There are two different scriptures about dietary codes that use a very similar phrase about the “weak” Saints. The first is at the beginning of the Word of Wisdom, D&C 89:
1 A Word of Wisdom, for the benefit of the council of high priests, assembled in Kirtland, and the church, and also the saints in Zion—
2 To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days—
3 Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints.
The other I’m thinking of is in Romans 14, in which Paul is discussing whether non-Jewish Christian converts need to avoid eating meat offered to idols, something that was prohibited to Jews. The gist of the question is whether Christianity is a Jewish sect or transcends Judaism, becoming a new religion without ties to its roots. Underneath that argument was a very important core question: were Jewish converts to Christianity somehow superior to those from other backgrounds? Was there a hierarchy based on lineage?
1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
4 Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
….
21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
I was recently reading Peter Enns’ book The Bible Tells Me So, in which he talks about this particular set of verses:
Jews were on the scene first, and so they felt they ranked higher than these newbie Gentiles. Gentiles, since they didn’t have all that food regulation business to attend to, snickered a bit at the old-fashioned, backwater Jews.
But, if the gospel means anything, Paul argues, the people of God should not act this way toward each other. So here is Paul’s solution: he tells those who are “strong” to put up with those who are “weak” and not make their lives difficult.
. . . Although he never spells it out, it’s clear enough that the “weak” are those who still feel they need to keep the commands of God to eat kosher. The “strong” are those who know that, because of Jesus, they can live free of those commands.
Paul pushes this a step further. If you really want to be shown to be a follower of Jesus, the strong, even though they are right, shouldn’t rub their freedom in the faces of their weaker brothers and sisters by sitting down next to them and eating lobster bisque. Sure, they can–in the sense that God is just fine with lobster now–but they shouldn’t if in doing so they will undermine the faith of their weaker brother or sister.
There is no higher “law” to be obeyed than the law of love. That, at the end of the day, is what it means to follow Jesus.
Stephen’s recent post about the book Misreading Scripture Through Western Eyes reminded me of an earlier post I did called Rules & Relationships which also referenced that book. Consistently with what Peter Enns says above, I observed in that post that relationships supercede rules in the scriptures. The Israelites break the rules (commandments) all the time, but they are still under covenant (relationship) with God. God chastises them, but still keeps gives them the preferential status associated with their special relationship with him. Likewise, in the post, I posited that “rules should never substitute for relationships (sounds like a rule!), not with God, not with our fellow man.”
Other religious bloggers have taken on the topic of weak vs. strong faith in various posts. Mark Reasoner adds an interesting idea to the passage, that no matter who reads it, they will interpret themselves as the “strong” and the other type of believer as “weak.”
Who are the “strong and weak” in this passage?
Most commonly, the “weak” are legalists and the “strong” are those that are not trying to “earn” status by their good works. This view has been eroded by the New Perspective on Paul, since it may not be the case that Jews in the first century say themselves as earning their salvation.
. . .
Paul never really says the weak are Jewish and the Gentiles are the strong. That may be what Paul is saying, but our post-Reformation reading of the text tends to obscure Paul’s subtle rhetoric. It is possible a Jewish Christian might hear “we who are strong ought to bear the failings of the weak” (Rom 15:1) as meaning, “we Jews who are strong and keep the law properly ought not to look down on the weak Gentiles who have not fully understood the Gospel yet.” But it is also possible a Gentile would hear Paul saying “We strong Gentiles who fully understand the grace of God should not look down on these weak Jews who insist on Old Covenant practices.”
Years ago, in a leadership training I attended, we were given the advice that the person with the most awareness in a situation bears the greatest responsibility for how the relationship goes. That’s great advice because it means that being right doesn’t mean you get to lord it over the other person, but instead that you have to suck it up and deal with the other person because you are the more mature one, and who doesn’t want to be the more mature one? It may feel satisfying to be able to correct the other person, but instead, the advice is to meet them where they are, to find a way to bring them along.
Here’s another take on the Romans 14 scripture from the Ligonier Ministries blog site:
If a man believes that it is a sin to eat meat and then goes ahead and eats it, he has sinned. He has sinned not because he has eaten meat but because he has done something he believes God has forbidden—his intention was to disobey God. Because of this, Paul says that strong Christians are to be careful not to lead weak Christians into sin by encouraging them to go against their consciences.
….
If, on the other hand, I eat or drink in private without violating my conscience, I have offered no offense. The weaker brother may not like my doing it, and he may even be shocked, but I have not encouraged him to sin. Moreover, Paul makes it very clear that the weak believer is not to tyrannize the church. When the weak Judaizers wanted Paul to eat separately from the Gentiles, Paul adamantly refused (Galatians 2). The strong believer must oppose the weak believer when he tries to make his scruples a law for the whole community, because to capitulate on this point is to allow the corruption of legalism into the church, which eventually will destroy the Gospel.
This idea of violating one’s conscience reminds me of a practical joke someone played on my mission. There was a local member who used to love to serve guests these fake espressos made with Echo (a coffee flavored drink similar to Postum). He distilled them down so they were very strong and smelled and tasted like a highly concentrated coffee drink. A new missionary was brought to his house and told he was an investigator, someone who objected to the legalistic way members followed the Word of Wisdom. He said he would only be baptized if the missionaries would drink the “coffee” he had put in front of them. This young missionary began to sweat. He had never tasted coffee before, and he believed it was prohibited. He didn’t want to drink the coffee and do something against his conscience, but he also believed that his sole purpose for being there was to bring souls to Christ, to help people join the church through baptism. In a moment of indecision, he shakily reached out and grabbed the little cup and quaffed it down. Of course, the joke was then revealed, and he felt foolish for having abandoned his principles in the heat of the moment.
It’s as if Paul was writing about this exact implausible scenario!
Another take on Romans 14 from Bible.org:
While I was attending seminary several years ago, the most amazing realization of my study of the New Testament was that someone had switched the labels on the strong and the weak. I had always been taught that the strong Christian was the one who knew he couldn’t. He couldn’t smoke, drink, dance or go to movies. And she couldn’t wear lipstick or make-up. The strong Christian is “… someone who lives in mortal terror that someone, somewhere, is enjoying himself.”114 The weak Christian was the one who spoke of liberty.
If this has been your understanding of the ‘strong’ and the ‘weak,’ then you had better take a closer look at this chapter. The weak brother thinks it is wrong to eat meat, and so he eats only vegetables. The strong knows there is nothing intrinsically sinful about meat-eating (verse 2). The weak (we would assume) regards some days as more sacred, while the strong regards every day alike (verse 5). When I was a youngster, I can remember Christian friends whose parents thought it wrong to swim or water ski (or do anything fun) on Sunday. The strong knows he is free to drink wine in moderation (verse 21, cf. I Timothy 5:23), while the weak feels he must be a tee-totaler.115
I must go on to say that the weak Christian is not just the one who believes something which in fact is a Christian liberty is prohibited, but he is one who is inclined to go ahead and follow the example of the strong in spite of his scruples. The weak Christian, then, is not just the one who heartily condemns drinking wine, but who also might drink wine against his conscience because you or I do it.
So, like the missionary who was the butt of the joke, a Christian who does something he or she thinks is wrong is wrong because of violating his or her own conscience, even if that belief is misplaced and legalistic.
The observation about which are the weak and strong Saints is an interesting twist on which ones we assume are weak in section 89 of the D&C. [1] We tend to believe that the “weak” are the ones who struggle to obey dietary codes, who want to drink hot drinks or alcohol despite being warned against them. But Paul’s take on who is weak seems to be just the opposite. Those with weak faith are the ones who need to believe that their checklists and rules will save them–from themselves, from damnation, from temptation–and that they are unable to self-govern.
When I was new to the bloggernacle, I read a post on another site in which someone asked whether readers would stock jars of mud in their basement if they were asked to do so by the prophet. This evolved into a discussion equating willingness to do such a strange thing with being faithful. It seems to me that one’s willingness to do such a thing is not the litmus test of religious strength or weakness. The question of strength or weakness is related to what type of belief we have about the thing we do. Do we believe our checklists will save us, that life is a series of opportunities to rack up righteous points, that we are rewarded based on our exactitude in following rules–or do we build a relationship of trust and loyalty with God and others and avoid judging our fellow men using our own preferences as a standard?
- How do you read Romans 14? Who are the weak and who are the strong?
- In today’s church, what are examples of weak faith vs. strong faith?
- Is the Word of Wisdom something that is given so that those with weak faith have a checklist for acceptable behavior or does it create weakness by encouraging saints to judge one another and preventing people from developing self-discipline and behaving responsibly?
- Lastly, did anyone in your mission do any mean Word of Wisdom related practical jokes?
Discuss.
[1] And of course, the Word of Wisdom as written in D&C 89 is not how it’s practiced today as it clearly allows for beer, doesn’t name coffee or tea (instead referring to their temperature), and limits meat-eating to “sparingly,” something that nobody is asking about in a temple recommend interview.
Wheat & Tares 
I enjoyed this. Made me look at things from the perspective of am I acting from pride or from kindness/charity in the way I deal with people.
And that it is a matter of how I deal with others, not how I judge the way others are dealing.
Too often it seems that the bloggernacle is about judging others.
I liked this essay that fits with what you had to say: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1994/10/our-strengths-can-become-our-downfall?lang=eng
I love this too because when I’m sitting in RS feeling frustrated about the dialog around me, it puts the burden of that on me – not to correct those around me who see the world differently, but to be kind and take ownership. And it does the exact same thing to the umber-conservative woman next to me as (let’s be honest) very few people are going to see themselves in the role of the weak. Most people think of themselves as being the stronger person (or more right). Acknowledging that requires one to humble oneself as well.
*On a side note, Echo is the one thing from the Canary Islands that I have never given up and is my drink of choice all winter long. It’s probably just psychological, but Postum just isn’t the same. 🙂
When it comes to alcohol, I label myself “weak,” not because I believe that abstaining will win me salvation points, but because my family tree is littered with alcoholics on both sides. Hence, there is a high probability that I have a genetic predisposition toward alcoholism. If the church loosened its stance to allow for moderate alcohol consumption, I would remain a tee-totaler. Given the natural inclination to count one’s self as “strong,” however, I think paternalistic protection of the weak, as I define the term, is very defensible.
What do you think will happen when a hundred student gather to participate in two very different activities? A hundred to run a marathon and a hundred to attend class to learn algebra. The answer to this question is why we have a grading systems (A,B,C, D , etc. and pass/fail). The issue here is the grading system as much as the variety of ability and talent we observe in one another.
In a gospel setting we see the same dynamics at work. A few scripture that come to mind that help.
For of him unto whom much is given much is required; and he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation. D&C 82:3
Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. James 4:17
28 … ye shall receive your bodies, and your glory shall be that glory by which your bodies are quickened.
29 Ye who are quickened by a portion of the celestial glory shall then receive of the same, even a fulness.
30 And they who are quickened by a portion of the terrestrial glory shall then receive of the same, even a fulness.
31 And also they who are quickened by a portion of the telestial glory shall then receive of the same, even a fulness.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 88:28 – 31)
Interesting and enlightening post, thank you. I struggle with the Word of Wisdom in the sense that it’s turned into a checklist and as a way to separate us from the “world.” I believe that kind of thinking – some arbitrary test that separates us from our fellow man – is what Jesus fought against with the Sadducees and Pharisees. In my opinion the Word of Wisdom has evolved from a health code to a checklist and actually weakens the church because it disallows perfectly good people from joining but who don’t want to give up a nightly cup of wine or a morning cup of joe.
Romans 14 seems to label the strong as those who can eat meat (e.g. the newbies) and the weak as those who need a code of health. Yes, this differs from how D&C 89 uses the word weak and applies it to those who are perhaps inclined to drink or to use tobacco. I’m not sure they truly contradict one another though, perhaps they use weak/strong in unrelated scenarios. One applies to the Law of Moses vs. the Higher Law and the other applies to genetic predispositions. D&C 89:4 is a verse that also confuses me. Maybe the weak are also those who can be tricked or deceived which is different still than the Romans 14 usage.
I was not a victim of a mission WoW practical joke but once I accidentally drank coffee. My companion and I visited an inactive member who drank coffee and who we tried to convince to give it up. After several weeks of visiting him he proclaimed victory over evil coffee. That night he served us a warm drink that he claimed wasn’t coffee so we believed him and drank. Somehow we found it that yes, it was still coffee and that we had consumed coffee. I was horrified and lectured him because he caused me to break the WoW. In hindsight it is possible he intentionally duped us but this was rural Guatemala where about 50% of the people were literate, I was a gringo trying to learn Spanish, and there was a dead spider in my coffee, so I believe it was a misunderstanding, not an effort to mislead us.
At Christmas we fed the missionaries who I horrified when I proclaimed that a cup of coffee without sugar or cream is healthier than drinking a mountain dew. I’m pretty sure they think I’m on the road to apostasy (maybe I am??) because I’m also a local church leader who shouldn’t be saying such things. Maybe I’ll point them to Romans 14 and tell them they are the weak ones.
I think we commit a great error when we use these scriptures to point out when others are weak It’s a stop-gap to believe that others are weak and you are strong, as the goal of Christianity is to see your own weaknesses and to work on improving them, not to spend your time knocking others down with your beam and you hunt for motes.
I don’t think the Missionary who was the victim of the “practical joke” had reason to be embarrassed. It could have been an introspective moment, not “abandoning principles” but understanding they did as Christ did when picking corn on the Sabbath. Rules can be good but there are times when it’s more important to break them.
I know I am weak, in many ways. The “rules” help keep me from deeper swamps I have a hard time with in chastity and alcohol. I’m strong for things like coffee, as it’s never had any appeal to me (aside from the smell). I can use my strengths and weaknesses to help guide others one way or another, but only in a limited way. They must find their own way.
What frustrates me the most is when people spend time pointing out others weaknesses.
Excellent, thought provoking post. Thanks.
Great post, Angela.
I don’t think one can really understand Romans 14 unless one steps back and sees it in context of Romans up to that point. There is too much to cover in a comment, but suffice it to say that Paul is addressing a universal human failing: our need to erect dogmatic rules that we feel we must apply to others, creating in-groups and out-groups. The word Paul uses for weak, ἀσθενοῦντα, often means “to be in need”, “ill”, etc., indicating that those who are erecting dogmatic rules have an ill faith in need of support from those who understand more fully the message of Jesus. Keep in mind that early converts were either already Jews, Gentiles attracted to Judaism, or Gentile pagans, so in-group dogmatic rules as part of one’s religious life was the norm. Paul’s comments in Romans 14 flow from his earlier discussion of the effect of the Law on one’s status before God, and those who are weak are the ones erecting or needing the dogmatic rules, while those who are strong understand that rules don’t save us but only enslave us; it is only God’s grace through Christ that can redeem us from our enslaved state.
As for the Word of Wisdom, I pretty much view it as an 1830’s era equivalent of a fad diet – the Temperance Movement – enshrined as scripture. No doubt there is good stuff in there, but we should dial back our focus on it. When we insist that someone’s use of coffee or tea will prevent them from living with God, we are acting like those of weak faith in Romans 14.
Thought provoking, especially in the direction of “not simple.”
Suppose the “strong” is the person with a nuanced view of Church history, and the “weak” is the person with a narrow literal “correct” view of Church history. The kind or considerate or Christian thing to do is not to directly challenge or threaten each other (that seems easy). But it isn’t necessarily to stay in isolation either. It could be that gently prying open one of those literal views would be the kindness. At least it’s worth a conversation.
And suppose my “conscience” includes some of the Islamic hospitality (“Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day should be hospitable with his or her guests.”) I recall a relatively conservative temple-attending Mormon woman who made it a point of keeping an ash tray handy in her sitting room, and ground coffee on her shelf, for this purpose.
This is a really interesting take on the question, hawkgrrrl. I particularly appreciate the Reasoner point about how we’re generally prone to cast ourselves in the “strong” role and people who believe differently in the “weak” one.
What a thought-provoking post. What it makes me realize is how judgmental Mormon culture is, which is to say how much LDS teaching and practice leads Mormons to be judgmental. The whole strong/weak distinction that gives rise to the judgmental mindset (I’m strong and righteous; you’re weak and a sinner) is rooted in the context of a rule. And Mormonism has lots of rules. So it breeds lots of judging. Even the bishops, who should be good examples, are taught to think of themselves as “judges in Israel.”
@lastlemming, it sounds like you recognize something that’s potentially dangerous for you and you’re committed to staying safe. Nowhere in your comment did I read you condemning people with different family history who have different boundaries. You consciously set limits for yourself based on history and (maybe) personal experience. As far as I can tell, that’s wisdom, i.e. strength.
Very thought provoking.
Given the human tendency to assume that we are the strong ones, my take away is that us strong people should never look down on those we see as weak. We should just stop assuming they are weak and know that if their master is happy with them, we have no business even thinking they are weak. And given that tendency, everyone assumes they are strong, so everyone is going to stop judging. Yea!
But then, it also pointed out that I may have caused problems for those who are weak by judging a rule as petty control mongering and rebelling. When Elder Bednar announce his one peircing rule, I looked in the mirror and said, “my two piercings with small earrings are more modest that Sister X with her one pair of huge flashy earrings.” And I kept my two earrings. I still think I was right and Elder Bednar was making checklist rules instead of teaching principles. The principle was modesty, and the huge flashy earrings are not modest. (By my standard) But I erred in comparing my earrings to another Sister’s. And I erred by saying that I didn’t have to go by Bednar’s opinion because I am stronger than he is and setting am example of saying rules of modesty don’t matter for my teen daughters.
Now, I am still not sure what the correct behavior is when my definition of “modest” is different than someone who thinks their opinion trumps my own and their authority does trump my own. Should I throw out my definition of modesty? Adopt the one about numbers of holes rather than size and glitter?
If we apply these scriptures, then Bednar was out of line judging as weak and calling out those he saw as weak. So, I could go back to judging him and keep my second piercing? Or I could just reframe from wearing the extra set when I sit down to eat with him? So that I don’t temp or horrify him that I do not keep Kosher? Or ignore his opinion and not worry about it? Or am I really supposed to accept that because he still insists on eating Kosher, that I should too? Honest question.
Bednar’s story taught a fantastic lesson to prospective married couples, just not the one he intended. If your fiance passive-aggressively dumps you over the number of earrings you wear without even talking to you, you have dodged a bullet, my friend. Marrying that guy would be an endless nightmare. Sometimes you hear the bullet.
I am so far outside checklist territory, and have been all my life, even though I tried earnestly to follow rules. I stopped obsessing over that because too much focus on rules has harmed my relationships, but I’m grateful for the experiences and knowledge that came from doing it, and I’m more able to appreciate the differences that people in my life have, which make the rule-following lifestyle workable for them.
I know my strengths and weaknesses better than anyone, but don’t think that I can make the same assessment of others in my life, any more than they have the knowledge which would equip them to reciprocate. This is good reading; it helps me to suspend the temptation to judge them, and not see them as weak for taking a different approach than I do. Thus peace and unity reign.
Hi Cody, This really got me thinking, D&C 1:24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their WEAKNESS, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.
How much of our Biblical tradition, that we’re now finding out was wrong, was never dispelled because of the amount of doubt and unbelief it would have caused?
I know that this can be easily disputed but it made me stop and think.