Ben Stein is an interesting fellow. Speech writer for Nixon. Hilarious teacher of Ferris Bueller. I re-received an email recently and just got around to reading it; one which originated back in December of 2005 shortly after Mr. Stein offered a commentary on… what was it… CBS Sunday Morning. There are a few versions of the email, but I think the original commentary was pretty close to this:

Herewith at this happy time of year, a few confessions from my beating heart:

I have no freaking clue who Nick and Jessica are. I see them on the cover of People and Us constantly when I am buying my dog biscuits and kitty litter. I often ask the checkers at the grocery stores. They never know who Nick and Jessica are either. Who are they? Will it change my life if I know who they are and why they have broken up? Why are they so important? I don't know who Lindsay Lohan is, either, and I do not care at all about Tom Cruise's wife.

Am I going to be called before a Senate committee and asked if I am a subversive? Maybe, but I just have no clue who Nick and Jessica are. Is this what it means to be no longer young. It's not so bad.

Next confession: I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are: Christmas trees. It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, "Merry Christmas" to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu. If people want a creche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.

I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship Nick and Jessica and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him?

I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where Nick and Jessica came from and where the America we knew went to.

I was reading this and thinking about a couple of people I've met this semester. In class is a Muslim woman from Jordan. Upon meeting her I made the reckless (reckless, because if I had really thought about it I might have realized this) mistake of holding out my hand to shake. She introduced herself and added, "…but I don't shake hands." This week I was in meetings with a guy from back east who is (I presume) an orthodox Jew. He wore his kippah and drank his kosher fruit juice in the midst of all the rest of us, and left early for his fly-back so he wouldn't be travelling on the Sabbath. My simple point is that in watching both of these individuals, I've felt a deep level of respect for the way they shape and conform their lives to their faith. I have no problem at all feeling that the three of us are connected through a committed devotion to God. I guess I simply liked reading Mr. Stein's words this evening. I am a Christian, and I am not at all offended by head coverings, kippahs, Ramadan, or being kosher. Quite to the contrary, I am drawn to simple, humble submission to our Creator—in its various forms.

I have no idea where I was, nor what I was reading, but two or three weeks ago I ran across a Christian's claim that "the Muslim God is not the God of the Christian." Hmmm. Well, this statement could have just as easily been made by a Muslim, or by anybody else for that matter, but I have to say that my understanding of Islam, extremely limited though it may be, is that Christians and Muslims do indeed refer to the same God. At least, certainly, if I was to sit down with a Muslim and talk about God, my underlying assumption would be that we were both talking about the Father of Abram/Abraham.

I suppose what the author of that line might have been implying is that Muslim and Christian would disagree, of course, about the idea of a trinity. But then again, so do Jews and Christians, and nobody says that the God of the Jew is not the God of the Christian. Sometimes I think that there are many things said out of pure fear and/or ignorance and/or malice.

What I was thinking, anyway, is that it's sort of a moot point for me. It seems to me that if you are a monotheist, then whenever somebody talks about worshipping the One or Supreme being, they are talking about God. That's the word I use, but the word is not magical; it's three characters of the particular alphabetic script I use, arranged in one of six possible ways. Even Paul, on Mars Hill, used this idea. He referenced a local statue labeled "to an unknown god" as an inroad to a sermon. So I see you have an unknown god. Well, let me tell you about this unknown God…

Just to clarify a little more, I understand the opinion that if you claim to worship God, but your concept of God is radically different from mine, then we are in some sense worshipping a "different" God. And I think this opinion has merit. So to be more to the point, what I am saying is that God is God irrespective of whether your idea and/or my idea as to the nature of that God is/are correct or not. God's Being does not depend upon a human's concept of God. Whatever God is, God is. And if you are claiming to worship that One Being, then whether or not any of us are conceiving correctly or not, the Being we are pointing to is still the same Being. I guess my point is simply that the Lord our God is one God. Muslim, Christian, Jew; the same Being begat us all, and the same Being is worshipped by us all. And, it's about the Being, after all. It's not about us. It is in this sense that the Muslim God is the Christian God, is the Jewish God, is the God of other monotheistic faiths.

Must it be so difficult, really, for us all to begin here?

Continuing my previous post, here's quite a long ramble concerning the "complication" I mentioned…

To look at a person or a group who claims to be Christian, and to say the religion practiced thereby is "not much of a Christianity" because it is divisive, is a dicey stand to take. It is to create a sort of division, seems contradictory, and some might even say is hypocritical. I think it's fair to say that it is not a clearly defensible position to take, similar to saying, "I accept everybody except those who can't accept other people," or, "I believe (absolutely) that all things are relative." I'm well aware of this, and by and large I have long struggled, and continue to struggle, to not draw lines and to be very careful not to take stands which divide. The problem is, there isn't any way to have convictions for one's life without drawing lines and taking stands somewhere, and to draw lines and take stands means that sometimes you make claims that divide. By the way, I should mention that while this probably seems as obvious as the sun in the sky to most of you, it's something that I've really had a hard time with. Perhaps I've just gotten high-centered in my thinking somewhere back in a long ago, and let's not forget personal psychology; I just don't like causing conflict and I'm a bit of a cowardly little thing. So. What to do?

All of this is wrapped up in a realm of general fear, foreboding and mystique in Christian religion; the idea of "judging" other people:

Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor's eye.—Matthew 7:1-5 (NRSV)

I have to note that I've noticed a great number of Christians who, in my opinion, pretty much fail at this injunction. Judgment seems to be high on their can-do list, ranging from judging a person's entire worldview all the way down to attitudes revealed via common gossip: "Do you know what he said she said? Can you believe that? What kind of a person says something like that?" Even at the small scale this is judging in a certain sense, and not just judging, but reveling in the act of it; it's a sad curiosity that sometimes Christians form social bonds based upon shared judgment against others. But, part of my problem is that I've never gotten it straight in my mind as to just what "judge" is supposed to mean. I use the word, I talk about the concept in argument, but what exactly does it mean? Does it mean simply on emotional human terms, does it mean judging facts, behaviors, beliefs, eternal salvation or what? Does it mean I don't like somebody, that I disagree with them, or what? To my mind those forms of judgment—disagreement and (dis)affection—are natural and acceptable. But often we use the word in the area of judging whether a person is "good or bad." I'm not sure this clarifies the issue at all; we never well define what "good" and "bad" mean, but the implication is that we consider them morally inferior to ourselves. I seriously doubt that Jesus would approve of this. We use the word "judge" more definitively in terms of a person's "eternity status," as in, "Yep, that one over there is going to hell for sure if he doesn't change his ways," and that sort of thing. I also seriously doubt that Jesus would approve of this usage, and in fact I'm convinced that he would not. Now, most Christians will say they're judging behavior and acts, not people and souls. To do this is a pretty supportable idea Biblically; it's okay to say that murder is wrong, and you can do it without casting judgment on whether the murderer is morally inferior or going to hell. But the truth is, I'm not sure that the majority of Christians make the distinction.

There's another factor that has long confused me, too. Look at what Jesus says, according to Matthew, in the following invective:

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach. They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on the shoulders of others; but they themselves are unwilling to lift a finger to move them. They do all their deeds to be seen by others; for they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long. They love to have the place of honor at banquets and the best seats in the synagogues, and to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, and to have people call them rabbi. But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all students. And call no one your father on earth, for you have one Father—the one in heaven. Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Messiah. The greatest among you will be your servant. All who exalt themselves will be humbled, and all who humble themselves will be exalted. But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you lock people out of the kingdom of heaven. For you do not go in yourselves, and when others are going in, you stop them. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cross sea and land to make a single convert, and you make the new convert twice as much a child of hell as yourselves. Woe to you, blind guides, who say, 'Whoever swears by the sanctuary is bound by nothing, but whoever swears by the gold of the sanctuary is bound by the oath. ' You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the sanctuary that has made the gold sacred? And you say, 'Whoever swears by the altar is bound by nothing, but whoever swears by the gift that is on the altar is bound by the oath.' How blind you are! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? So whoever swears by the altar, swears by it and by everything on it; and whoever swears by the sanctuary, swears by it and by the one who dwells in it; and whoever swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by the one who is seated upon it. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel! Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup, so that the outside also may become clean. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which on the outside look beautiful, but inside they are full of the bones of the dead and of all kinds of filth. So you also on the outside look righteous to others, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous, and you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' Thus you testify against yourselves that you are descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your ancestors. You snakes, you brood of vipers! How can you escape being sentenced to hell?" Matthew 23:1-33 (NRSV)

For a person who said do not judge, and for a person who said he was not here to judge the world, Jesus obviously held a strong stand concerning the behavior of these people and—seemingly—their state in the face of God. At first blush, if he wasn't judging them in some way, I don't know what I should call it. So I've long asked myself, "If Jesus said don't judge, isn't he violating his own idea here? Isn't this inconsistent?" But, I think there's a fairly obvious connection or two between the two passages: first of all, in three words, "Pride is bad." Working it out in relation to these passages, if you think about it, pride is at the root of casting judgment, it's at the root of placing yourself above others, it's at the root of condemning others, and it's at the root of hypocrisy. (Admittedly, my conclusion comes as no great surprise, since I believe strongly that pride is the root of all our human problems, so my take on these passages may be more than a bit biased.)

Pride causes us to view ourselves in relation to other people rather than in relation to God. I really tend to believe that Jesus understood that what is good or bad about a person at the most fundamental levels is known only by God. Furthermore, the knowledge between individual and God is the only one that matters. To judge another in a moral sense is to manifest the fact that you are placing yourself in the place of God. Being hypocritical manifests that you are worried about how others see you, about your appearance in their eyes, rather than about how you stand in relationship with God. In short, judging others and hypocrisy are both signs that we have our focus all wrong. Both indicate that we have adopted a person-to-person view of life, rather than a God-to-person view of life. We have failed to understand that all human interrelations are person-to-God-to-person. We have pushed God aside, and attempted to usurp God's position as God. I think this is what steamed Jesus so greatly about the scribes and Pharisees. They talked a great deal about God, but didn't have room for God. All they had room for was placing themselves alongside others, with themselves in the superior position. Jesus just couldn't stand for this. He drew a line. It is very interesting to note that overall in Jesus' ministry he accepted the humble people, some of whom were tax collectors, prostitutes, drunks and the like. But he drew the line at pride.

As to the second connection between the passages, a fair question to ask would be, "So in this case, Jesus didn't seem to allow for the God-person relationship with the scribes and Pharisees. He stepped right in and judged them." Well, apparently, yes, unless one would allow for a view I consider likely. Note that Jesus in the earlier passage says that we ourselves determine the measure of judgment that is poured out upon us. Could it be that Jesus is saying, "Given that you people condemn others based upon a system that you yourself fail to fulfill, given that you are guilty of those things you claim sentence one to hell, then how can you avoid being sentenced to it yourself?" In other words, Jesus wasn't himself judging the scribes and Pharisees; his point was that they were guilty under the standards of judgment they wielded against others. The hypocrites judged themselves, and he was merely pointing it out. While I admit that the felt need to find some consistency between the two passages is mostly a matter of the western modernity's influences in my mind, I consider this analysis to be reasonable enough to be considered seriously. If it is in anyway correct, then there is a contemporary counterpart to it that should be considered, most of all by Christians who are doctrinally legalistic.

There are Christians who claim that believing the "correct" Christian doctrine is absolutely essential to salvation. I'm not saying they simply believe you have to have the Trinity, Immaculate Conception and Resurrection correct. I'm saying they believe things like, oh, if you have a kitchen in your church building, or you play an organ while you sing hymns, or you get the roles of men and women in church mixed up, you're doomed. Needless to say, if you're of a different denomination than they, or perhaps a different congregation of the same denomination, well, you're doomed. I've actually had a conversation with a guy that went like this:

Me: So, are you saying that the people in your church are the only ones going to Heaven?

Him: Oh no. I wouldn't say that. The Bible says we aren't to judge others. But I will say that only people who follow the Bible correctly are going to Heaven. I believe the Bible teaches this quite clearly.

Me: So would you say, though, that only your church follows the Bible correctly?

Him: Well, yes. That's why I'm here in this church.

Me: So you're saying that your church is the only ones going to Heaven?

Him: No. I didn't say that.

Well… yeah, he did. And he's not alone. What's most unsettling about this view is that if you ask somebody who is deeply committed to it, "But what about those people who are humble of heart in following a different doctrine? Won't they be saved in the end by a loving God who reads the hearts of men?" they will answer, "No. I know that sounds like it would be nice, but the Bible teaches that 'there is a way that seems right to man, yet leads to destruction,' and, 'Many people will say to me on that day, Lord, didn't we prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and I will say them to them, Away from me, for I never knew you'." There is no room in these people's minds for being mistaken about what the Bible "really teaches." So, to put things into their frame of reference, wherein a person meets God on Judgment Day and accounts for one's life, it seems to me it would have to go something like this: (1) Since they have said that correct doctrine is essential (the key) to salvation, God will use doctrine to judge them. (2) Obviously, their doctrine is imperfect (as is true of all doctrines), so they deserve to perish. (3) In response, a loving God could and would accept them in Grace and Mercy anyway, based upon humility of heart in their beliefs and upon their love for Him alone, but ... (4) They themselves have said this counts for nothing. Their bad. In this hypothetical scenario, such people would stand condemned, and solely by their own standards; not God's. To my mind, this is essentially why Jesus presented the scribes and Pharisees with a bleak and tragic outlook. They had created this same situation for themselves, and Jesus was stating the obvious. But I digress a bit.

My point? Drawing lines and taking stands are things to do—things we must do—between ourselves and God. Yes, they affect how we live and what we judge as right or wrong for ourselves. They sometimes divide us from others in beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. But are the lines we draw to be lines for other men and women as well? I think not. I think those lines are their business, between them and God. It is okay to disagree with some people. It is okay to not like some people. But it is not okay to presume the ultimate moral state of another, nor his or her ultimate standing in relation to God. Nor is it okay to hate. So, when I spoke in the previous post about divisive forms of Christianity "not being much a Christianity," I meant it. I take that stand. But in making such a statement, be it clear that I'm disagreeing with doctrine; namely doctrine that denies entrance to God's Kingdom from those who humbly desire to be a part of it. Perhaps I am also going so far as to not like some of my fellow Christians. But as for their ultimate moral state and ultimate standing with God? As far as I can tell, they're right here with me, as equals, in strength and weakness, in wisdom and foolishness, for good and for bad, warts and all. Who am I to deny them the Kingdom? I cannot and would not. Thanks be to God, who is no respecter of persons and accepts all of us who remain humble before him in all our disparate—and undoubtedly flawed—beliefs. May God rid me of all my pride, and keep me safe in an ever maturing humility.

If you haven’t already done so, you should scroll down and read my previous posts that are part I and II of The Weak and the Strong.

TO INTERJECT a bit of levity into this discussion, I am thinking of a couple of religious jokes that go hand in hand with the topic. If you’ve ever spent time in certain Christian denominations, the jokes will bring a smile to your face. If you haven’t, then, well, they won’t make any sense at all.

Why don’t people from certain denominations ever make love standing up? They’re afraid somebody will see them, and think that they’re dancing.

If you belong to a certain denomination, and if you go fishing, why should you always bring along two friends from your congregation? Because if you only bring one, he’ll drink all of your beer.

Now, the cynical, critical or uneducated person would say that these jokes are about Christian hypocrisy. But this would, in almost all cases, be incorrect. These jokes are not about hypocrisy, but about the struggle for what some might call propriety. In this post, I refer to it as expediency.

Expediency is one of the things at the heart of what Paul says in Romans fourteen, and he mentions it explicitly in two places (chapters six and ten) of first Corinthians. In my previous post, I referred to these latter places by noting that Paul seems to accept a claim that was being made by at least one person in the Corinthian church: “All things are permissible.” Paul’s response, interestingly enough, was not to deny the claim, but to put it into perspective. It appears to me similar to the idea of a person saying, “I’m stronger than he is, and I can end this issue by wiping the floor with his face,” and a mediator saying, “You’re stronger than he is and you can end the issue by wiping the floor with his face… but is this the most responsible and mature way to handle it?” Paul is not denying, and seems to accept, that all things are permissible for those of faith, but qualifies the idea by noting that not all things are beneficial for the brotherhood. To whom does the burden fall to act responsibly, with the best interest of all parties at heart? To the one who has the ability to command the situation. In the case of our would-be bully, it is up to him to choose to resolve the issue with something more mutually beneficial than brute force.

It is the delicate dance of a person acting in his or her own faith while attempting not to damage the faith of others, that often leads to being accused of hypocrisy. Now, don’t get me wrong—I know that there is plenty of hypocrisy in the church. I’m just saying that most non-believers, who are not familiar with the issues at stake, mistakenly view behavior born of the weak/strong/expediency issue as being hypocrisy. There isn’t a lot we can do about this, but we should keep it in mind, because it can help us understand the viewpoints of those who aren’t enmeshed in the situation. But I digress.

At this point, it should go almost without saying that while Paul’s ideas are at one level of great comfort (a vindication, in fact) to those who believe in Christian liberty, the pill to swallow is that his ideas place a much larger portion of responsibility upon them. If your faith is strong (and, yes, therefore relatively “liberal”), then it is your responsibility to live your Christian life with a sense of responsibility to those who are not. This is not intended to sound condescending, nor should it be so. Nor is it a blanket sanctioning of the dummying-down of faith. To condescend and to dummy-down our faith are both, in my opinion, mistakes. But what is the person of stronger faith to do, especially given these last two points?

As best as I can tell, struggle. Struggle in prayer, struggle in humility, struggle in your own frustrations. Struggle to allow God to kill all the pride and arrogance in your life. Struggle to successfully teach what you can, struggle to successfully swallow what you have to. Struggle to never be condescending. Struggle to not let the message of Jesus be dummied-down. Struggle to work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. Struggle to remember that Jesus said much will be required from the one who is given much. Struggle to remember that even Jesus admitted to keeping his mouth shut, and not sharing what he knew others could not bear to hear. But most of all, struggle to love your Christian brethren with the love of God. If you are strong in faith, then your strength comes from your knowledge that it is only the love of God that matters. So struggle to act according to your faith, and live in the love of God above all things.

If you haven’t already read it, you should scroll down and look at my December 01 post, The Weak and the Strong.

NOW, NOTHING is ever as simple as we would like it to be, or when it is rather simple we seem to have to make it complicated. In either case, there is a verse in Romans fourteen that can cause a problem for us. A popular translation of the sixteenth verse goes like this: “Do not let what you consider good to be spoken of as evil.” Another translation takes it as, “So do not let your good be spoken of as evil.” And, a literal translation of the original Greek would go something like, “Not let be insulted then of you the good.”

What are we supposed to do with this? It appears first to place us into a quandary, because here in the middle of Paul talking about how we should keep things to ourselves, do everything to preserve peace amongst our brethren, not judge one another, and not cause one another to fail in the weaknesses of our faiths, there appears to be the admonition to stand up for a doctrinal point that we believe is right. Certainly, I have more than once met a person who will quote this verse as a justification for publicly (and sometimes heatedly) defending his or her views or attacking other views. And more problematic than that, you do not have to think about this very long before you figure out that if we persist in this vein, we will soon all be at each other’s throats.

But it seems to me that when taken in context, what Paul is saying is that we need to make sure the strength and goodness of our faith is not exercised carelessly, such that it brings damage to another good (yet weaker) faith, which would end up causing our good faith to be viewed and spoken of as a bad thing. In more simple terms, our good beliefs can have bad effects, and we must be careful not to let this happen. This admonition of Paul is the same admonition he is making over and over again in various ways throughout the chapter. There is no quandary. We have misused the sixteenth verse to promote our own views, rather than to censor our own views. It is another thing we have gotten backwards.

Reading through the fourteenth chapter, I am unable to escape the idea that if we all followed Paul’s advice given therein, then eventually we would all pretty much end up sitting around with nobody ever complaining about another person’s faith. We would all simply consider each other brothers and sisters in God, trusting in him to accept our individual faiths as they are. It also strikes me that, after some thought, one is inclined to make a statement that is far too outlandish for us to accept: That when it comes to living as a Christian who has a strong enough faith, we can do anything in faith that we care to do, and remain in sound relationship with God. I will admit that this is a pretty crazy conclusion, and honestly I don’t think I personally know anybody who would agree with it. But, come to think of it, it is a claim that (in the sixth and tenth chapters of First Corinthians) Paul seems to accept as true.

SO FAR, Romans fourteen is tons of fun if you happen to be a Christian who believes in liberty. But the fact of the matter is, for those who value liberty, this chapter has a down side that demands a great deal—too much for some to bear. Such will be the point of discussion in part three of The Weak and the Strong.

PAUL, IN the fourteenth chapter of Romans, addresses a problem that still exists, virtually unchanged, in Christian churches and society at large today: The faith of those who are “weak” versus the faith of those who are “strong.”

I encourage you to read it, since it only takes a couple of minutes and there is no substitute for reading something for yourself. But, the gist of it is that some Christians were doing things that other Christians believed to be wrong, and it was causing a big problem amongst the fellowship of believers. In a nutshell and to get my points, according to Paul the stronger faith is the one which recognizes a liberty in Christ that the comparatively weaker faith does not. I find this interesting for two main reasons.

One, I have spent a lot of years in churches where the people of “strong” faith are considered to be those who most steadfastly hold to, and prescribe to others, as many items of doctrine concerning proper Christian morality as possible. A man who has lived sixty years never flinching on the importance of keeping the rules becomes one worthy of special note for his devotion to his faith. He becomes an icon of strength. Nobody ever seems to speak much about the fact that, according to Paul, he is quite likely a person of weak faith.

I’m not trying in any way to insult such a person, and certainly a well developed discipline and a heartfelt devotion to doctrine, when present, are very honorable and admirable things. I’m just saying we have our definitions backwards, and if we ever come to see this, it may change our thinking in grand and glorious ways.

Two, and the part I was thinking of at the beginning of the post, is that Paul makes a statement that is obviously born of personal experience and observation: He tells the weak not to judge the strong, and he tells the strong not to hold the weak in contempt. It seems that those of weak faith, who placed importance on following all the rules just so, considered the strong to be in danger of Hell. And, it seems, the strong, who understood that rules were of little consequence, considered the weak to be, well, stupid. These two derogatory views are born of different understandings, but they equate to a common thing—both the weak and the strong considered the other to be less in the sight of God than they were. This reminds me a lot of our churches, politics, and whatever else we can think of today. Half of us think the other ones are riding a rocket sled on rails straight into Hell, the other half thinks the first half is just plain stupid, and each side thinks the other side has no clue at all about God.

Paul tells us to leave each other alone in our own faiths, to love one another, and not to injure each other’s faith. For, what the weak believes, he believes in faith, and what the strong believes, he believes in faith. It is the faith, not the particular belief, that matters.

I KNOW many Christians who loathe the kind of thinking that leads a person like me to type out that last sentence and mean it with complete conviction. According to them it invites all kinds of evil, like “situation ethics” and “moral relativity.”

Which are, as far as I can tell, completely biblical concepts.