The Dangers of "Self-Love"

 The term “self-love” has gained popularity, even among Christians. Some would say that Jesus affirms this notion in the Second Greatest Commandment. Is that so? What do people mean by “self-love”?

 

The Second Greatest Commandment: “...love your neighbor as yourself.”  

Some Christians believe in “self-love” because of Matthew 22:39, “And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” In their eyes, “self-love” is clear because we should love our neighbors the way we love ourselves. It’s implied that we should love ourselves—”who doesn’t take care of themselves?”  

 

Taking good care of ourselves isn’t a problem... but why doesn’t Scripture write, “love yourselves?” Wouldn’t it be so easy for God to say, “Love Me, love your neighbor, love yourself?”  Perhaps a question that many people who advocate for “self-love” fail to address is, why is such a “self-love” implied? (We’ll allow the term “self-love” for now)

 

I think Scripture gives us an answer. “Self-love”, as in, taking care of ourselves, is an intrinsic function/response of every human being created in God’s image (cf. Gen 1:26-28). By nature, every human being takes care of themselves (to certain extents) because God created us with intrinsic integrity and purpose. If anyone should understand this, it should be Christians—as we should realize the higher purpose we have in Christ.  

 

When “self-love” is acceptable—diligence 

Therefore, “self-love” is acceptable when some Christians have gone through extremely rough upbringings, where their environment affects their identity. Some Christians need to realize that they are created in God’s Image and with a God-given purpose, and therefore, should diligently treat their bodies with intrinsic dignity. Some people need to see themselves the way God sees us, that our holistic being has intrinsic value. In terms of virtue, this is known as “diligence”--and the opposite is “sloth”.  

 

However, to be technical, “self-love” is not a biblical term. In other words, I believe Scripture avoids such terminology for a reason. Therefore, instead of using the term “self-love”, I’d rather stick with “taking care of yourself” or more biblically, “diligence” (cf. 2 Pet 1:5). We are called to be stewards of our bodies.   

 

When “self-love” is unacceptable—indulgence”  

Perhaps the biggest problem with self-love is that, “self-love” is self-defeating. Self-love is unbiblical. Why? Because love, by definition, is selfless (cf. Jn 3:16; 1 Cor 13:5; 1 Jn 4) Self-love appears to be extremely selfish and egoistic. It’s saying “me first”. But God says “God first” and at times, “put others above yourself.” (cf. Phil 2:3-5) Now, don’t get me wrong, diligence and being stewards of our bodies isn’t selfish but biblical and virtuous. 

(The Trinity seems to demonstrate perfect love and unity shared between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as the Father loves the Son selflessly and the Son loves the Spirit and so on. Notice how Jesus never says, “the Father loves Himself” rather, the Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father —Jn 5:20; 14:31)

More importantly, self-love can become indulgence—”doing whatever I want to please myself in the name of love”. We are not called to indulge ourselves, whether with food, entertainment, earthly pleasures, lust, sex, egoism, pride etc.  This is not to say we can’t enjoy life (e.g.: Eccl 3:12-13; 3:22). Married couples are called to enjoy each other’s presence (Prov 5:18 cf. 1 Cor 7) alongside food with fellowship (1 Cor 11:17-34). Diligence, in many cases, involves rest. However, there is a line where enjoyment becomes indulgence.  

 

For example, Ecclesiastes 3:12-13 writes, “There is nothing better for people than to be happy...that each of them may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all their toil—this is a gift from God.” Yet, Scripture also writes, “Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: “The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry.” 1 Corinthians 10:7  

 

Consider Jesus’ words in Matthew 6:31-32, “So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ 32 For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them.” Indulgence is running after the mere physical and external. Yet, God calls us to love Him and to seek His kingdom—and all these shall be provided (6: 33).  

 

Conclusion: 

Do you see the point? Once you cross the line, enjoyment becomes indulgence, and indulgence is not “love” as “love” seeks what is good in the eyes of God as God is good, holy, just, and righteous. Indulgence is self-harm. Some “Christians” use “self-love” to rationalize/justify indulgence and that is demonic because the enemy doesn’t seek your good. They may feel “loved” or “fulfilled” in the moment, such as one engaging in casual sex, but in the long run, there will be consequences and baggage. Therefore, God calls us to diligence, not indulgence.  

 

As for the term “self-love”, I think Christians should generally avoid it because it’s confusing. Rather, let’s be biblical and use biblical terms, such as “diligence” and “indulgence”. God calls us to diligence, the devil calls us to indulgence. Choose who you want to be your “influencer”. 

 

Preachers, Stop Manipulating Numbers!

This is an excerpt from an upcoming project on preaching:

 

Some preachers like to bring out the appearances of certain facts, names, and terms in Scripture to make a point or contrast. For instance, a pastor mentioned “the Bible uses the verb diakoneo (I serve) 37 times and the noun diakonos (servant, minister, deacon) 30 times.”

I remember the congregants sitting next to me were hectically jotting down these facts. But what good do these facts contain? How do these facts impact one’s understanding of Scripture and biblical truth?

Here’s another example:

“In the Gospels, Jesus asked over 300 questions. Do you know how many times He directly answered a question? 3 times. I’m not good at math, but could someone tell me what percentage that is? If anything, this shows us that, to be like Jesus, we should ask questions and not provide answers.”

The problem with Numbers/Stats

Numbers can be easily manipulated to make a statement or argument that has minimal scriptural warrant. We see that on TV or in presentations. I was taught this in 8th grade. In my experience, there has rarely been a case where numbers have been used well to demonstrate a biblical notion—that it was the intent of the author to use certain words and phrases for effect. On the other hand, there are countless examples of preachers who manipulate numbers, particularly the number of appearances a word has in Scripture, to stress a point that does not make biblical sense.

In my opinion, most preachers use numbers to touch upon significance. The usual argument is something like this: “Because this term appeared [X] amount of times, we should take it seriously or not as seriously;” or, “The term [X] appears [a] times, but the term [Y] appears [2a—twice] times. Therefore, [Y] has greater significance than [X].” These arguments drive me crazy. Allow me to respond with four arguments.

Tread Carefully with Numbers/Stats

First, if all Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16), all Scripture matters. All Scripture is important. Even if a word appears only once in Scripture, it is still God-breathed. A word or phrase is significant for the Christian believer not by how many times it appears, but by the fact that it is Scripture. If the objective of making a case with numbers is for the audience to understand significance, “that we should take the term seriously,” numbers and appearances are not the way to do it.

Second, a word or phrases’ appearance does not equate to greater/lesser importance. A word that is used a lot in the Bible does not automatically mean it is necessarily more important than another one. For instance, the word that appears most in the New Testament is kai, a conjunction that means “and, or, even,” with over 9000 appearances.[1] Yet, one would rarely hear a biblical case concerning the significance of kai. This relates to the next point.

Third, even if a word or phrase appears minimally in Scripture, it can carry massive theological—not lexical—significance. I must assert that there are some words in Scripture that contain great theological significance without anything to do with the number of appearances. For instance, “propitiation” (hilasmos) only makes two appearances (1 Jn 2:2; 4:10). Even if one were to combine the variant hilasterion (Rom 3:25, Heb 9:5), the total appearances of propitiation is four. Yet, propitiation is a rich theological notion that is crucial in explaining the Gospel. The word refers to ample passages in Scripture that detail the process of the Gospel. Surely, one would not consider propitiation unimportant unless they would like to deny the Gospel.

Another example is the contrast between kurios (Lord, master) and philos (friend). There are over 700 usages of kurios, in which most of them are designated in reference to Christ. While there are over 20 usages of philos, only a few of the usages indicate the relationship between Christ and His believers as friends (Lk 12:4; John 15:14-15).

Jesus is Lord and the common term to designate Christ is to refer to His lordship—He is the King of kings and Lord of Lords (Rev 19:16). However, just because there are fewer instances where Christ calls us “friends” (philous), a fraternal term, it does not diminish the significance. Jesus is not lesser as a friend than our Lord. He is Lord over all and He is our friend.

Fourth, the attempt to make a case concerning significance with numbers assume that certain terms and phrases are used in the same way. However, a word (especially in Greek) can be used in different ways. For instance, “word” (logos) is used in Scripture referring to “Christ”, “Scripture”, “logic/reason” and (literally) “word”, in the sense of speech (something someone said). In fact, logos is predominantly used as a communication device. Counting how many times Scripture contains logos to make a case may easily ignore the different meanings that the word has. One simply cannot make a case with the number of times logos is used in Scripture.

In my experience, many preachers who attempt to make a case with numbers are not familiar with the original languages of Scripture nor linguistic practices. That’s not a problem…until they act like pros when they’re not by not doing the actual work. Please do the work and handle the word of truth correctly (cf. 2 Tim 2:15). Scripture is not a means of manipulation—even when the preacher did not intend to manipulate and to present inaccurate information.

All to say, a preacher who truly cares about the integrity of the biblical text must be careful in using numbers as an argument. I would suggest that it would be safe to not use the appearance of a term as much as possible unless the preacher has truly made a biblically true case concerning numbers—which requires ample study. A case that employs numbers well is one in which the preacher can substantially claim that the biblical authors intended numbers to be used for significance. In my own studies, these cases are few. One example where numbers are used well could be the length of a king’s rule during Kings/Chronicles. Kings who were faithful to the Law had a longer reign while those who were unfaithful had a short reign.

Preachers, for the sake of integrity and biblical integrity, don’t manipulate numbers. As Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 2:15, may we do our best in handling Scripture.

[1] Mounce, Basis of Biblical Greek Grammar, 20.  

Is Church Membership Biblical?

Is “Church Membership” Biblical?

 

What is “church membership”? Well, I don’t know, because there is no direct language of “membership” used in Scripture in relation to the church, at least in relation to how “membership” is popularly associated today, such as with organizations, banks, clubs, gyms, parties and so on. There is language of membership, such as Joseph of Arimathea (Lk 23:50), a member of the Sanhedrin. Yet, such language is never transferred to the church while "elder" (presbuteros), also indicating those of the Sanhedrin (Acts 4:5-8), was transferred to the church (cf. 11:30; 14:23; 1 Tim 5:1; 5:19; Titus 1:5; Jas 5:14; 1 Pet 5:1; 2 Jn 1:1). This proves that there's some deliberation with the language of "membership" not being applied to the Church.

Scripture uses the word “member” in describing the relationship of the believer to the body of Christ (cf. Rom 12:4-5; 1 Cor 12:14; 12:19; 12:26; Eph 3:6; 5:30), that a believer isn’t a member of the church as one is an exclusive member of an association, but that of an organism—a family. Thus, is “church membership” biblical when many churches have “membership” indicating official submission to a local body—or is one a “member” of the church if one is a believer who attends (and serves) there? Let’s find out. 

 

What is Church Anyway?

There’s no way I can fully answer this question here, but I can allude to simple and solid truths enlisted in Scripture. Church (ekklesia) means “assembly” or “gathering” of believers (not unbelievers; they are not the church even if they "attend" church). Biblically speaking, the church is not referred to as an institution or organization. Rather, the church is referred to as the global body (cf.  1 Cor 12:29; 15:9; Gal 1:13) as well as a local body (cf. Acts 8:1; Rev 2-3) with Christ as the Head (Col 1:18). 

 

Since there is only one Lord (Eph 4:5), there is one people, regardless of age, gender, and race (Gal 3:28). However, when considering the language of unity and oneness, particularly that in Ephesians 4:1-16, the emphasis seems to be on the oneness of the global church. This is emphasized as Paul mentions “one body and one Spirit” (4:4), the building of the body of Christ “until we all attain to the unity of the faith…” (4:12-13), and “…the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped [to the head who is Christ (4:15)]” (4:16). The emphasis seems to be stressed on the global church. From my own study of the use of ekklesia, I find it apparent that the mentioning of “church” by itself (that is, unless it is a church of a particular location), it is referred to the universal body of Christ (cf. Rom 16:23; 1 Cor 5:12; 6:4; 10:32; 11:22; 12:28;Gal 1:13; Eph 1:22; 3:10; 3:21; 5:23-24; 5:29-30; 5:32; Phil 3:6; Col 1:18).

 

Nonetheless, since church, whether globally and locally, is about the people submitted to Christ as Lord, church is naturally about relationships as people are relational. If there’s any sort of structure that defines the church—aside from “Kingdom” as the Kingdom of God is demonstrated through His people empowered by His Spirit—it’s “family”!

How do we know this?

First, an important keyword used in the New Testament to address the church is adelphoi, meaning “brothers (and sisters)”. While people today can address one another as “brother” with all sorts of implications, the biological brotherly relationship (or brotherhood) was known back then (Greco-Roman world) as the closest relationship that one could attain—even closer than that of marriage! No one would describe someone as a “brother” unless that person was one’s biological brother.

 

Clarke writes:

“More commonly Paul describes himself as a brother to his fellow believers, thus drawing attention away from any sense of seniority.  For somebody from a different natural family to be associated with another as a brother was not lightly done in Graeco-Roman contexts.”[1]

 

Second, try considering the offense when Jesus points to His disciples (Matt 12:49) and says: “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”’ (12:50) Jesus seems to be implying that His true family is not His biological one, but those of the faith—the church! The notion of church being family becomes even more prevalent when Scripture uses familial language to describe the body (cf. Jn 19:27; Phil 2:22; 1 Thess 2:7; 2:11; Rom 16:13).

 

Third, if that wasn’t convincing, consider the simplest theological notion: God is addressed as the Father (cf. Jn 1:14; 1 Cor 1:3; 8:6; 2 Cor 1:2; Gal 1:3 etc.) and we are His children (cf. Jn 1:12; Rom 8:6; 9:8; Eph 5:1; Phil 2:15 etc.). This shows that all believers are brothers and sisters of each other in the family of God—with God as our Father! The fact that God is Father and we are children of God, implies family.

 

If there’s anything to describe the church, it’s a family called to be as globally aware as possible and tight-knitted locally.

 

“The metaphor of the family was directly applied to the church, and many of its relationships were described in terms of brother/sister and father/child.”  (Clarke, Serve the Community of the Church, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000),  251.)

  

Church membership in Scripture

Going back to church membership, Scripture certainly uses the word “member” in describing the relationship of the believer to the body of Christ (cf. Rom 12:4-5; 1 Cor 12:14; 12:19; 12:26; Eph 3:6; 5:30). However, it does not imply some sort of "exclusivity" as reflected by most association memberships today. Rather, it is noteworthy to consider that the imagery presented with “member” is that of a body. A hand, leg, mouth, eye, or lung is presented as a member (organ) of the body. 

 

Membership initiation?

Since most associations’ membership process require an approved application, and perhaps a fee, what about the church? As stated earlier, since the nature of the church is not an organization, there will naturally not be any official membership process for one to be part of the church—aside from the fact that a Christian is a Christian.

 

If you are a (real) Christian, that Christ is your Lord and Savior and that your life is His, you are a member of the church. If there’s any outward expression, or “proof” of that membership (not salvation…as that would be character), it would be baptism. 

 

Yet, baptism serves as a proof of "membership"regarding the universal/global church, not merely a local one. In other words, there is no indicator that one requires another baptism when moving to another local church. I can hardly fathom the likes of Timothy being re-baptized when he was sent to the Corinthian church (1 Cor 4:17-19). Rather, we see the disciples of John the Baptist being re-baptized “in the name of the Lord Jesus” as they weren’t Christian prior. (Acts 19:1-6) Thus, I do not see any clear indicators of official membership initiation. If one is a believer, and is of a local body, the believer is a member of the local church body.

 

What about Church Discipline?

Some would say that the prevalence of church discipline in Scripture implies official, exclusive membership. Again, the likes of 1 Corinthians 16:16, Hebrews 13:7, Hebrews 13:17 and 1 Peter 5:5 clearly illustrate the need to submit to church elders. Yet, when it comes to Hebrews 13:17, the most prominent verse on submission to church leadership, consider the latter half of the verse:

“Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.”

 

The reason behind submission to church leadership is for the believer’s and the congregation’s benefit—as the leaders lead through service (Matt 20:25-28) especially relating to the believers’ spirituality and sanctification.

 

Hence, the key question that relates church discipline to membership is this: “did the church leaders exercise authority over those who were ‘official/exclusive members’ of the body, or over all who were the body?”

 

Consider 1 Corinthians 15. There was a man who had sexual relations with his father’s wife (5:1). Yikes! Paul tells the church to remove him (5:2) for a similar reason as mentioned in Hebrews 13:17—" so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord,” (1 Cor 5:5) that is, for his own spiritual good. Paul continues to tell the church:

“not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.” (5:11)

 

This implies that the matter of official/exclusive membership was out of the question. If one “bears the name of brother”—implying that he/she is a Christian or claims to be a Christian, this person falls under the church authority of where he is at. It seems clear that church discipline deals with everyone in the church that are Christian. (5:12) Thus, church discipline implies membership—but not in any capacity of “official/exclusive membership”—but with whomever that is a follower of Christ. And if one of a particular local body did not submit to those in authority, and fails to repent, he or she should be excommunicated (cf. Matt 18:15-20) because that is a sin issue, not that of "membership".

 

If you are a leader of a local church body, anyone who claims to be Christian and comes to your ekklesia, your gathering of the saints of God, is under your authority; and if they do not submit to the authority of the elders of the church, maybe they should leave (or be kicked out). Discipline isn't for membership, but for the church; and as long as you are a born-again believer, you are a member of the church. 

 

 

Conclusion: Bound by Blood—not Membership

A family is bound by blood, not by official membership. A family is exclusive by blood, not membership. In the same way, when all believers have been justified by His blood (Rom 5:9 cf. 3:25; Heb 2:14), we are all similarly bound into the family of God through the Blood of the New Covenant. Perhaps this explains part of Paul’s logic when he wrote that those who are able to partake in communion—the believers of a local body—are participating in the Blood (and flesh) of Christ (1 Cor 10:17). A local body is about shared fellowship with one another through the common denominator—Christ, His blood, and His accomplished work on the Cross! We are members of one another because we are the family of God and of one body, not because of any sort of official membership. If anything, we have membership through the Blood of Jesus. 

 

Therefore, the language of “church membership” is unbiblical. Among all the terms and phrases and descriptions the New Testament could have used to describe church, both globally and locally, “membership” isn’t one of them.[2] Church is family; church is relational. One is either of the family of God, or not in that family—there isn't an "inner circle" for exclusive members (aside from the elders).

 

However, this does not necessarily mean that all churches that have “membership” are unbiblical, as different churches may mean different things with “membership”. Some churches may use the term “membership” to encapsulate what a local body should be—another way of describing the family of God. In that case, it may be appropriate. I also acknowledge that some churches are required to have “membership” for legal purposes as an official organization/institution, in which this is totally fine. At times, membership can even be healthy and beneficial. 

 

However, “church membership” is immediately unbiblical when it deviates from the nature of ekklesia: when there is exclusivity between the “official members” of a church and other Christians who attend; when the "official members" are favored and cared for while others are not; when there is a distinct “initiation process” for one to be an “official member”; when only the “official members” are able to participate in communion while those who aren’t (but are Christian) are unable; when pastoral help and discipline is only offered to “official members” and not the other Christians who are not “members” of the church; and when the church focuses more on system instead of relationship.

Can "church membership" be an effective means to sustain the church as an institution? maybe; but does this concept derive from Scripture? Certainly not. 

**Clarification point: This article is by no means indicating that one should not be part of a local church family. A believer will not cease to gather with the saints of God. This article is about the structure of some local churches that opt for "membership" with the local body.

 

---

[1] Andrew Clarke, Serve the Community of the Church, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000),  251.

[2] Scripture DOES have language of membership, but it does not pertain to the church. Luke 23:40 (cf. Mk 15:43) presents Joseph of Arimathea as a member (or council member) of the Sanhedrin. The Greek word used is bouleutés, a term indicating council, likely referring to the same thing as membership today. However, this word is not used in Acts to describe the church at all. You may think that this is an argument from silence, but it is not, because Luke uses "presbuteros" (elder) in Acts, describing the governing body of the church. Yet, "presbuteros" was a term also used in the Jewish Sanhedrin, pointing to the elder board of the Sanhedrin. The point is, we see the NT borrowing certain words and concepts from Judaism into the church, but not the idea of membership. Thus, we can safely conclude that church membership is alien to the New Testament corpus on the nature of ekklesia. 

Further supplementary notes:

- One major reason contributing to why many churches have "membership" is because there are multiple churches in an area where one can attend without committing to. For instance, in countries and cities where there is more freedom of religion, one can go to "church A" and attend "church B" simultaneously. Please note that such a phenomenon does not square up with the biblical notion of the early church. There was generally one church of a location back then (cf. Rev 1-3). Thus, to claim that Scripture speaks to "membership" because of a present-day phenomenon that did not match with the situation in the first century appears to be a misuse of Scripture. 

- I am not against church as an institution nor am I claiming that there is no church structure back then. Clearly, the leaders of the church were the elders, followed the deacons (probably functions as a "youth pastor" or "worship pastor" today; maybe even some administrative staff), and then there's the flock. We see a clear structure of how the local body functions, but that does not signify that church was then an organization. Church, as in a local church, was still a family.

- Here's another concern about church membership: "Does church membership guarantee salvation?" Is one who is an official member of a local church guaranteed to be a solid believer? I am relatively unsure about this. A true believer is a true believer, and if one is a true believer who submits to Christ, he/she will commit to a body regardless of whether there's official membership. I don't see how official membership is by any means effective to guarantee effectiveness as well.

- I read chapter 3 of "Those Who Must Give An Account". This chapter presents a study of church membership throughout church history. The conclusion is that there is no singular paradigm AT ALL on church membership. The church has always categorized members differently based on the culture, time, and circumstance. Why? Because church membership is not a response to Scripture nor does it have biblical precedence. This may not mean that church membership isn't important, but it is far better to claim that church membership isn't biblical, but needed, rather than stating that it is biblical.