was this conflict between narcissism and enlightment (knowledge) that Paul personified in Rom. 7:14-25. “For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin, for that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I . . . . For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do . . . I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me . . . O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

Notice, Paul does not say that the cure (deliverance) is through programing in self-restraint by the evaluation of pain and rewards from society, but in Jesus Christ our Lord. The apostle does present the results of each course as an incentive for making the right choice, taking the right action. “For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace” (Rom. 8:5-6). The Bible remedy is “love the Lord thy God” supremely, involving the submission of one’s own will to the Lord’s will. This results in forgiveness and leadership that guarantees happiness.

Evils Of Narcissism

Narcissism is the basis for false (vain) religion. “But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Matt. 15:13). False teachers “walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness”, and “presumptuous” and “self-willed” (2 Pet. 2:2, 10). Their narcissistic hearers “will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears” and are “turned away from truth to fables” (2 Tim. 4:3-4). Every religious faith or practice not found in Scripture (The Faith) is a result of and manifestation of destructive narcissism. No wonder God demands that preachers and -elders not be “self-willed” (Tit. 1:7)!

Atheistic thinking says that the cure here is to develop love for others, their right to worship in their own way, and acquiesce in every religion. This may remove the conflict in society, but true religion is not society founded; it is of God. Even if society becomes ecumenical through acquiescence, the Lord still says “every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up” (Matt. 15:13).

Narcissism is behind the demise of many fundamental moral standards and institutions. It has become a designated philosophy – even a religion (so recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court) known as “Humanism.” The Bible designation of this disease “selfishness,” “self-willed”; its warnings and condemnation keep many from looking favorably toward its advocates and participants, so a new name or title is coined. Giving an evil deed a name or title free from stigma (e.g. sickness, self-awareness, my own person, etc.) is one of the devil’s “cunning devices.” Humanism, narcissism, selfishness, self-centered, self-willed are all one and the same. It is a sure road to destruction, physically and spiritually, a disease that every one has-from birth; but is treatable so that its destructiveness can be averted. Indeed, the treatment is self-restraint and love for others, but one doesn’t have to visit a psychoanalyst or even pay $8.95 for Dr. Stern’s book to learn this. The Lord and His Word (The Bible) is the best treatment for narcissism available. Nowhere are the dangers and destructiveness of “self-esteem” pointed out more clearly than in the Scriptures.

The Lord’s Remedy

It was the Lord, centuries ago, who emphasized love as the antidote for this evil. When Jesus was asked what is the great commandment in the law, he replied, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” (Matt. 22:36-39). Loving God supremely will result in submitting self to His will, which is always right and best for us. Loving our neighbor as our self will result in thoughts and actions for him instead of for self only. Truly, here is the antidote for narcissism.

Loving the Lord supremely, humbling ourselves before Him, is always for our happiness and welfare, for He only is all wise, powerful, and knowing, using these attributes for us because He, Himself, is love. God never demands anything of man, or leads in a way, but what is for man’s own good. He is the greatest example of love for man, acting for others, that has ever been. Read Jn. 3:16; Rom. 5:5-8; Jn. 15:13.

Submitting ourselves unreservedly to Him is essential to our having the salvation and contentment which He provides and promises. Jesus said, “Come unto me . . and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28); “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me” (Matt. 16:24). The Holy Spirit says, “Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up” (Jas. 4:10); “God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble” (Jas. 4:6). When we can say for our lives as Jesus did concerning His passion, “not my will, but thy will be done,” and thus act, damning narcissism will be under control.

His will also directs us to love our neighbor, or others. “Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on.the things of others. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of man: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” (Phil. 2:3-8).

Psychiatry properly lists restricting self out of love for one another as proper treatment for the destroying disease of narcissism, but this is treatment only for society – this life. Unless love for God is included, the spiritual hurt and loss is left unchecked and even the social treatment become extremely difficult.

To what extent are you plagued with narcissism? Take a test!

	Yes	No
1. Do you have faith in the omnipotent God of creation?
2. Do you believe the Bible to be His complete, inerrant, revealed Word?
3. Is your every religious act scripturally authorized?
4. Are you willing for your religious faith and practice to be tested by Scripture?
5. Is your chief aim in marriage to give satisfaction rather than to receive it?
6. Are you concerned about how your actions are regarded by others or affects them?
7. In temporal matters, are you willing not to have your way without complaining or criticizing?
8. Are you able to rejoice in the success and achievements of others?

Every “No” answer is indicative of narcissism. You have this disease and every “No” answers suggests “to what degree.” If you answer to question 1 and 2 is “No,” you are doomed. The disease is too far gone. Only the Lord, through conversion, can save you from complete and final destruction. If your answer to question 3 and 4 is “No,” the disease is far advanced. Only radical surgery will treat it. The number of other “No’s” indicate the extent of the disease in you. It will never arrest itself, but will continue to grow, unless properly and regularly treated. Untreated, it is always fatal, both here and in the hereafter.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 33, pp. 530, 538-539
August 21, 1980