Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 11
May 28, 1959
NUMBER 4, PAGE 6-7a

Pure And Undefiled Religion

Cecil Willis, Akron, Ohio

When men have a pet theory to defend, they often put strained interpretations upon passages of scripture in their effort to find authority for their theory. As brethren have undertaken to defend their practice of churches working through benevolent institutions, they have put James 1:26, 27 under a theological microscope, and have thereby discovered some wonderful things — i.e., benevolent institutions.

As a setting for our study, let us carefully reread these two verses of scripture. "If any man thinketh himself to be religious, while he bridleth not his tongue but deceiveth his heart, this man's religion is vain. Pure religion and undefiled before our God and Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world." It is important that we observe that here James is contrasting "pure and undefiled religion" with vain religion. This passage does not teach that the only two acts that can be called "Pure and Undefiled Religion" are the care of widows and the relief of orphans! Religion that is not "vain" or empty is religion that practices what it teaches. James exhorts that we be "doers of the word, and not hearers only, deluding your own selves." (Jas. 1:22.) He further points out what is required of one who would practice "pure and undefiled religion" in the following verses. Notice the emphasis on doing. "If any one is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a mirror: . . . But he that looketh into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and so continueth, being not a hearer that forgetteth but a doer that worketh, this man shall be blessed in his doing." (Jas. 1:23, 25.) A man who professes to be religious, while his religion consists only of a verbal profession, has a vain or empty religion. So in James 1:26, 27, James gives illustrations of some of the things one must do if he would give validity to his religion. He must bridle his own tongue, visit the fatherless and widows, and keep himself unspotted from the world.

Yet some brethren today have made "pure and undefiled religion" consist of just one thing: the care of orphans. Therefore they have charged that any church that is not contributing to the care of orphans is not practicing "pure and undefiled religion." They have gone even farther than this. They have charged that any church that does not contribute to some benevolent institution is not practicing pure and undefiled religion. Probably there could be many other quotations cited to prove that brethren have made these arguments. But let me just quote the following remarks from Bro. W. L. Totty in his debate with Bro. Charles Holt held in Indianapolis in 1954.

Bro. Totty says: "Can the church teach or practice pure and undefiled religion? There is just one verse in the Bible that tells what it is. That is James 1:27. (my emphasis — CW). . . . Let me reiterate, my friends, and emphasize the fact that if the church can't do that, the church can't practice pure and undefiled religion." (The Indianapolis Debate, pg. 114.) Bro. Totty blatantly declares that no other verse in all the New Testament gives us any idea of what "pure and undefiled religion" is. Even those brethren who agree with Bro. Totty on institutionalism know that is not so. Bro. Willard Collins, in the March, 1959 issue of The Way of Truth says "The teaching of 'pure religion and undefiled' as defined in James and other books of the New Testament (my emphasis — CW) is the task of every department" in David Lipscomb College. Totty says only James 1:27 tells us what "pure and undefiled" religion is. Collins says James and other books of the New Testament define pure and undefiled religion.

Brethren thus far have been unable to produce any command to a Congregation obligating that congregation to care for non-Christians. They have produced no Bible example of where any congregation cared for any except saints. They have produced no passage from which anyone can necessarily conclude that the New Testament churches cared for any but their own. So in their desperation they latch on to James 1:27, and say "How can it (the church — CW) practice pure and undefiled religion if James 1:27 doesn't apply to the church? What did you say about it, Brother Holt? . .. Are you too sweet to tell me now?" W. L. Totty, in The Indianapolis Debate, p. 147.

The Garfield Heights Church in Indianapolis was represented by Bro. Totty. Bro. Holt was debating at the request of the Belmont Ave. Church in Indianapolis. Belmont, of course, did not contribute to any of the institutions. Therefore Bro. Totty charged the Belmont Church did not practice "pure and undefiled" religion. After again quoting James 1:27, Bro. Totty charges, "The church over on Belmont Avenue does not practice pure and undefiled religion. I want that to sink in. It does not practice pure and undefiled religion, and I challenge Bro. Holt to point out where it does . . . I challenge Brother Holt to show one place in God's book where it ever mentions pure and undefiled religion in any sense except there." (The Indianapolis Debate, p. 173.) Now why did Bro. Totty charge the Belmont Church with not practicing "pure and undefiled" religion? Because it did not care for its own? No! It was for just one reason — Belmont did not contribute to any of the benevolent institutions he was promoting. Some brethren therefore obviously maintain that a church that is not contributing to some benevolent organization such as Potter Orphan Home, or Tennessee Orphan Home is not practicing pure and undefiled religion.

Now what does "pure and undefiled" religion mean? The word "pure" is translated from "kathara" which Thayer defines as meaning "clean, pure, free from the admixture of anything that soils, adulterates, corrupts; genuine, blameless, innocent." pg. 312. Now, are the care of orphan children, and the contributing to a benevolent institution the only religious acts that can be called "pure, genuine, clean, blameless, innocent?" If some brother thinks so, let him say so. The word "undefiled" in James 1:27 is translated from the Greek word, "amiantos," which Thayer defines as "not defiled, unsoiled, free from that by which the nature of a thing is deformed and debased, or its force and vigor impaired." pg. 32. Is a church's action "deformed and debased" if it does not contribute to a benevolent institution? Some brethren would declare it to be so when they declare that only the care of widows and orphans (and this through a human institution) can be called "pure and undefiled" religion.

Now everyone will admit that a congregation can do the following things: 1. Provide for Bible study; 2. Provide periods of public worship; 3. Relieve its own needy; 4. Provide for the partaking of the Lord's supper. If everyone will agree that the church can do these things, then I have two questions to ask. Question number 1. Are these acts religious acts? Are Bible study, prayer, worship, relief of the church's needy, and partaking of the Lord's supper religious acts? If not, they must be either non-religious acts or irreligious acts. If not nonreligious acts or irreligious acts, they must be religious acts. Question number 2. If these acts are religious acts, what kind of religious acts are they? "Pure and undefiled" religious acts, or impure and defiled religious acts? Now let the man that says that the care of widows and orphans is the only act that can be called "pure and undefiled religion" step forth and boldly assert either that partaking of the Lord's supper is not a religious act, or affirm that partaking of the Lord's supper is an impure and defiled religious act. It has to be either one or the other. I say that partaking of the Lord's supper meets every definition of the words "pure" and "undefiled." Therefore, partaking of the Lord's supper is an act of "pure and undefiled religion."

Brother Willard Collins said that every department at David Lipscomb College teaches "pure and undefiled religion." Now either every department at David Lipscomb College advocates the church contributing to benevolent institutions, or pure and undefiled religion consists of something other than contributing to an orphan home.

Remember that James is simply contrasting "pure and undefiled religion" (the religion that does instead of saying only) with "vain" religion. When a man controls his tongue, is he practicing "pure and undefiled" religion or "vain" religion? Only "pure and undefiled religion" is not "vain" religion. Therefore the bridling of one's tongue must also be "pure and undefiled" religion. James says "Pure religion and undefiled before our God and Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world." Keeping oneself unspotted from the world is also "pure and undefiled religion." Any act that involves godly living is "pure and undefiled religion."

Since brethren have become infatuated with their institutional projects, they have almost completely quit talking about the last part of James' comments on "pure and undefiled" religion. Anyone that reads the context of James 1:27 ought to be able to see that James is talking about the action of an individual. Verse 26 alone should be sufficient to show that. But if visiting "the fatherless and widows' of James 1:27 is a congregational act, so is keeping "oneself unspotted from the world." Brethren improperly apply this passage to the congregation. If it were to be applied to the congregation,` it still would not prove what brethren try to prove by it. They try to prove from this passage that it is right for a congregation to make contributions to some benevolent society to carry out the visiting of the fatherless and widows. If the fatherless and widows can be visited (one part of pure and undefiled religion) by building a human institution, then the other parts of pure and undefiled religion can be carried out by the building of other human institutions. Churches should therefore begin the erection of monasteries and convents so that people can keep themselves "unspotted from the world." We have imitated the Catholics by building institutional orphan homes (and hospitals are coming up shortly), so we might just as well imitate them by the erection of monasteries and convents. And if James 1:27 will authorize church supported institutional orphan homes and homes for widows, it will also authorize church supported monasteries and convents that Christians might shut themselves off from the world that they might keep themselves unspotted from the world. I am almost afraid to push this consequence of brethren's arguments on James 1:27. For heretofore, instead of letting the ridiculous consequences cause them to turn back upon an invalid argument, brethren have simply said "We must be consistent," and have added the logical concomitants of their fallacious argument. Recently I read of one who proposed the building of some "Church of Christ radio stations." Already we are reading of proposed "Church of Christ hospitals." We now have an abundance of "Church of Christ orphan homes and widows' homes." So look at any time for the advent of the "Church of Christ monasteries and convents" (maybe that is what brethren think they already have built in these camps and resorts). For after all, James did command that we practice pure and undefiled religion, and keeping oneself unspotted from the world is certainly a part of pure and undefiled religion.