Weaponizing Weakness of Faith

I made a post on Romans 14 a while ago, then followed that up with a post on 1 Corinthians 8.  The former deals with disputes concerning matters of opinions while the latter is a warning to not do anything that will cause someone to sin.  Both have to deal with how we treat those who are weak in the faith.  But I have noticed a pattern both before and after my posts on Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8:  people are claiming weakness of faith as a means of controlling those who are strong in faith.  This is a direct violation of Romans 14:1-8, where Paul repeatedly states that the strong are not to condemn the weak, nor are the weak to condemn the strong.  And those who seem to be choosing to be weak in faith insist on calling "evil" that which is good, which is a direct violation of Romans 14:16.  But why should our freedom be condemned by another person's conscience [1 Corinthians 10:29]?

I will give you an example using alcoholic drinks (though I do not drink alcohol).  I have not seen any of these examples online with alcohol, but it's the same principal.  Suppose someone who does not drink and is afraid of alcohol joins a congregation that permits alcohol.  In fact, let's say this congregation uses real wine for the Lord's Supper.  Such a person would not be able to partake in the Lord's Supper because of the usage of wine.  If this congregation learns that this person is afraid to drink alcohol and therefore cannot partake of the Lord's Supper, will they not try to accommodate him?  What would be a reasonable accommodation?  To set aside a glass of grape juice so that this person may partake in the Lord's Supper?  Or to stop using wine entirely for the Lord's Supper and force everyone to drink grape juice instead?

If you answer that the congregation should just switch over to grape juice, consider this:  The same person has to shop at grocery stores in order to buy food.  All grocery stores that I know of sell alcohol.  Does this person demand that the store stops selling alcohol?  Or does he just not go into the isles that have alcohol in them?  Is it not the latter?  If this person knows how to avoid alcohol when in a worldly place where it is readily accessible, why should a congregation of the Body of the Messiah get rid of their alcohol?  They shouldn't.  Instead, they should simply serve him grape juice for the Lord's Supper while everyone else drinks the wine.  The same rule applies to someone who is an alcoholic who has given up alcohol so that he stops falling into sin through it.  For why should their freedom be condemned by another person's conscience [1 Corinthians 10:29]?

But let's say that the person in question hates the fact that alcohol even exists.  So of course it will not be enough that a congregation serves him grape juice or some other non-alcoholic drink for the Lord's Supper.  Instead, the man claims that the mere presence of alcohol causes him to fall into sin, and that no member of the Body of the Messiah should consume it.  And if a Christian posts a picture on social media of himself responsibly enjoying wine, the man who hates wine will condemn the post, and the one who posted it might be guilt-tripped into taking it down.  Is this the fruit of someone who is merely weak in faith?  No!  It is the fruit of someone who seeks control over that which he has no business controlling.

It is expected for every believer to have some sort of weakness concerning something.  But when that weakness is used as a weapon to control others, that is when he or she has crossed the line.  Why should our freedom be condemned by another person's conscience [1 Corinthians 10:29]?  And, as it is written in Romans 14:16, nobody is permitted to speak evil of that which is good.  For the kingdom of God is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit, not whatever outward appearance offends you [Romans 14:17], be it alcohol or anything else.

Let's say, for example, that a person who is weak in the faith does sin if he sees other believers drinking alcohol.  If seeing those who are in the world consume alcohol does not cause him to sin, but seeing believers do the same does, I would question if he is actually weak or is seeking control.  But let's say he is genuinely that weak.  If he is a new believer, then this can be excused.  But we are expected to grow in faith [1 Thessalonians 1:3].  This means that the things that initially lead us into sin, or cause temptation to sin, will eventually lose their power over us.  For Jesus sets us free from our sins [Romans 6:22], and knowledge of the truth also sets us free [John 8:32].

James 1:12 says, "Blessed is the man who endures temptation".  Scripture never says to run from temptation.  Even Yeshua (Jesus) had to deal with temptation [Matthew 4], and it was the Holy Spirit who led Yeshua into the wilderness in order that he be tempted.  Though it was not the Holy Spirit who did the tempting [James 1:13].  God himself puts us into situations where we will be tempted so that we will learn to resist temptation.  The more you successfully resist temptation, the weaker that temptation will be until it disappears.  The more you give into your temptation, the easier it will be to keep giving into temptation.  Therefore, resist temptation so that you will become strong.  Do not try to force others to maintain an environment where you are never tempted, for that is exactly the behavior that strengthens temptation.  Look up "exposure therapy".

It is acceptable to expect someone to follow your rules if you are in a place where you have the authority to set the rules.  It is unacceptable to try to force your rules onto others in places where you do not have the authority to set the rules.  Just like how you expect others to follow your rules in your places, so you should follow the rules of others in their places.  Trying to impose your rules in other people's places is not following the rules, it's usurping the authority of the ones who set the rules for those places.

Forcing someone to accommodate you because you are afraid of being tempted or falling into sin is cowardly at first, and a clear power-grab when it becomes clear that you have no intent to grow in the faith.  In the example of alcohol, the one who is afraid of alcohol should never be forced to drink, but should also never be permitted to forbid others from drinking when it is not their place to do so.  The one who is afraid of alcohol, but is not tempted by its presence is the strong in faith compared to the one who avoids even the mention of alcohol, "lest he be tempted".  This rule goes for all things where one person is tempted by the mere presence of something while another person is not.  Attempting to control everyone because of your weakness will only breed mutual, self-feeding resentment, and an inability to resist temptation when it inevitably stares you in the face.

If you are on the receiving end of this detestable behavior, remember this:  if you are not in a place where such a person sets the rules, then you are under no obligation to accommodate them.  The most you are obligated to do is (a) to help keep them from giving into temptation, and (b) to not compel such a person to violate their own conscience.  1 Corinthians 8 gives the example of eating in a pagan temple causing a new believer to be emboldened to eat meat that they know is sacrificed to idols.  So it's not the meat that's the problem, it's the context that's the problem.

Concerning those who are weak in faith, being easily offended and feeling entitled to judge others:  I will reiterate what Paul says in Romans 14:1-4: that the weak are to do no such thing.  Do not condemn someone for doing something that violates your own conscience.  Unless the Bible has an explicit prohibition against the thing that offends you, do not condemn it.  Likewise, the strong in faith are not to compel the weak to violate their own conscience.  Unless the Bible has an explicit requirement for something to be done, do not compel others to do it.  The weak and the strong are not to condemn each other on matters of opinion.  Both should do everything in their power to get along.  For the weak in faith is a servant of Yeshua (Jesus), and the strong in faith is a servant of Yeshua.  Who are you to condemn the servant of your master?  Instead, the weak should learn from the strong so that they may be strengthened by the strong.  Likewise, the strong should learn to understand the weak so that they can help the weak.

PS:  This post is heavily inspired by a video by Chris (aka:  Mudwalker) responding to a controversy on Twitter where some Christian women were condemning some Christian men for posting a shirtless fitness selfie.  The video is linked below.

No, Christianity is NOT a Religion

What is the definition of religion?  If you ask an atheist, they will tell you that it's a belief in one or more gods.  Consult a dictionary, you might get a similar definition.  We'll get more into that a bit later.  If you go back to the 1600s, you will get a wildly different answer.  The word "religion" comes from the Latin word "religio", which means (among other things), "reverence of the gods", "moral obligation", and "holiness".  And when the KJV was written, the word "religion" itself basically meant exactly that:  reverence to a divine power.  Something else that is interesting is how "religion" was also linked to words such as "rely" and "lecture".  "Rely" is linked to faith and "lecture" is linked to reading.  And "having faith" was known as having loyalty as well as trust.  If we go by this definition of religion, then it applies to Christianity.

It may seem at first glance that atheism would not fit this definition, but the gods of atheism are natural selection, luck, and time.  And atheists have placed their complete trust in and loyalty to such things.  So atheism does count as a religion by this old definition of religion.  Atheists don't like being called "religious", or atheism being called a "religion", so they attempt to use a definition that excludes atheism.  So let's see how the modern definition stacks up.

If we follow the trail that Merriam-Webster lays out for the definition of "religion", we can see that the "archaic" (aka: "outdated") definition involves being very careful with doing things correctly.  And we can also see that most of the definitions include the word "religious".  And their definitions for "religious" also contain the word "religious".  Not all that helpful.  We can trace this to the term "religious group", which means a group that shares common beliefs and practices of a religion.  While this is somewhat helpful, it does make the definition of "religion" a circular definition.  One of the other definitions include "faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity".  If we look at the only definition of "religion" that does not contain the word "religious" in it, we get this definition:  "an interest, cause, belief, or activity that is intensely or passionately held to".

Now we're getting somewhere.  Let's take a look at how Merriam-Webster defines "belief".  It is defined as (a) having placed trust or confidence in a person or thing, (b) an opinion, or (c) a conviction based on examination of evidence.  Notice that one of the definitions of "belief" is "opinion".  This seems to be the common definition of "belief", and it is the one that atheists use in their attempt to divorce atheism from religion.  So, by the modern, common definition of the word, a religion is "devotion to a system of opinions and practices, especially of a god or gods".

Notice that nearly every path in the definition tree that we take, religion is defined in such a way that Christianity and atheism are equally included, or defined in such a way that includes atheism while excluding Christianity.  Going by what atheists want the definition of "religion" to be, and by how the word "religion" is commonly used, it's Christianity that is excluded from being considered a religion.  By the same standard, atheism is a religion.  And it is because of this that I unapologetically declare that Christianity is not a religion:  because Christianity is grounded in truth, not in opinion.  And a careful examination of the available evidence will reveal this to be the case.  Yes, we are faithfully devoted to the Lord Yeshua (Jesus) as we should be.  But this devotion is grounded in truth and is not mere opinion.

If Christianity isn't a religion by the modern definition, then why do some Christians insist that it's wrong to say "Christianity is not a religion"?  Simply put, because the word "religion" appears in our English bibles.  For example:

Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world. [James 1:27; NKJV]

The definition of "religion" used in the Bible is of course the old definition involving reverence and moral obligation (morality can only come from a being that's above all other beings, by the way).  The Greek words in question are "threskos" and "threskeia", which have no link whatsoever to mere opinion.  Basically, all objections to the claim that Christianity is not a religion is based on the fact that ancient writings (including the Bible) get some words translated into English as "religion" or "religious".  These translations are going by a different definition of religion than what is used in the modern day.

Some Christians claim that it is dangerous to state that Christianity is not a religion.  Why?  From what I can gather, it boils down to one word:  "Tradition".  That's right, the claim that "Christianity is not a religion" is a threat to tradition.  Of other reasons given, one of the more rational ones is the fear that saying, "Christianity is not a religion" looks like compromise.  It's not.  Words tend to change their meaning over time.  And the word "religion" is no different.  It is simply nonsensical to use an archaic definition of a word when speaking to a modern audience if you want that modern audience to understand what you are saying.  Also, in my opinion, the real compromise would be not opposing any attempt at making Christianity look like mere opinion.

There's also the fact that Christian ministries fear losing their tax-exemption status by admitting that Christianity is not a religion.  In other words, they love money.  Besides, legal definitions rarely match common definitions.  But let's go back to the claim that "Christianity is not a religion" is a threat to tradition.  What's the true implication of this claim?  That Christianity not being a religion is a threat to someone's power.  Specifically, it's a threat to the power of the Apologetics Industrial Complex.

In summary, Christianity is not a religion by the common use of the word "religion", because the common use of that word involves defining "belief" as merely one's opinion.  And Christianity is not a matter of opinion.  But by other definitions of opinions that do not hold "belief" and "opinion" as synonymous, Christianity does qualify as a religion.

Why is this important?  Because the Gospel message depends on Christianity being grounded in truth.  And because a major reason for someone to become a Christian is because of the fact that Christianity is grounded in truth, not in legend or myth or fairy tale.  The Gospel has no power if Judgement Day or the resurrection of the dead is merely someone's opinion, or worse, a lie.  There is a war against Christianity, and one of the weapons used against the faith is to make it look like it's a matter of opinion.  It is our job, as those who know the truth, to refute the lie that Christianity is just an opinion.  And to expose the truth that all things that are contrary to Christianity are the real lies.

Self-Righteousness Defined Correctly

One of the more contentious issues within the body of the Messiah is the issue of righteousness.  Nobody has an issue with wanting to be seen as righteous.  But the moment righteousness is defined to include obedience is the moment people start taking exception.  And it's no wonder that this is done, since those who are governed by the flesh are hostile to Yahweh and are unable to obey Yahweh's commandments [Romans 8:6-8].  To be fair, it is good to challenge something if your motives are good.  Such a challenge serves to prove how well the thing one is challenging holds up to examination, if one's motives are to examine the claim.  But as we will see, this is not what is happening with the definition of righteousness when it is defined correctly.

In the New Testament, the Greek word "anomia" is the word for "lawlessness".  It literally means "the practice of being without law".  And the law that it always refers to is Torah.  It may also be translated as "iniquity" or "unrighteousness".  It is derived from "anomos", which literally means "without law".  It can also be translated as "iniquity", "unrighteousness", "transgression", and "unlawful", among other things.  They are all referring to the same thing:  being or living without Torah, whether by living by a different law, or willfully living contrary to God's law.  You might be able to see where I'm going with this.

There is a pervasive teaching going around the Body of the Messiah that I like to call "the lazy gospel".  Others refer to it as "easy believism".  I and others have also referred to it as "the lawless gospel".  This false gospel disguises itself as the true Gospel that salvation is through faith in Yeshua (Jesus).  But it frames faith itself as the fruit, rather than the thing that produces the fruit.  When taken to its logical conclusion, this lawless gospel perverts the Gospel of grace into a license to commit any sin that one desires, free of all restraint.

This lazy gospel relies on two truths to perpetrate its deception:  The first truth is that nobody can be righteous by obeying the law of Yahweh [Romans 3:19-20].  The second truth is that righteousness is by faith in the Lord Yeshua (Jesus) the Messiah [Romans 3:21-24].  Paul goes to extreme lengths to drive this point home in Galatians 3.  So much so, that many assume that Paul is anti-Torah based on Galatians 3 alone.  I intend to do a blog post specifically on Galatians in the near future, but that's beside the point.  Those who teach the lazy gospel want to be righteous by faith without the fruit that goes with it, which is repentance.  They conclude that since it's believing in Yeshua (Jesus) that is the fruit that makes us righteous, then living in accordance with God's law for any reason must make one "self-righteous".

John has some warnings concerning righteousness.  One being a warning not to let anyone deceive you about what makes a person righteous:  1 John 3:7 says in no uncertain terms that it's the one who practices righteousness who is righteous.  So what does that mean for the teaching that righteousness is by faith?  Here's a hint:  One can also say that righteousness "comes from", "is caused by", or "is because of" faith.  So righteousness is the fruit that is produced by faith.  But then how is it that nobody can be righteous by their works?  Paul answered that in Romans 3:19-20:  By our works, we are wicked.  How then can faith apart from works result in righteousness?  Paul answers this question as well in Colossians 2:14:  The record of our debt is destroyed.  The legal charge against us no longer stands.  In other words, we have been forgiven of everything that makes us unrighteous, just by believing in Yeshua (Jesus).

If it's the one who practices righteousness who is righteous, having their slate wiped clean because of their faith in Jesus, then what does it mean to "practice righteousness"?  Paul answers this as well in Romans 2:13, where he says that it is the doers of the law (Torah) who are righteous.  So the one who practices obeying God's commandments is the one who is righteous, if they have first had their slate wiped clean by trusting the Lord Jesus.

What does this mean for "self-righteousness" then?  Remember that "self-righteousness" is often defined by the Church as keeping God's law.  Surely one cannot be both righteous and self-righteous at the same time, right?  As it turns out, one can't.  One can be righteous, or one can be self-righteous, but not both.  Paul warns in Romans 10:3-4 against those who set up their own righteousness rather than submitting to God's righteousness.  And this is after he spent Romans 6 and 7 saying that we are no longer under the power of sin, but are now slaves to righteousness (keeping God's law).

Yahweh himself, through the prophet Ezekiel, has also answered the question of self-righteousness.  In Ezekiel 33:13, the prophet of God speaks of someone who is initially righteous, but then starts trusting his own righteousness and commits lawlessness.  Ezekiel, speaking according to what God has commanded him to speak, warns that for such a person, their righteous deeds will not be remembered.  And in verses 14-16 Yahweh says through Ezekiel that when a wicked person turns from their wickedness and does what is just, that person's wicked deeds will not be remembered.

So, self-righteousness is defined as doing what is contrary to God's law, and making up your own standard of righteousness.  So is the one who is living according to Torah self-righteous?  Absolutely not!  On the contrary, such a person is submitting to God's righteousness by definition.

One objection raised to maintain the self-deception that living in obedience to God's law is self-righteousness is to claim that such people are trying to earn their salvation.  In fact, these people are so desperate to avoid being convicted of sin that they are unable to understand that obedience to God's law itself is not "salvation by works".  They themselves even teach a form of obedience (which is contrary to their own "lazy gospel").  But they never see their version of obedience as trying to earn salvation.  What they fail to realize that neither is obedience to Torah.  They also fail to see that their form of obedience is incomplete, and that obeying God's law from their heart is what makes one's obedience complete.

Is it possible for someone to try to earn their salvation by obeying God?  Absolutely.  Will it work?  By no means.  For the only way to earn salvation would be to have not sinned a single time, ever!  And who has done that but Yeshua (Jesus) alone?  But if a person has never, ever committed a single sin, then there is nothing for that person to be saved from.  We need the Lord because we have sinned.  We need salvation because we have transgressed God's righteous law of liberty and have become slaves to sin!

Since self-righteousness is making up your own standard of righteousness, it can take many forms.  This includes selective obedience.  This is most commonly in the form of arbitrarily labeling certain commandments the "moral law" and saying, "we must obey these", and labeling certain other commandments the "ceremonial law" and saying, "we do not have to obey these".  Some even say that it is wrong to obey what they have arbitrarily labeled as the "ceremonial law".  Self-righteousness can also be in the form of hedging God's commandments with your own (which Paul says are worthless [Colossians 2:20-23]).  And it can be in the form of adding to God's commandments, which is a direct violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32.  Let's go over a few examples of self-righteousness.

The first example of self-righteousness comes from the Bible itself.  In Luke 18:9-14, Jesus tells a parable of a Pharisee who boasted about his own righteousness when he prayed to God.  The Pharisee in this parable believed he was righteous because he fasted frequently and tithed all of his possessions.  The former is not something that God commanded and the latter is a distortion of what God commanded.  Matthew 15:1-9 and Mark 7:1-13 go into more detail about the heaps and heaps of traditions and human rules that the Pharisees believed made them righteous, all while either neglecting or even countermanding God's actual commandments.  And while correctly teaching God's commandments when they sat on Moses's seat [Matthew 23:1-7].  By the Pharisees' own rules, a person is required to correctly teach Torah when they sit on Moses's seat.

Our second examples comes from James 2:1-13, when he is rebuking those showing partiality.  Many viewed themselves as righteous while showing partiality in their dealings with the poor verses with the rich.  Showing partiality either in favor of the poor or in favor of the rich is a direct violation of God's law, which is what makes such things a sin.  He also gives an example of how abstaining from adultery while committing murder makes one a sinner [James 2:11], right after saying in James 2:10 that breaking any of God's commandments makes you a sinner (law breaker).

Many twist James 2:10, saying, "if you break one commandment, they you have broken every commandment", and "therefore, we should not be trying to keep any of the commandments".  This, of course, is the opposite of the point James is making.  If ignoring one commandment makes you a transgressor, then ignoring all of them makes you a transgressor all the more!  And the people who do this somehow think doing this makes them righteous!  By the way, nobody takes this teaching to its logical conclusion.  Instead, they use it to justify their selective obedience, which is somehow also supposed to make them righteous.  Ever heard of psychological projection?  That's what those who say, "keeping God's law is self-righteousness" are doing.

For some more modern examples of self-righteousness, we have the Sunday Sabbath, a number of "holy days" that God never commanded (such as Christmas and Easter).  Observing the Sabbath only counts towards righteousness when it is observed on the 7th day of the week (Saturday), per the 4th Commandment.  Adopting holidays used by pagans to honor false gods always dishonors God regardless of one's intent, and so can never count towards righteousness.  Extra celebrations such as Hanukkah and Purim also cannot count towards righteousness, as God never commanded them.  And as per Leviticus 23:2, only the days declared as holy in Leviticus 23 (and other places in Torah) are holy.  Anything else is merely a human tradition that should never be treated as holy (human traditions are not sinful of themselves).

Some other examples of self-righteousness would include abstaining from profanity, not judging others (when practiced consistently), women wearing dresses, women covering their bodies in order to "be modest" and "not tempt men into lust", and men averting their eyes from women who are "dressed immodestly" in order to "not lust after them".  These are all matters of opinion and consideration for others.  Following these rules does not contribute to righteousness, nor does not following them contribute to unrighteousness.  See my post on Romans 14 for more details concerning matters of opinion.

Notice that the pattern of self-righteousness does not change.  It always involves one or more of the following:  (a) neglecting some of God's commandments, (b) hedging God's commandments, or (c) changing or refusing some of God's commandments.  All while thinking that this is part of being righteous.

In summary, self-righteousness is establishing one's own standard of righteousness.  This includes defining obedience to God's law as self-righteousness, and imposing your own standards of righteousness upon others.  While the true righteousness that comes from faith in Yeshua (Jesus) is obeying God's commandments from your heart.  And God has always wanted obedience to come from the heart.  That is why he commanded us to love him with all our hearts [Deuteronomy 6:5].  Therefore, examine yourself to see if there are any human rules you are following, and what your motives are for following them.  And use discernment when you consider dropping those rules.  Also examine yourself to see if and where your obedience to God is incomplete.  If through discernment, you find that it is incomplete, then begin to implement what you have learned.  But do so out of love and by faith, not out of fear.

Remember, because of your faith in Yeshua (Jesus), you do not need to fear condemnation.  Because you have a heart that desires to obey the one you believe in, God will show grace to you in your shortcomings.  The only ones who have anything to fear are those who's hearts are inclined to disobey God.