Truth Magazine

By Jeff May

Some years ago when I attended college, a number of classes were listed as prerequisites. If a class was listed as a prerequisite, it meant I had to take that class first. If the ideas taught in that class were not learned first it would cause great difficulty in the classes which followed.

Such is also true with this article. If the student of God’s word does not first recognize the distinction between the individual and the church, his further study of the Bible will be fraught with difficulty. He may also fail to understand the objections of many brethren to certain church practices.

Many have supposed that whatever the individual Christian can do, the local church can do also. Others have offered that if the local church cannot do a certain work then neither can the individual. Is this so? Can a valid distinction be made between the local church and the individual?

If no distinction can be made then every command given to the individual is also duty of the local church. If no distinction is to be made we are wasting our time trying to determine if a passage is addressed to the individual or the church.

A Definition of Terms

When I mention the individual, I have reference to the individual Christian who was saved by the blood of Christ in obeying the gospel. Such an individual is added by Christ to the church (universal). The English word church is used to translate the Greek noun ekklesia. Ekklesia simply means the “called out.” In a religious sense, it is used by God to refer to all the saved who are called out of the world and into the body (church) of Christ. One cannot join himself to the universal church. He is added to it by Christ (Acts 2:47). In this article, when I use the word “church” I primarily have in mind the local church. Hasn’t the issue through the years been about what the local church is authorized to do in contrast to what the individual may do? The local church is the “called out” in a given locality such as “the church of God, which is at Corinth” (1 Cor. 1:2). The local church was made up when one by one the saved individuals “joined” themselves to one another agreeing to work together in the collective responsibilities God would assign to them as a local church.

The Work of the Local Church

Many discussions have taken place among brethren concerning the “work of the church.” The meat of these discussions was on what the local church could and could not do in its work as a collectivity. Collective action takes place when the individual members of a group act jointly. Collective action can only occur in the local church because it is impossible for the universal church to assemble on earth. The universal church has no local boundaries and no earthly organization.

A second source of action in the kingdom of Christ is distributive action. The universal church can only function distributively as each member walks according to the teachings of the King. Examples of the term “church” being used “distributively” are easy to spot in Scripture. For example, the individual members contribute distributively on the first day of the week (1 Cor. 16:12), but the funds, once contributed, then belong to the church collectively and may be used only in collective work the Lord has authorized. Also Luke records that Paul “made havoc of the church” (Acts 8:3). Did he make havoc of the church when it was together as a collectivity? No, he made havoc of the church distributively by “entering every house” (Acts 8:3). Notice also in Acts 11:12 that the church in Jerusalem was spoken of as having ears. As a collectivity does a local church have a set of big ears? Why no! This is speaking of the ears of each member of the church distributively.

Now, some desire to reason that what the church can do distributively it can do collectively. This cannot be! Watch what happens if you follow this line of reasoning. If every member of the church had a widow for which he or she cared, would that mean the church was caring for those widows in clear violation of 1 Timothy 5:16? Again, if every member was a part of the armed forces would that mean that the church was a part of the armed forces (2 Cor. 10:3,4)? In the local church in which I labor we have many farmers. If all the members farmed would that make farming a work of the church? Can you see the problem? You cannot gain authority for collective activity from what members may do distributively.

The Bible sets forth a clear distinction. At this point, we may simply ask, “If the individual functions in exactly the same way as the local church functions, why did God establish the local church at all?” There is a distinction.

There Is a Distinction

I will now share with you some passages which show a distinction between the individual and the local church in such a way that one could hardly miss it.

1 Timothy 5:16

“If any believing man or woman has widows, let them relieve them, and do not let the church be burdened, that it may relieve those who are really widows.”

Can we see in this passage that the individual is to relieve the widow so that the church is not burdened? Isn’t this a clear distinction?

Matthew 18:1517

“Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that `by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.”

Can’t we see in these verses that the individual and sometimes individuals are to act first in correcting this problem? As a last resort, the church enters into the situation. Could the distinction be any clearer?

1 Timothy 3:15

“. . . but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

Did Paul write so that Timothy might learn to behave himself within himself? If there is no distinction between the individual and the church that is what the passage says!

1 Corinthians 11:18

“For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it.”

This text clearly shows that individuals “come together as a church.” If they “come together as a church” isn’t there a way they act separately or distributively not as the church?

Acts 5:14

“While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”

Notice closely. Ananias sold a piece of property and brought a portion of the selling price and laid it at the apostles’ feet. At this point a distinction is made. The money changed ownership and control. The money belonged to the individual (Ananias) until he laid it at the apostles’ feet. From then on, it belonged to the church. Now, if we cannot say that whatever belongs to the individual also belongs to church, why would we say, “Whatever the individual does the church must also do?” Are we seeing the clear distinction?

Revelation 3:1,4

“And to the angel of the church in Sardis write, `These things says He who has the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars: “I know your works, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead”‘ (Rev. 3:1).

“You have a few names even in Sardis who have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with Me in white, for they are worthy” (Rev. 3:4).

Notice that as a collectivity the church at Sardis was proclaimed dead but a few individuals had not defiled their garments. Isn’t this another clear distinction?

Just a Few More Distinctions

As an individual, I spank my child in an act of discipline (Heb. 12). But the local church cannot inflict physical disciplinary action on anyone.

As an individual I may raise money for the American Cancer Society. Did Christ die on the cross so that his church might devote itself to this effort?

As an individual, I may endorse, support and vote for a political candidate. But where is the authority for the local church as a collectivity to do the same?

As an individual, I am taught to love my wife emotionally and physically (1 Cor. 7:35). But I would be really upset if the local church thought it had that same responsibility!

A Few Concluding Remarks

In this article, I have not entered into discussing issues that stem from this key distinction. Obviously, this distinction will be used heavily in discussing what the local church may do in benevolence, edification and evangel-ism. It will the job of other writers to deal with those areas.

My job was to present the biblical distinction between individual action and church action. I am convinced that has been done. Both the individual and the local church must always act within the confines of authority. They each must recognize and closely abide by the distinct work God has given to them. All must be done by the authority of the Jesus Christ (Matt. 28:18; Col. 3:17). To fail to recognize the distinction of the individual and local church will lead to acting without authority and result in having to depart from Jesus (Matt. 7:2123).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 19, p. 14-15
October 6, 1994

By Mike Willis

The book of 2 Corinthians exposes Paul’s pain as a result of those who were attacking him and undermining his influence. Many charges were made against Paul which hurt him. He was heartbroken that men said these abusive things about him and even more distraught that some at Corinth actually believed them.

Consider some of the charges Paul’s enemies made to undermine his influence and destroy his reputation:

1. Paul was fickle. Because Paul changed his plans about when he would come to Corinth, his enemies charged that his word could not be trusted. Paul responded, “When I therefore was thus minded, did I use lightness? Or the things that I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh, that with me there should be yea yea, and nay nay?” (1:17) He told them that all of his plans were subject to the providence of God. How does one answer such foolish charges against him?

2. Paul wrote weighty letters, but his bodily presence was weak. His enemies had seen the letters Paul wrote to the Corinthians. Not only had Paul written 1 Corinthians, there is evidence in the Corinthian correspondence of other letters that are not extant. We do not know the tone or length of Paul’s letters, but his enemies maliciously charged that Paul “terrified” the Corinthians by his letters (8:9), described his letters as “weighty,” and contrasted them to Paul’s personal presence which they described as “weak.” Paul wrote, “For his letters, say they are weighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech is contemptible.” He used their words to describe himself when he said that he was “in presence base among you, but being absent am bold toward you” (10:1). How does a man answer these charges? Does he deny that his letters were weighty? Does he boldly assert that his personal presence was as strong as the next man’s? There really is little that a person can do to answer such malice.

3. Paul was rude in speech. Paul alluded to this charge in 11:6  “But though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge.” Paul was schooled and educated; nevertheless, he determined that in his preaching he would not resort to “excellency of speech or of wisdom” in declaring the wisdom of God. Therefore, his speech and his wisdom were not with enticing words of man’s wisdom but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power (1 Cor. 2:1-5). As a result, his enemies charged that he was “rude” in speech. But how does one answer such foolish charges?

4. Paul was not an apostle because he did not take support when preaching at Corinth. While preaching in Corinth, Paul labored with his own hands to support himself and to help those with him. Later, he did receive some “outside support” while there (2 Cor. 11:8). Rather than seeing Paul’s nobility in this conduct, his enemies charged that he had committed an offence against the Corinthians by not accepting support while laboring among them (2 Cor. 11:7-9). How does a man answer such foolish charges? Paul assured them that he did not forego their support because he did not love them, but the only proof he cited was “God knoweth” (2 Cor. 11:11).

Paul’s Pain

These charges caused Paul pain and grief. On several occasions his suffering is reflected in his emotional out-bursts in 2 Corinthians.

O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels (2 Cor. 6:11-12).

Receive us; we have wronged no man, we have corrupted no man, we have defrauded no man. I speak not this to condemn you: for I have said before, that ye are in our hearts to die and live with you (2 Cor. 7:2-3).

Paul was hurt by what his enemies said about him and how those whom he had served were being turned against him by their malicious words.

What Was Behind These Attacks?

These attacks were not motivated merely by personal jealousy. Paul’s enemies were attacking Paul because what they were teaching was different from what Paul was teaching. Consequently, Paul’s defense was not the jealous guarding of his personal reputation; rather, it was a repudiation of the false gospel that the enemies were teaching. He wrote:

For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye received another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him (2 Cor. 11:1-4).

Paul called attention to the fact that the Corinthians received the false teachers but were closing their hearts to the one who taught the gospel in its purity. Even today, some who besmirch the names of faithful gospel preachers are ready to receive, commend, and endorse those who teach another Jesus, receive another Spirit, and teach another gospel.

Paul asserted that these men were false apostles and false teachers.

For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works (11:13-15).

The Corinthians tolerated abusive treatment from these men. Paul described how the false teachers treated the Corinthians in these words: “For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise. For ye suffer, if a man bring you into bondage, if a man devour you, if a man take of you, if a man exalt himself, if a man smite you on the face. ..” (2 Cor. 11:19-20).

We might profit from this record of the abusive treatment of Paul’s person by learning to look behind the personal charges that are made to what is animating them. Sometimes when gospel preachers are castigated as guardians of the party, guardians of the orthodoxy, watch dogs, legalists, writing long letters, and similar personal epithets, these are smokescreens used by the enemies of righteousness to distract the minds of men from the issues of truth which are at stake. Sometimes faithful brethren believe these malicious charges, just as some at Corinth believed the malicious words against the Apostle Paul. Men who have the truth do not need to resort to malicious charges to defend what they preach. They can simply cite book, chapter and verse to prove that the things that they teach are so. When men cease giving book, chapter, and verse answers and start ranting and raving against those who call for Bible authority, this is reason to re-examine the message that is being taught by those bent on under-mining the influence of men who call for Bible authority.

Conclusion

Our age is no more immune to malicious attacks against the servants of God than was the apostolic age. We grieve to witness faithful servants of Christ maligned and can only offer to them this comfort: others before us have suffered the same malicious attacks. Peter wrote, “If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified. But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men’s matters. Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf” (1 Pet. 3:13-15). He exhorted that we imitate the example of our suffering Savior who “did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously” (1 Pet. 2:22-22).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 20, p. 2
October 20, 1994

By Dick Blackford

Among preachers there is a wide variety of interests, preaching styles and abilities. The desires of brethren to listen to a particular preacher is often gauged by these. One is either turned on or turned off by one or more of them. It is of interest to notice that none of these says anything about the content of the sermon(s). That may tell us more about ourselves than we would like to admit. But it will help to know if we have been deceived and made something more important than truth.

Preachers are often noted for different things. For example:

1. Some are scholars. We are greatly indebted to those brethren who are well studied in the linguistics of the Old and New Testaments, men who are capable of writing commentaries that help us in our study of the Scriptures and preparation as gospel preachers. There are not very many scholars and their work is most valuable. There is certainly room in the kingdom for them.

2. Some are eloquent. We often feel at a disadvantage when we see false teachers who can so eloquently spread false doctrine. It is great to have men of the ability of an Apollos among us who can make the way plain and understandable and “mightily confute” those who are in error (Acts 18). There is room in the kingdom for men with great speaking ability.

3. Some are not eloquent. Paul was one of those. The Corinthians said his “letters were weighty and strong but his bodily presence weak, and his speech of no account” (2 Con 10:10). He admitted that he did not “come with excellency of speech” (1 Cor.2:1). Some-times we hear the compliment and criticism toward some brother that “he is a better writer than he is a preacher.” That was being said of Paul. But who would say we don’t need men like Paul today? Though he was not eloquent it is interesting that the Lord used him to carry the gospel on three journeys, to be the apostle to the Gentiles, and to write most of the New Testament.

4. Some are known for their debating ability. There are men who are especially good at thinking on their feet and can quickly analyze an opponent’s arguments and expose his false teaching. Sometimes they are criticized for being “brotherhood watchdogs.” Or, as I have heard them sarcastically referred to as “the pit bulls of the brother-hood.” But we are greatly indebted to these men for being willing to place themselves in vulnerable situations. Had it not been for them we might not be able to recognize the New Testament church today. Many more Christians and congregations might have gone into apostasy had it not been for their work. It is difficult to find harder work that is less appreciated than debating. Some of the most valuable books and tapes in my library are debates. They often make the truth, shine brighter. Surely, there is room in the kingdom for these brethren.

5. Some are known for being personal evangelists. These have been especially successful in studying “one on one” and converting souls to Christ. They are often less into “in-house” controversies but are confuting error on an individual basis. There are many people who never planned to attend an assembly of the saints. Had it not been for those willing to take the time and seeking personal private Bible studies, some would have never heard and obeyed the gospel. No doubt some who are reading this are indebted to such a person. There is plenty of room for them.

6. Some are known for their interest in world evangelism. It is easy to become nearsighted and feel like everything revolves around where we are. I’m glad there are brothers who have broader vision and can scan the horizons for the most fertile fields for the gospel. I enjoy reading their reports. Contrary to some misconceptions (and minus the abuses, of course), working in a foreign land is no vacation, especially in those countries which have been suppressed by communism or are not nearly as developed as the U.S. The gospel is not an American gospel. It does not need to be hoarded in America. There is room in the kingdom for brethren who will be inconvenienced by taking the gospel to foreign lands.

7. Some are known for building up strong congregations. They have a knack for getting brethren to “jell” together and work in unity toward worthwhile goals. They often have a tender approach that lends itself to reconciling estranged brethren. These preachers work hard and are able to keep brethren focused on things which are edifying. “Let all things be done unto edification” (1 Cor.14:26). We owe them a lot. Scoot over and make room for them.

God has chosen men of different, and sometimes opposite, temperaments and manners. Hosea could make a tender and passionate plea from a broken heart while Amos “shelled down the corn” and gave heated rebuke. Hosea spoke of God’s loving kindness while Amos, knowing nothing of what was “politically correct” called the fashionable ladies “cows” and scolded his brethren for their “beds of ivory” and other forms of materialism (Amos 4:1; 6). Moses was not eloquent and was slow of speech and tongue. Aaron could speak well (Exod.4:10,14). However, Jehovah has not seen fit to say a whole lot about preaching styles or speaking ability (but he has had somewhat to say about attitudes). It was not as important to God as it is to men and is a judgment matter.

The Corinthians were unable to accept that God had made room in the kingdom for preachers of different style and manner and they clung to their favorite preacher who did it the way they thought it ought to be done. They were rebuked for being carnal (1 Cor.1:11,12; 3:1). Of course, they could not tolerate Paul’s “inadequacies.” Have you ever seen yourself in the Corinthians?

Dangers

Each preacher described has particular dangers facing him. The temptation to the man who specializes in building up a local congregation is that he could become so wrapped up in creating a closely knit group that the church may end up being built around him. A “mutual admiration society” that thrives on conviviality, with a smattering of spiritual food thrown in is not what the Lord had in mind. Being so focused on the local group, he could have a lack of interest and concern for the work others are doing in difficult places.

The danger to the world evangelist is that of feeling like the grass is always greener elsewhere. He might be tempted to belittle those who have not given up on their native homeland and are not as enthusiastic to do what he is doing.

The danger to the personal evangelist is that since he is dealing with first principles most of the time, he may not grow as he should. Perhaps you have heard it said of a preacher, “He knows how to get them baptized but he doesn’t know how to keep them.” If he becomes too interested in numbers for their own sake, he might be tempted to compromise just to get someone in the water.

The danger facing scholars and debaters is that they may become more concerned with doctrinal academics and shut themselves off from the people by staying holed up in an office somewhere. They may view themselves more as apostles to the brotherhood rather than as local preachers with local responsibilities.

The danger to the eloquent speaker is that too many pats on the back may ruin him. He faces the temptation to continually seek the praises of men (Jn.12:42,43). He may become more concerned with being dynamic in the pulpit than with substance in his sermons. He may also bring out “preacheritus” on the part of his followers.

The danger to the man who is not eloquent is that he will not see the need for good communication skills. He could also become discouraged and not put his best into the work.

What’s A Preacher To Do?

Of all the types of preachers we have described, which one would you rather be? Well, the Lord has not emphasized one above another. The ideal in the Lord’s army is to “Be all that you can be.” Try to be a composite of all the good qualities we see in these descriptions. One should be as studious as he can, develop his speaking ability as well as he can, be ready always to defend the truth against false teaching, seek opportunities to study with individuals in private Bible studies, concentrate on being a local evangelist by getting close to the brethren and trying to bring out the best in them, and be mindful of other fields that are white unto harvest.

That’s a tall order. The apostle Paul comes closer to fitting this description than anyone I know. Though he had no reputation for eloquence, wouldn’t you have loved to have heard him on Mars Hill (Acts 17)? His sermon was a masterpiece. His timing and topic were as appropriate as could be. To these highly educated and sophisticated philosophers he spoke on their ignorance about the only thing that really matters. Surely the Lord knew what he was doing when he selected Paul. And the Holy Spirit knew what he was doing when he had Paul say, “Be ye imitators of me…” (1 Cor.11:1; Phil.4:9).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 20, p. 4-6
October 20, 1994

It’s not easy owning up to this. I am very reluctant to expose a problem that started in my childhood, but it if confession is good for the soul, maybe I’ll feel better.

I can’t really say when my problem started because it seems it’s always been with me. When I was less than a year old my father walked out on my mother, leaving her with four children. Dad and his live-in-lover ate well. We didn’t.

Maybe the poverty had some-thing to do with it. The thing I remember is, that being poor was very inexpensive, but it had drawbacks. We couldn’t even afford electricity. I was probably the only one on our block who had a kerosene stereo.

Another thing about those hated times is Mother couldn’t buy Spock’s book on child raising and I couldn’t hire an attorney to sue for separation, so we did with what we had and used the Holy Bible as a guide. That’s very likely where the drug problem started.

As a child, I was drug to Sunday School, drug to morning worship, drug to Sunday evening service, and drug to Wednesday evening Bible study. And when we had revival meetings, my cruel mother drug me to church nightly.

I will always believe my life is forever marked by a childhood incident at the grocery store. I gave in to temptation and stole a handful of candy only to have my sin revealed. I felt like a dope when mother drug me to the owner of the store, I acknowledged my wrongdoing and paid for my sin.

I can’t remember the entire episode, or the speech that followed, but it seems like she said something about values and respecting what other people owned. She said, “The Bible says, `Thou shalt not steal.’ If you want things, learn to work for them. Don’t steal from someone else.” With that I was saddled with yet another lifetime burden: a work ethic.

I really should mention how my ego suffered irreparable damage by not having my way all the time. Numerous times I was drug to the woodshed for an attitude adjustment. The altering instrument was from a cottonwood tree in the backyard bereft of its lower limbs.

Actually, I really shouldn’t be reluctant to talk about such drug problems because they’ve spared me heartache throughout my adult life. They’ve shaped my values and given me a sense of responsibility. Instead of being desensitized, I’ve learned respect for others and myself.

And though I am not so vain as to make a claim of moral perfection, I will always be grateful for the good influences of these drugs. Traces of them are still in my veins. (Reprinted from The Pentecostal Evangel.)

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 20, p. 1
October 20, 1994