Truth Magazine

By Barry Mark Pennington

According to the New World Dictionary of the American Language, one definition of materialism is “the tendency to be more concerned with material than with spiritual goals.” Christ Jesus exposed the taproot of materialism in his statement about the “thorny soil”: “And others are the ones on whom seed was sown among the thorns; these are the ones who have heard the word, and the worries of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful” (Mk. 4:18-19). Christ Jesus thus explained to his disciples the destructiveness of material covetousness and worry. It is sad that the Lord’s explanation of the “thorny soil” accurately describes many who profess to be Christians today. Reader friend, because of (1) your worry about this life, (2) your being deceived by wealth, and (3) your lust for material things, you prevent the word of God from having free course in your life! Are you as fruitful as you know you should be?

Worries of this Life

Tremendous amounts of time and energy are drained off one’s life as a Christian because of anxiety, fretting, and despair. Certainly outside negative pressures influence the Christian’s inner thoughts, but the true disciple of Christ recognizes that it is possible to close the door of his heart (mind) to gloom and doom. Hear the Lord: “Therefore, do not be anxious for tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own” (Matt. 6:34). It has been stated that one man had been so accustomed to fretting that he often worried because he had forgotten what he was supposed to worry about! Reader friend, God does not want his people to worry. In Phillippians 4:6 Paul commands Christians to “be anxious for nothing.” “Cast all your anxiety on him (God), because he (God) cares for you” (1 Pet. 5:7), Peter declares.

In the American culture Christians must especially be aware of and guard against destructive worry about material things. An old preacher once said that the most sensitive artery in the human body is the one which runs downward to the pocketbook or billfold. Americans are accustomed to having a pocket full of “plastic money.” Credit has almost ruined this country as America is fast falling behind in paying her national debts. How many people have you known personally during the last five years who have fallen as victims to the “credit system”? The typical story goes something like this: (1) Man gets a credit card, (2) Man gets many credit cards, (3) Man’s lust of the eye and the pride of life runs his credit accounts up to the limit, (4) Man suddenly realizes that the time has now come to “pay the fiddler” but the resources to pay are not there (meanwhile, the “new” has worn off the material things he thought he just had to have), and (5) Man worries.

If this scenario ended with worry it would be bad enough, but it does not stop here! Now the man must “moonlight” or convince the wife that she “needs” to work. She enters the work force and he gets several extra jobs “just to make ends meet. ” On and on the story goes. Meanwhile the word of God is ignored and the work of God is neglected or forsaken altogether. Does this sound familiar?

Thus, Christians are often consumed by worries of this life. Worrying about finances will not add a single cubit to your life, reader friend (Matt. 6:27). Past financial mistakes should be repented of and a specific plan for restitution (payment of debts) should be forthcoming. A faithful child of God realizes that fretting is unfruitful. The sin of “over extending oneself” in the realm of credit must be acknowledged to God (I Jn. 1:9), and when God’s forgiveness is obtained the lingering consequences of past mistakes must be dealt with. Paul commands Christians to “owe nothing to anyone” (Rom. 13:8). If creditors are willing to work out an alternate payment plan this will help the Christian who is striving to do God’s will in all things. If the creditors are not flexible in payment options, then the Christian must simply do what he is able to do to pay the debt. Some today are striving to convince themselves that it is scriptural to avoid payment of debt. Meanwhile, subconscious guilt and worry proliferate in their minds.

The Lord’s classic text on worry is found in Matthew 6:24-34. Jesus shows that worry about necessities of life (food, drink, and clothing) is (1) unnecessary (“your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things”), (2) prohibited (“do not be anxious”), (3) futile (“which of you by being anxious can add a single cubit to his life’s span?”), (4) heathenish (“for all these things the Gentiles eagerly seek”), and (5) faithless (“O men of little faith”). May all Christians in America obtain the wisdom necessary to get back to the basics of life.

Deceitfulness of Riches

Wealth is glorified in America. Satan deceives while Christians seek to obtain the goal of riches. It is “conceived and believed” by many that if enough money and worldly possessions are accumulated in a lifetime surely this will lead to happiness. In contrast, the Savior said, “Beware and be on guard against every form of greed; for not even when one has an abundance does his life consist of his possessions” (Lk. 12:15). Many today actually believe that luxuries are necessities. In order to biblically define necessities, consider Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 6:6-8: “But godliness actually is a means of great gain, when accompanied by contentment. For we have brought nothing into the world, so we cannot take anything out of it either. And if we have food and covering, with these we shall be content.”

Most Americans have food and covering, but many are not content. Even Christians find themselves “slaving away” on extra jobs, working long and extra hours in order to obtain more money and possessions. Again, great amounts of energy are drained off the life of a Christian because of the love of money. Some have even “wandered away from the faith, and pierced themselves with many a pang” (1 Tim. 6:10). Attempts are made to justify this obsession with inordinate pursuits of money and worldly possessions. Some well-meaning brother says, “I’ll be able to do so much more for the Lord.” However, in the final analysis, a great majority of all that extra money and those worldly possessions are used in the pursuit of more luxuries! How often have we heard of “get rich quick” schemes luring some brother away from the things of God? Sometimes entire congregations are affected by money-making schemes when unscrupulous brothers attempt to “make merchandise of the brethren” (2 Pet. 2:14-19). The Bible says that “those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare” (1 Tim. 6:9).

In some cases, faithful Christians are wealthy and they consistently obey God’s instructions to (1) not be conceited, (2) not to fix their hope on the uncertainty of riches, (3) do good, (4) be rich in good works, and (5) be generous and ready to share (1 Tim. 6:17-18). Every saint of God must honestly assess his own heart in the pursuit of money. Are you spending precious time pursuing riches and wealth while ignoring the work of God? Has the pursuit of money become a “thorn” in your life which is “choking” the word of God? Are you more concerned with money than you are with prayer, Bible study, and worship?

Desires For Other Things

The decade of the eighties, a world of materialism, offers many things which distract Christians from the word of God. Television, video cassette players and recorders, computers, video games, hobbies, sports, recreation, entertainment, ad infinitum lure the people of God away from fruitful work and service in the kingdom. Many of these things are not wrong within themselves. However, when an individual uses any of these things to go beyond the boundaries of God’s law, he sins (1 Jn. 3:4). For example, watching lewd programming (pornography) on television (cable television, satellite dishes, and movie rental houses are easily accessible in this generation) which incites lascivious thoughts and actions, spending inordinate amounts of time and money on computers, video games, and hobbies, gambling on sport events, and involving oneself in sinful forms of recreation and entertainment such as mixed swimming. dancing, drinking parties, immodest dress, etc. are sinful! It is not the purpose of this article to go into detail proving the sinfulness of these things. It is the purpose of this article to state simply that “desires for other things” (generic thorns) choke the word of God and prevent a Christian from being fruitful. May all Christians everywhere determine to remove the thorns from their fleshly material lives. “No soldier in active service entangles himself in the affairs of everyday life” (2 Tim. 2:4).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 15, pp. 454-455
August 3, 1989

By Mike Willis

Several articles have appeared in a journal circulating among faithful brethren which have discussed fellowship and the divorce and remarriage issue. The articles are important because of the stance taken that Jesus’ law of divorce and remarriage is to be placed in the category of Romans 14 rather than 2 John 9. The position that aliens are not amenable to Christ’s law of divorce and remarriage is not the kind of matters under discussion in Romans 14. Although the author expressed his disagreement with the view that aliens are not amenable he also stated that brethren who teach differently should be received into fellowship on. the grounds of Romans 14.

An extended series of articles on fellowship in which the divorce and remarriage issue is placed in the realm of Romans 14 is in progress. Because of the public nature of the teaching, a private statement of disagreement will not counter the public dissemination of the view that the divorce and remarriage issue belongs in the category of Romans 14.

Is the Doctrine Harmful?

The author places the doctrine that alien sinners are not amenable to the Lord’s law of divorce and remarriage in the same category as the covering, conscientious objector and wedding-in-the-church building issues. The doctrine may be stated like this: the alien sinner is not amenable to the teachings of Matthew 19:9; consequently, he can divorce and remarry for any reason prior to his baptism and keep the mate to whom he is married when he is baptized. This, we are told, is in the same category as the covering issue, conscientious objector issue, and wedding-in-the-church building issue.

I sincerely doubt that our good brother can emotionally or scripturally defend his placing all of these issues in the same category. Would our brother be equally upset if he had a non-Christian daughter coming to the services veiled (or unveiled, depending upon what he believes), choosing to have a wedding in the church building, and entering a second marriage after a divorce for some reason other than fornication? I think not! But, why not? If these all belong in the same category, he should feel the same about each of them. I suggest that emotionally he does not put these in the same category.

Secondly, I suggest that scripturally they do not belong in the same category. The person who violates Matthew 19:9 is an adulterer, guilty of a sin which keeps one out of heaven (1 Cor. 6:9; Gal. 5:19) and out of the fellowship of the saints (1 Cor. 5). Will wearing or not wearing a veil do the same for a woman? Will having a wedding in a church building do the same? I deny that wearing or not wearing a veil and having or not having a wedding in a church building makes a person guilty of sin.

The article described the teaching that alien sinners are not amenable to the Lord’s law of divorce and remarriage as “the minority view.” It reminded us that there are six or seven different positions held by brethren on the subject of divorce and remarriage. Is the purpose of this statement to imply that the truth of God on the subject of divorce and remarriage is so ambiguous that we cannot determine what is right and wrong? Therefore, we should be tolerant of opposing views on the subject.

I remind our readers that the same apostle who wrote Romans 14 also wrote the following:

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them (Rom. 16:17).

A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself (Tit. 3:10-11).

Who Is a False Teacher?

Our brother assured us that a man is not a false teacher unless he is one who has dishonest motives. In so doing, he made statements which opened gates so wide that even he would not accept the logical conclusions of his premises. He said, “Must we label every person who disagrees with us a false teacher, unworthy of fellowship? . . . . The end of such thinking is rampant factionalism.” This raises questions, but offers no answers.

“Must we label every person who disagrees with us a false teacher, unworthy of fellowship?” The answer is obviously, “No.” This raises another question: “Must we label any person who disagrees with us a false teacher, unworthy of fellowship?” The answer is equally obvious, “Yes.” What determines the difference? Our brother did not say.

Rather, he assured, “A false teacher is surely one whose dishonest motives and/or ignorance distinguish him from the sincere brother who has reached an erroneous conclusion.” The difference between a false teacher and a sincere brother who has reached an erroneous conclusion is his motive, attitude, and disposition. If that is the case, I cannot identify a false teacher without being able to discern his heart and 1 Corinthians 2:11 states that a man cannot know the heart of another man. The position espoused in the article changes a false teacher from one who teaches a doctrine which will lead one’s soul to hell to one with a sinful attitude of heart!

Those who led the church into church support of human institutions (missionary societies, benevolent societies, colleges, hospitals, etc.) were men of honorable reputation. Men like Alexander Campbell, J.B. Briney, Batsell Barrett Baxter, and others were men whose character was impeccable. Their character did not deter the impact of their teaching. They were false teachers on the subjects at issue, despite their moral character.

Many of our Baptist friends have impeccable character. Their doctrine of baptism is wrong, regardless of the moral character of the one teaching it. Those who follow the false teachings of a sincerely wrong “blind guide” will be just as lost as those who follow the teachings of one who willfully perverts the teachings of Christ (Matt. 15:14).

Long-Term Consequences

The article plainly asserts that the doctrinal position that alien sinners are not amenable to Jesus’ law of divorce and remarriage (with the consequence that alien sinners who have divorced for some reason other than fornication, and remarried can be baptized and continue living with their mates) should be tolerated among us. This is the most serious issue from this series of articles. It is an issue which must be addressed. Long after revered brethren whose doctrine is under review have gone the way of all the earth, having passed from the scene of life and gone to face the Creator, those who are divorcing their mates for causes other than fornication will continue in their rebellion against the divine word of God. Those who are teaching that God’s law in Matthew 19:9 does not apply to alien sinners will continue to have their influence, bringing into the church those who have divorced and remarried for every reason. Those who teach that “adultery” in Matthew 19:9 is the act of divorcing and can be corrected by a public confession followed by the continuance of the second or third marriage will continue to have their influence. Christians will divorce and remarry for reasons other than fornication, make a confession that they violated their marriage covenant, and continue living with their next mate. Are these views and those who teach them (such as Olan Hicks, Roy Hall, etc.) to be accepted? Are these differences on a par with the covering issue and conscientious objector issue? The articles on fellowship logically lead to that conclusion. With this, I find myself in serious disagreement.

The issue is not one man, even one very respected man. Unfortunately one man became the focal point because some of his public and private teachings were believed and practiced. The result was division – schism, factionalism -in a local church. We sincerely hope that his teachings do not produce that result again, but they will produce that result wherever this doctrine on divorce and remarriage is taught and practiced.

For this reason, we call for brethren to open their Bibles. Bring out every passage which deals with the subject and let us openly discuss the issue until the truth shines clearly, having been learned from the crucible of controversy. While this is being done, let us be careful to conduct ourselves as brethren in love with the Lord and his children.

We are not afraid of controversy. Truth has nothing to fear. What we fear most is an attitude that believes that false doctrine should not be challenged if it is taught by a prominent man! What we fear is a pulpit, bulletin, or paper which is closed to the expression of disagreement. That, my brethren, is the spirit which leads to sectarianism!

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 15, pp. 450, 461
August 3, 1989

By Jerry F. Bassett

This article is intended to deal with only one question of the many which have troubled brethren in their study of marriage and divorce. That question is: In describing the status of a believer from whom his/her unbelieving spouse has departed, what did Paul mean by the words “not under bondage”?

Some have said that the word douloo from which bondage is derived means slavery, and that it is too harsh to describe marriage. It is claimed that Paul is therefore saying that the deserted believer, while still bound in marriage, is not in bondage so as to be required to submit to the unbeliever’s demands which would compromise his/her faith. We notice, however, that this word was not too harsh for Paul to use to describe the Christian’s relationship to Christ (Rom. 6:18), nor his own attitude toward those to whom he preached the gospel (1 Cor. 9:19).

These same brethren go on to say that this word is never used in the New Testament to refer to marriage. But again, we notice that Paul said the deserted believer “is not under bondage in such cases” (emphasis mine, J.F.B.). What happens if the case is reversed and the unbeliever is willing to remain with the believer? Then, logically, he/she is under bondage. In what relationship? The subject is marriage.

How Do We Find the Answer?

The foregoing is a sampling of the fact that the answer to our question is not as cut and dried as some arbiters would have us think. Regardless, unless I am badly mistaken, we would all agree that resolving this matter to the satisfaction of everyone must turn on a clear, and incontrovertible, definition of the terms Paul used. Can this be accomplished by checking the lexicon definitions of the original Greek words and then debating their proper applications in the “bondage” issue? This is what has been done, and for the most part, it has only furnished fuel for intensifying the heat of the dispute. Is there a better, hopefully simpler, way? I think so. That way is indicated in the following words from the pen of J.H. Thayer. “The nature and use of the New Testament writings require that the lexicographer should not be hampered by a too rigid adherence to the rules of scientific lexicography. A student often wants to know not so much the inherent meaning of a word as the particular sense it bears in a given context and discussion ” (Preface, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. vii, emphasis mine, J.F.B.).

So, let us give Thayer’s suggestion a try. Let us consult the context of 1 Corinthians 7:15 by tracing one of the terms Paul used in discussing marriage back to its use by Jesus in discussing the same subject. Then, we will bring that use back to 1 Corinthians 7:15 to see if that will help us understand what Paul meant by the words “not under bondage.”

From Paul Back to Jesus

At this point, we will assume that we know absolutely nothing about the meaning of the word “bondage” found at 1 Corinthians 7:15. But we notice, and trust all will agree, that the status of the believer’s being “not under bondage” is the result of the departure of an unbelieving spouse. Now, let us work our way back from Paul at 1 Corinthians to Jesus at Matthew 19.

1. The word “depart” used by Paul is from the Greek word chorizo (George V. Wigram and Ralph D. Winter, The Word Study Concordance, p. 805). The English spelling of this word varies depending on the authority cited.

2. At verse 11, Paul used the same word referring to a woman who had departed from her husband.

3. At verse 10, in which Paul declared that he was saying the same thing as that already spoken by the Lord, he used the same word to forbid a woman to depart from her husband.

4. And, at Matthew 19:6, Jesus used this same word, chorizo, which is translated there “put asunder” (KJV). But verse 3 shows that Jesus was responding to the Pharisees’ question regarding the propriety of a man’s putting away (divorcing, NKJB) his wife for every cause. Thus, Jesus used this word to mean the sundering, or separating, of a marriage through divorce.

From Jesus Forward to Paul

Now, let us see if understanding how Jesus used the word chorizo can be of any help to us in determining what Paul meant by “not under bondage.”

1. Again, Jesus used chorizo to mean divorce. It is doubtful that anyone would dispute this fact; certainly not in view of the context of Matthew 19:3-9.

2. At 1 Corinthians 7:10, and saying the same thing Jesus had said while in the flesh, Paul used the word chorizo to forbid a woman to depart from her husband. Since it is used to say the same thing Jesus had said, it must, therefore, mean the same thing Jesus had meant, i.e., divorce. In fact, it is so translated in the New King James Bible.

3. At verse 11, Paul again used chorizo to instruct a woman who had departed from her husband to remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to him. Her departing clearly constituted a divorce since it resulted in her being “unmarried.” Again, the New King James Bible so translates it. Chorizo thus equals divorce in this passage.

4. Then, at verse 12, Paul begins to address Christians who were involved in a marriage with an unbeliever. This implies that his instruction at verses 10-11 was aimed at marriages in which both partners were believers. Further, what he had to say to those in a mixed marriage would differ from what he had repeated from the Lord regarding two believers. If not, he would have had no reason to address them separately.

For example, imagine a college football coach speaking to his team on the first day of practice. To his veteran players returning from the previous year he says, “You men go to the other end of the field and start warming up.” Then he turns to his new players and says, “The rest of you men, stay here with me.” Does anyone with the perception to visualize a goal post have any difficulty seeing that this coach would be addressing two different categories of players because he had a different message for each?

So also Paul. What he wrote at 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 refers to what the Lord had spoken to a marriage consisting of two people in a covenant relationship with God. All agree that Paul applied what the Lord said to, at the least, marriages consisting of spouses both of whom were in the New Covenant. These people were commanded explicitly not to depart from (not to put away) their partners. But if they did violate this command they must: (1) remain unmarried or (2) be reconciled (remarry with one another).

However, speaking to “the rest” at 1 Corinthians 7:12-15, Paul clearly addressed Christians married to unbelievers. This involved marriages in which one spouse was in covenant relationship with God, and one was not. In such marriages the believer was required to abide in the marriage if the unbeliever was willing to remain with him/her. But if the unbeliever chose to depart, the believer was required to let him/her do so. The believer, Paul said, was “not under bondage in such cases.”

Remembering the football coach illustration above, the difference between the two categories of marriages addressed in 1 Corinthians 7, and the different requirements imposed upon their parties, is set forth in the following chart.

FOOTBALL COACH

To Veteran Players To New Players

Go to the other end of the field, warm up. Stay with me.

PAUL

1 Cor. 7:10-11 1 Cor. 7:12-15

To Believers (members of the church To the Rest; Believers Married

in Corinth) Married to Each Other to Unbelievers

If you Depart, You Must: If the Unbeliever Departs, The Believer Must:

1. Remain unmarried, or, 1. Let him do so

2. Be reconciled (“Not under bondage”; expressly stated) (under bondage; implied)

In both Cases

Two Different Categories, Two Different Messages!

5. Notice again that the word translated “depart” at verse 15 is still chorizo, and its use is still in reference to marriage.

6. Further, when Paul used this word to describe the disruption of marriage, he was using the same word he had used twice before in the same context to mean divorce. And of great significance is the fact that he used this word in precisely the same way that Jesus had used it at Matthew 19:6.

7. Here, then, is a believer who, because of his/her faith, has been divorced by an unbelieving spouse. This believer now occupies exactly the same status as that effected by the woman of verse 11 who departed from her husband, i.e., unmarried. Or, in the words of Jesus, this believer’s marriage has been “put asunder” by the departing of the unbeliever. And, in the words of Paul at 1 Corinthians 7:15, this believer is “not under bondage in such cases.”

Conclusion

If this article’s defining of the word chorizo by tracing it from Paul’s use back to Jesus’ is correct, then “depart” at I Corinthians 7:15 means divorce. Thus, Paul’s expression, “not under bondage,” has to mean that the unbeliever’s disertion of the believer leaves the latter unmarried according to the will of the Lord and totally free from the marriage bond. As Alexander Campbell put it, “. . . the believing party is to the deserter as though they had never been married” (Millennial Harbinger, Vol. V, p. 72).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 15, pp. 464-465
August 3, 1989

By James W. Adams

It has been suggested that self-abasement motivated by the desire to advertise one’s humility in order to be admired is “humility with a hook.” When I ran across this observation in my reading, it struck a responsive chord. The “humility” of far too many professed, New Testament Christians has a “hook,” hence is quite spurious. Self-depreciation for the sake of advertising humility is no more than a contemptible, Pharisaical ploy which emanates from a deeply self-righteous disposition. It is not an identifying mark of godliness nor evidence of “total commitment.” Rather, it is an age-old symbol of hypocrisy.

True piety is not demonstrated by a sanctimonious countenance, maudlin affirmations of sentimental “love,” a sepulchral tone of voice, and vocal protestations of “humility.” To the contrary, it is evidenced by what we are. What we are is determined by what we believe. What we believe is manifested by what we do, and what we do, both as to quality and degree, is the “proof of the sincerity of our love” and devotion. Paul urged the saints at Corinth to give liberally of their means for the 4dpoor among the saints” at Jerusalem in order that they might “prove the sincerity of their love” (2 Cor. 8:8).

John, “the apostle of love,” stated the point tersely and explicitly when he wrote: “My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue, but in deed and in truth” (1 Jn. 3:18). Advertised humility, conspicuously displayed and vindicated by depreciation of others, whether voiced or implied, neither commends itself, nor him who practices it, to the Lord. Jesus is specific about this in the parable of “the Pharisee and the publican” who went up to the temple to pray (Lk. 18:9-14).

The proud Pharisee commended himself to the Lord in the following manner: “He stood and prayed thus with himself: God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week. I give tithes of all that I possess.” The publican, on the other hand, “stood afar off, would not lift so much as his eyes to heaven, but smote upon his breast saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.”

The verdict of Jesus relative to the contrasting humility demonstrated in these two prayers was: “I tell you, this man (the publican, jwa) went down to his house justified rather than the other (the Pharisee, jwa): for everyone that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.” The Pharisee’s advertised self-abasement for the purpose of being admired did not impress the Lord. The Lord perceived the “hook” in his “humility.” The lesson is clear: “Humility with a hook” is human egotism born of pride and arrogance. True humility is self-abasement born of a consciousness of sin-guiltiness, hence unworthiness before God, and a consequent, utter dependence upon him and complete submission to his will.

Professed servants of the Lord may succeed in deceiving themselves and others by “humility” with a camouflaged “hook,” but the Lord will not be “taken in” by it. Apostate Israelites who advertised their “humility” with an outward show of religion but were inwardly corrupt were warned by Jeremiah: “Thus says the Lord . . . I, the Lord, search the heart, I test the mind, even to give to every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings” (Jer. 17:10, NKJV). Jesus challenged the Jews of his time with the question: “Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Lk. 6:46) Also, in a single lesson, he called the Pharisees and scribes “hypocrites” seven times. In addition, to that, he called them “blind guides, children of hell, fools, whited sepulchers, serpents, and a generation of vipers.” He pronounced “woe” upon them and asked them, “How can ye escape the damnation of hell?” (Matt. 23:1-39)

It is my conviction, based on solid evidence, that maudlin emotionalism has taken over the worship of multitudes of professed “churches of Christ” and their constituents in their public worship and general demeanor as such. I am further convinced that this is evidence of modern Pharisaism in full bloom and quite as worthy of condemnation as that which existed in our Lord’s day upon earth. It is “humility with a hook” with vengeance. I insist that this is not an “unchristian” judgment of motivation, but an observation based upon conditions too patent to the debatable. The fruit betrays the seed which produces it!

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 15, pp. 449, 462
August 3, 1989