Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 15
February 6, 1964
NUMBER 39, PAGE 6b-7b

More On James 1:27

Luther Blackmon

"Those who are determined that churches of Christ shall engage in general benevolence have really given James 1:27 a working over. If they can't get general benevolence into Gal. 6:10 or 2 Cor. 9:13, or Jas. 1:27, they will have to give it up entirely, and Jas. 1:27 looks like their best chance, so they work overtime on it. It won't be very long until they cease even trying to prove it by the Bible. Christian Church preachers are mighty scarce now who will even argue with you about instrumental music in worship. They don't need any scripture for it any more. They want it, so they have it.... period.

Somebody recently handed me an article by bro. W. L. Totty entitled, "The Epistle Of James Was Written To The Church." He starts off by saying that the "twelve tribes" in verse one is a figurative expression, meaning God's people. I'm sure no one disputes this. I don't. The twelve tribes here undoubtedly refers to spiritual Israel. But does our brother think that spiritual Israel is a congregation with a treasury? That is what the argument is all about. Nobody thinks it is wrong for "God's people"' to visit the fatherless and the widows, even the ones who are not Christians. I think it is wrong for "God's people" to refuse to do it. If bro. Totty and those who think as he thinks could learn the difference between the universal church and a congregation; and between a congregation and a Christian, they wouldn't try to use passages like this to prove that churches (congregations) can engage in general benevolence.

Expressions which refer to all of God's people, such as the "twelve tribes" and "God's elect" may rightfully be called the church in the universal sense. But the church in this sense does not function, because it has no functional organization. Or does bro. Totty think it can? If the church in this sense is a functional organization, who are its officers or overseers? I shouldn't be surprised if some of the younger members think that the elders of the Highland church in Abilene, Texas, are elders of the universal church. Especially those who listen to Herald of Truth, attend some of the college lectureships and read some of the brotherhood papers, but bro. Totty has been around long enough to know better.

He indicates, however, in the second paragraph of his article that he does not yet understand this. Hear him: "The 26th verse (Jas. 1) says, 'if any man among you seemeth to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this MAN'S religion is vain. The pronoun YOU in this passage is second person plural, and refers to the church. The noun MAN in 'this man's religion is vain' is third person singular. Thus James is writing to a group of persons about one man among them. The church is a group of baptized believers, wherever they may be. James definitely there is writing to a group of baptized believers. He is showing what constitutes vain religion." (Emp. mine, L.B.)

Feast your eyes on THAT piece of logic! First he says that the plural pronoun YOU refers to the church. But James is writing to ALL of God's people scattered abroad: to the "12 tribes." So the YOU has for its antecedent the "12 tribes" and NOT a local congregation. He says the noun "MAN" in the expression "any man among you" is third person singular, and this is right. Then he says, "James is writing to a group of persons, about one man among them." That is exactly what I'm trying to show bro. Totty. James is writing about the MAN: the INDIVIDUAL! This is the same MAN who is to visit the fatherless and the widows in verse 27. He has proved it.

If I had space in this article, I would take issue with his statement that the church is simply a group of baptized believers. Certainly every member of the church has to be a baptized believer, but a group of baptized believers do not necessarily constitute a church. I have been in towns where there were baptized believers, but no church. It would help solve this controversy if some preachers would take time out to learn what constitutes a church. It is pretty hard for a fellow to know what the church CAN DO, until he finds out just what the church IS!

— Pasadena, Texas