individual vs. church – La Vista Church of Christ

The Individual Member Versus the Church

Jeffrey Hamilton — Wed, 16 Jul 2025 18:54:15 +0000

by Charles Spence
via Sentry Magazine, Vol. 17 No. 4, 31 December 1991

As those who obey the gospel are added to the Lord’s church, they have a responsibility to join with disciples in their area. After his conversion, Paul sought to join the disciples who were assembling in Jerusalem. "And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple" (Acts 9:26). Saul saw the need to be with disciples, as should any child of God. Yet, what often happens in the process is that the individual loses his identity. Some brethren fail to distinguish between what an individual Christian can do and what the church can do. The Bible, however, makes the distinction very clear.

Bad Hermeneutics

Some of our brethren reason that whatever the individual Christian is commanded to do, the church can also do. Some have even said, for the sake of consistency, one may suppose that when the individual Christian is acting upon the commands of Christ, the church is active. Such reasoning is flawed and lacks a biblical foundation. There is no exegetical exercise from which one can glean such misconceptions. The rule that states "Whatever the individual is commanded to do, the church can do" has evolved in the minds of men, at best. Thus, this logic did not originate with scripture.

Consider Paul’s command to the individual Christian in Ephesians 4:28. "Let him who stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth." Applying the rule that some brethren had made for themselves, if the individual Christian is commanded to work with his hands (engage in industry), then the church can produce goods and services for profit or pay. According to the same logic, the church can have a member’s spouse. Paul said in I Corinthians 7:2, "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." Of course, what is being suggested is both facetious and faulty. But sometimes one needs to "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit" (Proverbs 26:5). Understandably, anything that proves too much proves nothing.

The Biblical Distinction

There is a distinction between what an individual believer can do and what the church can do. This distinction is highlighted in Matthew 18:15-17. Here, Jesus gives instructions on how His subjects should behave in His Kingdom. When a brother was offended by another brother, the offended brother was to go and tell the brother who had offended him his fault (Matthew 18:15). If he would not hear, the offended brother was to bring one or two more witnesses, as Matthew 18:16 states. Up to now, there isn’t anything Jesus said that indicates or suggests church action. The action prescribed was individual.

In Matthew 18:17, Jesus says, "And if he neglect to hear them, tell it to the church." It is here that Jesus outlines the role of the church. According to the logic of some brethren, church action was initiated when the brother who was offended went to the one who offended him. But Jesus made the distinction. Even when a few brethren were employed to go to the offender, it still did not constitute church action. It was when they were not heard that the church got involved, but not until then.

Another distinction is found in I Timothy 5:16. "If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed." Can the church be held responsible for the care of widows who have able relatives within the congregation? No! Yet, the way some brethren reason, it can. "Whatever the individual believer is commanded to do, the church can do." This is a fallacious logic, of which I Timothy 5:16 is offered as proof.

When correct hermeneutical principles are applied, many of the innovative ideas will be nipped in the bud. When the proper distinction is made between the individual member and the church, much confusion will be avoided. With proper study, all interested parties will be able to cast down the lines of division, striving toward the "unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Ephesians 4:3)

How do I teach someone about the proper way to do benevolence?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sat, 20 Jun 2020 21:40:03 +0000

Question:

Hello,

I am a newer Christian and love your site. Thanks so much for making it available. While I have much growth spiritually, know that you are helping me to grow.

My cousin and I do not agree on the benevolence work of an individual Christian vs. the Local Church. He wants to study with me so we are going to start with a study of Church Authority. You have several articles as well that we plan to study.

He attends a liberal church of Christ that performs physical work for the needy such as car washes, painting houses, etc. I’ve shared that that is the work of an individual but it is not authorized benevolence for the church. He disagrees.

In regards to where I need your help, it is with this comment that my cousin says: “When I stand before God, I would rather know that I have helped individuals and His grace will cover me.” I contend that we are to help others as an individual but doing it with church affiliation is not authorized. He asked if I thought it was a matter of salvation and I said that we are not to judge but what he was doing was not scriptural. How do I explain to him that helping as a local church is sinful?

We also disagree on where we should do volunteer work. I’ve shared that volunteering for an organization that is church-affiliated is perpetuating sin the same as making financial offerings to churches that teach false doctrine. How do I study this scripturally? What does the Bible say?

Answer:

The direction you are taking your study makes it difficult for your cousin to consider your points.

My question for him is: How important is it to follow God's commands? If it is true that God does not like for men to alter His teachings, should we be careful to stay within the boundaries that God has laid out? Behind your cousin's statements is a belief that careful following of God's teachings is not necessary. Of course, we see that this is not what was taught in the Bible. "Be careful to listen to all these words which I command you, so that it may be well with you and your sons after you forever, for you will be doing what is good and right in the sight of the LORD your God" (Deuteronomy 12:28).

The idea that I can make mistakes and trust that God's grace will cover them over is addressed by Paul. "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?" (Romans 6:1-2). It is God who decides if He will extend mercy. It is not up to the one being judged to insist that he is owed mercy.

Your cousin is also making the mistake of rating God's laws. He is saying that only laws in the category of "salvation issues" have to be obeyed and all other laws are optional. But James tells us, "If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself,' you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. For He who said, 'Do not commit adultery,' also said, 'Do not commit murder.' Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law" (James 2:8-11). I can hear someone saying being partial is not a salvation issue. But James says that all laws are interconnected and carry equal weight.

Now notice that I haven't said anything about the direct disagreement, but that is because his view is a natural consequence of being off track on more fundamental subjects. It is those fundamental points that need to be addressed first.

Your sermon shed light on an issue we were facing

Jeffrey Hamilton — Thu, 06 Dec 2018 22:38:00 +0000

Question:

Good day brother Jeffrey,

Thank you for helping me clarify some issues which I faced. I read the sermon, Who Is Responsible? It shed some light for us here, together with an explanation of the Individual-Group distinction. I thank our God Almighty for your website. It helps so many people and Christians who need some help. I pray to God that all the members and leaders of the La Vista Church of Christ may have a long life, so that you may continue your good work in helping and spreading the Gospel.

Take care and God bless you more.

Answer:

I am so glad the lesson helped you toward a solution to your issues.

Individual or Church?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Tue, 17 Feb 2015 22:59:00 +0000

by Jimmy R. Mickells

I was recently given a bulletin with an article in it that asked this question: "Where does the Bible make a distinction between the individual member and the church in the work of the Lord?" May we notice together that the word of God answers this question very clearly? The reason that some contend that there is no distinction between the two, an individual and the church, is that they want to practice something for which the church has no authority. There are differences between what a church is authorized by God to do and what an individual can do.

In I Timothy 5:16, Paul made this statement, "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." This passage very clearly makes a distinction between what the individual is to do, the believing man or woman that has widows, versus the responsibility that the church has, let not the church be burdened. The church was to help those who were "really widows." Notice the stipulation that the apostle gave before she was to be taken into the number. "Do not let a widow under sixty years old be taken into the number, and not unless she has been the wife of one man, well reported for good works: if she has brought up children, if she has lodged strangers, if she has washed the saints' feet, if she has relieved the afflicted, if she has diligently followed every good work" (I Timothy 5:9,10). This is the answer to the question above.

As an individual, I can give money to the Red Cross, support the American Cancer Society, help Alive Hospice, contribute to a political party or candidate, etc. As long as what I'm doing is not evil, I can spend my money (given to me by God) in whatever way I deem best. This is not true with the church. It can only act as authorized by God. He gave her work to do. Can the church contribute to the Red Cross, American Cancer Society, etc.? Absolutely not! Why? It has no authority at all to use the funds collected on the first day of the week, by free-will offering, to be used for something other than what we read about in the Bible.

Many churches of Christ today are using the Lord's money to provide things for members (and non-members) that the individual should be supplying. It is not the work of the church to provide entertainment, gyms, camps, social meals, etc. As a parent, I'm to provide these things for my children. I have responsibilities that I must fulfill and I cannot and should not expect the church to do what the Lord requires me to do. Is there a difference between what an individual can do and what the Lord's church can do? Paul says there is! Will you accept the answer that is given? We must never be guilty of involving the church in some work that God has not authorized it to do. Remember the words of John, "Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds" (II John 9-11).

Individual Duty or Local Church Duty?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Fri, 10 Jan 2014 01:11:00 +0000

by Howard Justice

During the past half-century, there has been a serious amount of confusion as to how a member of God’s family relates to his role in the family of God and how this service involves the local unit known as the local church. It has presented problems in understanding what a Christian may do as an individual or as a local church.

This problem has caused serious doubts and has resulted in some novel catch phrases as; “I am the church; therefore, the church is me” or “The individual can do what the church can do and the church can do what the individual can do.” So, let’s take a serious look at this relationship using God’s Word for our guide.

The Initial Relationship

We are made Christians by immersion into Jesus Christ. I believe that we all accept this as a fact. God “added those to the church who were being saved” (Acts 2:47). And it is here that many fail to understand that we are made heirs to the kingdom by the adoption of God through our faithful obedience. As Luke wrote in Acts 2:47, we are “added to” the church as soon as we are made acceptable by our cleansing or “washing of regeneration” (John 3:5; Titus 3:5). In other words, as soon as we come up out of the watery grave of baptism, God “adds us” to the kingdom of His dear Son. We are made partakers (Colossians 1:12; Romans 8:16,17).

Only after we have been “added to” the kingdom of Heaven do we then elect to become members of a local work. God adds us to His spiritual family but only we choose to add ourselves to a local ‘family’ of Christians just as the newly converted Paul did in Acts 9:26: “And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.”

As members of God’s family, we are subject to God’s laws. These same laws regulate our behavior in both the kingdom (also known as the universal Church) and in the local church. Where many have problems in this regard is understanding their responsibilities and liberties as members of the universal church and their responsibilities and liberties as members in the local church.

The Great Confusion

In I Timothy 3:14,15, the apostle Paul wrote to the young preacher Timothy: “These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

What Paul told Timothy was, “I’m telling you these things so that you may know how you are to live your life and teach others to do likewise as members of God’s family.” Where could Timothy find those of God’s household? Why, they may be found in local assemblies, of course. And, it is this enclave of saved believers who constitute the “pillar and ground of the truth” in each community.

Almost two centuries ago, Alexander Campbell believed that the universal Church consisted of all the local congregations. He was clearly mistaken. The universal Church consists of all Christians, living as well as dead, from Pentecost until now. According to the writer of Hebrews, the universal church consists of “the spirits of just men made perfect” (Hebrews 12:23). Unfortunately, the local church does not share this same honor in all instances. But, back to the lesson.

While many of the Lord’s instructions have overlapping applications to one’s activities in the local assemblies (for indeed they are an integral part of a Christian’s life), these instructions apply specifically to a Christian’s life as a personally accountable sojourner on this earth. In other words, there are instructions that regulate our entire life as both individual Christians and as members of a local assembly. They tell us, as individuals, how we are to conduct our personal lives as Christians. While some are specific to our local church family relationship, most are to apply to our roles simply as citizens of the Heavenly kingdom.

Determining Individual Versus Local Church Responsibilities

Here is the core problem with so many Christians. How does one determine which application assigns a particular instruction or set of instructions? Some say, “If the epistle is directed to a particular church, then it speaks to a local church relationship.” But, that’s not necessarily true. In many epistles, the text may be speaking to personal or individual attributes or characteristics. In other passages of the same epistle, the context is local church responsibility. So, how does the reader determine which application is proper? The answer is that it is determined by the context of that particular passage. As brother Roy Cogdill once wrote: “A proof text without context is simply a pretext.”

No other passage has been at the center of as much controversy as has Galatians 6:1-10 with regard to individual versus local church responsibility. Brethren have taken great liberty to insert local church responsibility here even though individual responsibility is its primary theme. Note the tendency of brethren who misapply this verse: “Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted.”

Many will say, “Just look at the Greek oi (plural) used here for the “you.” That shows this to be a collective issue.” Yes, the oi is plural in the Greek. But the reason that it is plural is not that this is a command given exclusively to a local church as a collective unit but that it is speaking to each of these men who are “spiritual.” Each one is to be involved who has the level of spirituality equal to the task at hand. Not every local church member will have the degree of spirituality necessary to undertake this awesome task. It is what we might call a “collectively selective” group of individuals who will generally number less than the totality of male members of any local congregation.

But look closely at the next couple of singular pronouns: seauton (one’s self, singular) and su (you, singular) where Paul states: “considering yourself lest you also be tempted.” The thrust here is that each man, who is mature spiritually, is to help restore this sinner but that each man is to consider his own spirituality so that he (singular) will not be also tempted to sin. Not one word here mentions the local church. It is not the local assembly itself that is to do this but rather, it is certain individuals who are to do this on an individual basis. Not all members here were to be involved.

To prove my point, let us simply insert the term “local church” each time we see the subject in the following verses. Here’s how ridiculous it will appear:

“For if a local church reputes itself to be something, being nothing, it deceives itself;”
“but let each local church prove its own work, and then it will have its boast in what belongs to itself alone, and not in what belongs to another local church. ”
“For each local church shall bear its own burden.”
“Let the local church that is taught in the word communicate to him that teaches in all good things.”
“Be not deceived: God is not mocked; for whatever a local church shall sow, that also shall it reap.”
“For the local church that sows to its own flesh, shall reap corruption from the flesh; but the local church that sows to the Spirit, from the Spirit shall reap eternal life:”
“but let the local church not lose heart in doing good; for in due time, if the local church does not faint, it shall reap.”
“So then, as the local church has occasion, let it do good towards all, and specially towards those of the household of faith.”

It is so obvious here that Paul was speaking about individual responsibility in the foregoing passage. “Doing good unto all men” is so clearly a work of the individual and not a mandate of any local church. It was (and still is) a matter of individual responsibility. Which brings us to the following.

Individual Responsibility

As citizens of this world, individual Christians all have a certain number of specific responsibilities. These responsibilities relate to:

The Home: I Peter 3:1-7; Ephesians 6:1-4; Colossians 3:18-21
The Government: Romans 13:1-8; I Peter 2:13-17
The Business World: I Thessalonians 4:11-12; I Timothy 5:8; Colossians 3:22-4:1
The Community: I Peter 2:12; Colossians 4:5; I Corinthians 10:31-33
The Local Church: Acts 11:29; Hebrews 10:24-25; I Corinthians 11:18,20,33,34; 14:26; 16:1-4
The Kingdom of Heaven: John 3:5; Acts 2:47; I Corinthians 12:12,18,27; Ephesians 4:12; Colossians 1:13; I Timothy 3:14-15 (includes the “brotherhood” I Peter 2:17)

Christians have many relationships in this life. Yet, we dare not confuse one with the other. As members of His kingdom, our lives and actions must be regulated by the superior law of our Creator (Galatians 6:2). Our Christian nature must be evident in all our relationships. But, that gives us no license to introduce the local church into politics, business, the home, or even the government. There is no authority for the local church to be involved in anything other than the preaching and teaching of the gospel, edifying its members, and caring for needy saints. Those are the three authorized works of a local church as set forth by God’s Word. There is no pattern for many of the modern-day schemes of man regarding the local church.

Some believe that it is through the local church that we are to carry out all our works. In fact, my mother once taught me that, but I later learned better. No, the Holy Spirit has given us specific instructions regarding what we are to do as members of a local church. Each of these instructions came to us in the form of a command or a positive statement, as an apostolically approved example or by necessary inference. The Holy Spirit didn’t give us a host of “Thou shall nots,” but left us to discern, by our disciplined study of God’s Word, what we are to do and how we are to do it.

The local church was designed by our Lord to provide us a means by which we are to edify one another, provide for needy saints, and to preach the gospel to a lost and dying world. Beyond those three areas of work, there is no authority for a local church to be involved in any benevolence to the unsaved. Individuals may (and should) relieve their neighbors. But, the subjects of local church benevolence were always needy Christians and their families.

How we relate to our needs in the government, the community, business enterprises, and the home are all related to our individual commitment to the Lord. How we care for our unsaved neighbors is simply regulated by our relationship with our Lord as individual children of the spiritual kingdom that we refer to as “the Church.” That relationship, like our relationship to our homes, our government, our community, and our business endeavors, is an individual one.

How we are to care for our needy friends who are not Christians is through our individual responsibility to the community, not as the local church. For some unexplained reason, brethren have confused individual responsibility here with local church responsibility. The local church has no obligation to the secular world other than taking the gospel to them (Mark 16:15-16; Matthew 28:19). It is the individual who has the responsibility of benevolence toward those who are outside of Christ, not the local church. That’s what Galatians 6:7-10 teaches.

Yet, as noted above, these same brethren read into Galatians 6:1-10 that the local church is to do good unto all men (including the alien sinner) but, as we have already seen above, that passage is not in reference to local church responsibilities but to individual responsibilities. All that is necessary to prove that point is to take out the personal pronouns and read it with the phrase “the local church” in their place. When such is done, it conflicts with other Bible principles. Therefore, the necessary implication is that it is the responsibility of the individual and not the local church to render benevolence to all men. The parable of the Good Samaritan, while often offered as a good example of local church responsibility, is really about individual responsibility. Not one word is even mentioned about local church responsibility there.

But to add to what we’ve already seen, allow me to ask a few questions.

Does the New Testament give the local church the responsibility to vote in political elections or does it have a responsibility to do so? If so, then where? Book, chapter, and verse, please.
Does the New Testament give a local church the right to operate any business venture? If so, then where? Book, chapter, and verse, please.
Does the Bible give the local church the authority to sponsor community forums, Boy Scout troops, or even social or political rallies? If so, then where? Book, chapter, and verse, please.
Does the Bible give the local church the right to marry or have intimate relations as do married folk and to procreate? If so, then where? Book, chapter, and verse, please.
Does the Bible authorize the local church to contribute to the Red Cross, to the Salvation Army, or to the United Fund? If so, then where? Book, chapter, and verse, please.

Brethren, it’s high time that we all come to a clear understanding regarding what is the responsibility of the individual and what is clearly the responsibility of the local church in any regard. Almost sixty years ago, the brethren in many local churches split over this very issue. Why did this occur? It happened because the brethren failed to teach God’s Word in this matter and many brethren failed to understand the difference. It happened because many well-intentioned brethren saw some particular need but failed to follow God’s Word in their desire to fulfill that need. A noted historian once said: “Those who ignore the mistakes of history are apt to repeat them.” May God help us all to learn, and to profit from our mistakes.

The Difference Between Individuals and the Church

Jeffrey Hamilton — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 20:28:00 +0000

by Greg Gwin

In a recent discussion of church benevolence, the point was made that the church has a limited benevolent role (only to needy saints), while individual Christians can and should help all who are legitimately in need (Galatians 6:10). Someone offered this rebuttal:

“Why maintain a division in the church over money when the money is God’s before it is given on the first day of the week, and is still God’s when it is not given? . . . If there is nothing that is not God’s then His money is still feeding the poor either through the elders' hand or through individuals. It is God’s money, God’s people, doing God’s work.”

What we see here is a classic case of failing to recognize the difference between individual Christians and the church as a collective body. Notice these passages which make this clear distinction:

The individual is not the church: "For the body is not one member, but many" (I Corinthians 12:14).
The individual is charged when the church is not: "If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed" (I Timothy 5:16).
The individual has responsibilities that the church does not: "Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone ... if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more ... and if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church ...” (Matthew 18:15-17).
The individual’s money is distinct from the church's: "But a certain man named Ananias ... sold a possession, and kept back part of the price ... and brought a certain part, and laid it, at the apostles' feet. But Peter said ... , Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost … Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? And after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?" (Acts 5:1-4).

Who Is Responsible?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Mon, 25 Jul 2011 03:18:00 +0000

https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/WhoIsResponsible.mp3

by Jeffrey W. Hamilton

Text: Galatians 6:1-10

I. One of the issues that has divided brethren is that of doing good.

A. The question is who is responsible?

B. One side argues that it doesn’t matter, so long as the good is done. The other side argues that you cannot give away a responsibility God has given to you.

II. Before we get into the actual verses, we need to first address the question: Is the church merely a group of Christians?

A. If it is, then the argument that whatever God commanded of an individual can be done by the group

B. There is a distinction in funds - Acts 5:3-4

1. Notice that while the money are his, he could have done whatever he wanted.

2. But it was no longer his own, it was given to the church.

C. There is a distinction in address - Matthew 18:15-18

1. As a problem is trying to be resolved, it goes first to the individual, then to a small group of Christians, and finally to the church.

2. If the church is merely a collection of individuals, then it could not referred to a separate step

D. There is a distinction in environment - I Corinthians 14:34-36

1. Women are to be silent in church, but may ask questions at home.

E. There is a distinction in obligation - I Timothy 5:16

1. The individual had responsibility to care for widows in his own family - I Timothy 5:8

2. The church was given a restricted set of qualifications - I Timothy 5:9-11

3. The individual was specifically told not to turn over his responsibility to the church.

III. Doing Good - Galatians 6:7-10

A. In Galatians 6:7-8, who is being addressed?

1. We see words like “man,” “he,” and “his flesh.”

2. These are words to the individual.

3. A church doesn’t have flesh since it is an organization

B. The point is that a person harvests what he sows.

1. Good seed will yield a good crop. Bad seed will yield a bad crop.

2. Hosea 8:7 makes the same point, but also notes you get back more than you plant

a. Most don’t count on that.

b. Doing a little bad, doesn’t get you a little bad consequences - Proverbs 22:8

3. So we need to sow righteousness - Proverbs 11:18; Hosea 10:12

C. “And” - Galatians 6:9 continues the thought

1. Paul says we are not to give up doing that good

a. Literally the phrase in Greek is “Let us not keep on giving in to evil while doing the good” (Robertson’s New Testament Word Pictures).

2. Just because the farmer sows seed, does he quit because he got no results the next week? Of course not.

3. Do we give up because the results of righteousness don’t come in as quick as we had hoped? The answer is the same: Of course not!

D. What is meant by switching from the singular third person to plural first person?

1. While the warning against sowing sin was not directed to any particular individual, the command to not give up is for everyone, including Paul.

2. Could it be a shift from the individual to the church? Such doesn’t work grammatically.

a. If you are talking about the church, it is singular, though it is made up of multiple individuals.

b. If you use the plural for churches, then you are referring to many groups. So if this was addressing the church we went from talking about individuals in the third person to many churches in the first. That is not a natural shift, especially while continuing a point.

c. “We” includes the speaker. Paul is an individual, he is not a church.

3. It is not a shift of responsibility from the individual to the church. The church is not even in consideration in these verses.

a. Start again in verse 1, “a man,” “you,” “anyone,” “himself,” “he,”

b. Note particularly Galatians 1:4-5 and realize that Paul is not talking about the church, but individual Christians.

4. The shift from singular to plural is common in Galatians, often occurring when Paul summarizes his points.

a. For example, see Galatians 5:16-26

b. It means the conclusion drawn is not just for some, but for everyone, including Paul.

5. The use of “all”

a. When Paul says to do good to all, “all” broadens the target of the good to every example of what is under consideration.

(1) If Paul was talking to churches, the “all” would refer to all churches.

(2) But that would not make sense because churches would be of the faith by their very nature, so you could note say especially those of the household of faith.

(3) Besides God’s household is not made up of churches but of Christians.

b. The translators know that Paul is talking about people and add the word “men” or “people” to make it explicit.

c. So “Let us do good to all” is about people doing good to other people, not churches doing good to other churches.

E. What is our duty? To do good, to not give up, to take advantage of opportunities, and to put priority on helping other Christians.

IV. Visiting Widows and Orphans - James 1:27

A. After spending so much time on Galatians 6:9-10, James 1:27 should be straight forward.

B. The context is clear: “Anyone” and “oneself” is not addressed to a church

1. Churches don’t have a tongue or a heart

C. Visiting doesn’t mean stopping by for a brief chat or sending a check.

1. From the Greek word, episkeptomai

a. Thayer: “to look upon or after, to inspect, examine with the eyes; . . . in order to see how he is, i.e. to visit, go see one. . . . to look upon in order to help or benefit; e.g. to look after, have a care for, provide for . . .”

b. Vine: “to look upon, care for, exercise oversight.”

(1) Note that the word episkeptomai is related to the Greek word for overseer. The word we derive the office of a bishop or elder who oversees the work of a congregation.

(2) Here a child or widow is being overseen

2. Other uses of the word in the New Testament

a. Luke 1:68, 78-79 - Zacharias prophesied that God would visit mankind – A prophecy about the coming Messiah.

(1) Christ did not have brief chat with mankind. He did not send a representative on his behalf.

(2) Christ’s visit was a direct, personal interaction with mankind.

b. Acts 7:23-24 - Moses’ visit to his brethren involved his taking personal action in their defense.

c. Acts 15:36 - Paul and Barnabas visited the brethren directly to see how the work was progressing.

d. Matthew 25:35-36 - Visiting those in prison

(1) Not by sending gifts, but by directly interacting with those in prison

3. Vincent’s Word Studies: “James strikes a downright blow here at ministry by proxy, or by mere gifts of money. Pure and undefiled religion demands personal contact with the world’s sorrow: to visit the afflicted, and to visit them in their affliction.”

D. To claim that the church can take care of orphans and widows and that fulfills the Christian’s duty is absolutely against what James 1:27 says.

V. You and I are responsible

A. The duties of the church and the Christian do overlap, but there are areas of distinction.

B. A command to the Christian does not necessarily apply to a church.

C. Even when there is an overlap because both are commanded, one does not relive the other of their responsibility.

Are you saying that only individuals can do things?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 02:00:00 +0000

Question:

It appears that you are saying that only individuals do things and not the body (church), is this what you mean?

Thank you.

Answer:

It depends on what "things" you are referring to. There are things commanded of the church and there are things commanded of the individual Christian. A few of them overlap, but many of them do not. For example, a Christian is commanded to teach (Matthew 28:19-20), but so is the church (Ephesians 4:11-16). However, an individual is commanded to be baptized (Acts 2:38), but a church cannot be baptized.

Shouldn’t the church be a social organization to draw people to Christ?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 03:40:00 +0000

Question:

I say all this with the utmost respect. I read your opening statement about all the things you don't have. I very much appreciate a church (a body) that wishes to follow the pattern of the first-century church. I agree with your purpose and what God has to offer us is so much more than those "things" you mentioned you don't have. But your cover letter spends a fair amount of time talking about what you don't do, you almost seem proud of what you aren't. Some of those things you don't do, eat together (no kitchen), have family activities in a gym or banquet hall, etc, those are basically relationship builders. From what I see in the Bible, it's all about relationships, with God, brothers and sisters, family, workers, spouses, etc. Didn't Jesus have have "activities" while he was among the people? He ate with them, had get-togethers (Mary and Martha's house), fishing together, went to the market to buy food, etc. Of course, Jesus was very purposeful and I love your reference to Ephesians 3:10-11 which was a lot of what Jesus was here for. I do understand your intentions with your comments and agree we can't lose sight of why we are here. But it seems like you want to suck the joy out of being a Christ-follower. Again, I say all this humility and with respect to you.

In the first century church, they ate together (Scriptures on communion and eating, not waiting on each other) it was at someone's home so I would think, if they loved each other, they socialized some, young mothers asking older ones about raising kids and how to make a better lamb chop. Men talked of work, politics, and the weather, just like they do now. The children played games in the courtyard of the home. They live with each other as they learned to subject themselves to Christ

Again, I wholeheartedly agree with our purpose, with the purpose you talk about in your opening statement in some parts I just don't see the harm in a Boy Scout group in the building; how better to get the lost close enough to teach? Without assuming too much, I would humbly ask, how many non-family members did your members led to Christ last year? Because if your members truly act out your statement, I would wonder if non-believers would see anything of interest to them, still being immature and selfish. Again, I apologize and do not intend to be too critical of you since I haven't met you, but I was looking and I did "meet" your web site opening statement.

The final statement, in our culture today, how much success have you had knocking doors or having a gospel meeting, probably not much? Today, it seems like to me, people want to build relationships, they want to belong to something, they crave connections. As you work on getting them connected, you also give them hope, love, purpose, learning (all from the Bible). Build a relationship as you teach them the wonders of God, some of which you mentioned.

The reason I looked up your web site is from a Google search I did on "Judgment Day" and I wanted to give you a hearty compliment and thank you for the great articles you have. I've have enjoyed reading some of them; they are very good, and I am looking forward to reading many more. They are well written, very scriptural and you have quite a vast selection. Very helpful. Thank you for the time you have to spend in study and prayer to produce these articles and thanks to God for the wisdom He has blessed you with.

It may not sound like it, but

A humble servant

Answer:

Actually, the home page is fairly balanced between what we do and what we are not. It is because we readily admit that we are not what people have come to expect of a church that you are both shocked and focusing on what doesn't meet your expectations. That is fine with me. That is what the home page was written to accomplish. It got you thinking.

What is interesting is how you filled in the blanks with assumptions that are not there. Because we didn't spend the Lord's money on putting a kitchen in the building, you assumed that we don't eat together. Nothing is further from the truth. We get together frequently and regularly for meals and social time. It is just done by the members, not by the church because that is what you find in the New Testament.

One of the problems you are running into is that you don't distinguish between individual action and church action. Yet, God does make a distinction. As an example, in the care for widows, there are different rules given for the individual than for the church. "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" (I Timothy 5:16). We follow the New Testament and place individual responsibilities on individuals and church responsibilities on churches.

What I find sad is that you think you have to have unauthorized institutionalized activities in order to have joy.

By the way, you are mixing ideas that are not mixed in the New Testament. Communion is not a social meal. "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread" (I Corinthians 10:16-17). The communion is the sharing of the memorial meal that Jesus' instituted, which we call the Lord's Supper. It isn't a common mean, but a special memorial of the New Covenant. "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is My body." Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins"" (Mathew 26:26-28). Paul spent a good bit of discussion in I Corinthians 11:17-34 proving that the Lord's Supper was not a common meal and should not be treated as such. That is the reason he said the partakers were to wait for one another. "Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you. ... Therefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment. And the rest I will set in order when I come" (I Corinthians 11:20-22, 33-34).

Why don't we stoop to using social activities to draw people in? Mostly because the Lord said not to. When people chased Jesus after he fed the five thousand, Jesus scolded them. "Jesus answered them and said, "Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled"" (John 6:26). We offer people spiritual food, and you believe that isn't enough. We offer people the gospel of Jesus Christ and you think that it won't interest people. "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me" (John 6:44-45).

"For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe" (I Corinthians 1:21).

What it is all about is saving people from sin. Food and social activities won't do that. "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek" (Romans 1:16). We have fun, we enjoy each other's company, but we don't let ourselves lose focus that as a church our duty is a rescue mission "to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church" (Ephesians 3:10).

Question:

As I skimming your reply to me, let me say I had planned to apologize. After considering my original email I thought I had overstepped my knowledge and the intentions of the body there in La Vista. Picking up on some of your words, I quickly find that you too make assumptions and it seems to me you still have a small bit of an attitude. However, I believe it's probably not so much of an attitude and just a simple proclamation of your prescribed belief, which is a good thing. Actually, I cannot and really did not say you were wrong; the first-century church in Scripture is a great example of what we should do today.

I still want to apologize for my original email, I was interested in what you said, but I also have some reluctance about some of your possible views. I am a member of a large church of Christ, so we would probably cause you some grief with some of our practices. I cannot spend any more time right now discussing this with you. But if you don't mind, I will read your email and think about what you said and then I would like to make some more comments and ask some more questions. I'll try to leave the assumptions out. Again, if you are willing, I would like to continue our talk if you have the time.

One last thing, I read about 50 of the articles, question and answers, and sermons from your web site on heaven, hell, judgment day, the second coming and found them to be absolutely aligned with what I believe and that is rare for the huge number thoughts out there on these topics. These were great thoughts, great use of scripture, well done. So I also wanted to thank you for a great deal of knowledge you have on your web site. You should write a book.

Answer:

Well, I've written about fifteen books so far; I doubt they will ever appear on anyone's best seller's lists. If you are interested they are listed under Studies.

Years ago, I started listening to a radio commentator named Rush Limbaugh. He just started broadcasting out of New York City near where I was living at the time. He made me uncomfortable because he sounded so prideful, but everything else on the radio was worse, so I listened for a while. Then I got amused because I realized that Mr. Limbaugh was actually a fairly humble man. He just spoke his beliefs with confidence and some purposeful humor that left a listener assuming things that weren't really said. Perhaps over the years, I've picked up a similar trait.

Then too, the medium of writing is harder to temper expression. We are so used to body language and verbal tones that, again, we fill in the blanks and often do so inaccurately.

My general rule is to match the tone of my response to the tone of the question (or challenge), based on Proverbs 26:4-5, "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes." Not that I think you or anyone else writing is a fool, but it is the principle that intrigues me. I found that it surprises people to hear their own tone echo backed to them. Most respond well, realizing what had happened. For others, it seems to draw out their true nature.

I take it that you are a member in what is typically called a "mainstream" congregation, while I am a part of a conservative group. I have friends and family on both sides. I don't mind discussing any question if you don't mind that it sometimes takes me a while to respond.

How can Christians gather and not be the church?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Wed, 12 May 2010 23:32:00 +0000

Question:

We have addressed several people on the subject and I went to the computer and found different ones saying the same thing. My problem was I just couldn't figure out how we could not leave the building and still not be assembled. The church is the called out and when we are gathered in one place we become the called out. Where we go now, we do not have a kitchen, but when we have a gospel meeting, we have a pot-luck at the community center. I have a problem with that also but the way you explained how we can come together and still not be the church, I can see where they think they can do that. I still have a problem with that "coming from a church that had a kitchen," so we just don't do it at all.

Answer:

Every gathering is not necessarily a meeting of the church. When a group of protestors gathered, "Some therefore cried one thing and some another, for the assembly was confused, and most of them did not know why they had come together" (Acts 19:32). Even though the word ekklesia, which is typically translated "church" is used, this was a "called out gathering;" it was not a church.

This is clear in Paul's discussions about why worship services needed to be treated as special. Notice the wording:

"you come together" (I Corinthians 11:17)
"when you come together as a church" (I Corinthians 11:18)
"when you come together in one place" (I Corinthians 11:20)
"when you come together to eat" (I Corinthians 11:33)
"the whole church comes together in one place" (I Corinthians 14:23)
"Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification" (I Corinthians 14:26).

Therefore a church service is:

Christians coming together for the purpose of being a church. There have to be intentions to assemble as a church. Everyone gathering at the Hamiltons for pizza would not constitute a church even if all the members of the congregation came.
Christians coming together at a designated time and in a designated place. It isn't a haphazard, casual, or accidental grouping of Christians. Just because it is the first day of the week and some Christians wander in during the afternoon, it doesn't mean they are the church.
All Christians in an area being called to come. A ladies' class isn't a meeting of the church. It is a meeting where the whole church is called upon to assemble.
The assembled Christians are performing acts of worship, such as eating the Lord's Supper, singing, praying, and teaching.

I don't want you to go against your conscience, but I would like you to consider that there is a tendency when encountering error to swing to the opposite extreme. There isn't anything wrong with Christians getting together and enjoying each other's company (Acts 2:46). When it becomes wrong is when people make it a function of the church to sponsor such gatherings, since it isn't a work of the church. "But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment" (I Corinthians 11:34).