Today,
you will see and hear many comments about religion. Almost all of
them will be negative.
One
of the most popular of these has been around a long time. It goes,
“Christianity is not a religion; it is a relationship.” That
statement is true. Christianity is NOT a religion. It is a
relationship.
At
the Tulsa Family Prayer Center, we have a similar saying that is more
narrowly focused. The Prayer Center saying is, “Christianity is
not a religion; it is a FAMILY!”
That
statement is more narrowly focused because it defines what kind of a
relationship Christianity is. Christianity is not just a friendship;
it is not a business or work relationship; it is not an acquaintance.
It is a family relationship. I like how Alan Taylor described it:
Jesus made a way for His Father to become our Father.
But
the saying that Christianity is a family increases the range of the
relationship. All born again believers are related to God through
the rebirth, and so they are also related to each other.
Those
statements are mild examples of the negative comments you will
encounter about religion. Some portray religion as some nasty, even
dangerous stuff.
Because almost all
the comments that people make about religion are negative, and some
are very negative, you could easily assume that ALL religion is bad,
or that religion is bad by nature.
But
what does God say?
“If
anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his
tongue but deceives his own heart, this man's religion is worthless.
Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is
this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep
oneself unstained by the world.”
(James 1:26-27 NASV)
Wait
a minute here.... On the one hand we have all these negative comments
about religion by people, and sure enough, God does talk about a bad
religion in verse 26, but He shows us a different kind of religion in
verse 27. This religion is pure, undefiled, charitable, and marked
by holy living. That's got to be good religion!
So,
what is going on here? Why all the negative comments about religion
that portray it as a bad thing?
Well, religion
does come in two types, kinds, forms, varieties, whatever: bad and
good. And bad religion is more abundant that the good kind.
Whenever someone
makes a negative comment about religion, they are talking about the
bad type. They are just not saying the word “bad” in front of
the word “religion.”
Why
don't they identify bad religion as the kind of religion they are
talking about?
Maybe they are
ignorant about the two types of religion. They haven't read these
verses.
Maybe they have
read these verses, but forgot them.
Maybe – and I
hope this isn't true of anyone I know personally – maybe they don't
believe these verses.
Before
I begin to explore each of these two types of religion, I have a
couple of items to cover.
The
statement that Christianity is a family relationship seems to
indicate that some kind of connection exists between Christianity and
good religion. What could that connection be? Well, I'll answer
that question towards the end.
Now,
consider that we are talking about two kinds of the same stuff, not
two different things. So, we need to see: What is religion?
You
could look up definitions in the various dictionaries, both online
and hard copy types, and you will find a variety of definitions.
Many will be very similar, because many of these dictionaries are
updates to older editions.
But
what is God talking about when He talks about religion? He is
talking about the out-ward expression of inward belief. This
definition applies to good as well as bad religion.
I
will look at bad religion first. Why look at the bad stuff first?
God did, and aren't we supposed to imitate Him? Also, I believe He
looked at bad religion first because seeing things about bad religion
will help us see things about good religion.
Verse
26 is a single sentence that has four segments. I will start with
the third and fourth segments first.
“...
but deceives his own heart,”
This
segment tells us that bad religion is false religion because
deception has taken place.
Deception takes
place, not only when a lie or falsehood is presented, but when it is
believed and acted upon.
Sometimes local
news will feature a report warning people about a scam going on in
the area. Many times the report will look at the case of a victim
who fell for the scam, and they lost money. But sometimes the report
will focus on someone who didn't believe the scammer's claims, and
they investigated themselves, or they informed law enforcement, and
now the police have informed the media so they can warn the public.
The difference between the victim and the other person is one
believed the lie and acted on it, and the other didn't. One was
deceived, the other one wasn't.
The
ultimate example of someone who was not deceived when lied to is
Jesus in the wilderness. Even though Satan quoted Scripture, he
tried to lie by twisting verses to alter their meaning. But Jesus
never accepted what the devil had to say.
The
man in verse 26 deceived himself, and he built a religion based on a
lie. So, bad religion is false religion.
Now
let's look at the last segment.
“...this man's
religion is worthless.”
Notice that part
“man's religion.” False religion is man made. A man can lie to
himself, or he can listen to Satan's lies, but man creates false
religion.
I
know the King James version uses the word, “vain” instead of
“worthless,” and that's not a bad translation. However,
“worthless” is more descriptive.
In
modern usage, we usually associate the word “vain” with egotism
or failure.
If
you are old enough, or if you grew up listening to 70's music, you
might remember the song, “You're So Vain.” In general, it was
about egotistical people. The songwriter has said she had three men
in mind when she wrote it. The first two lines sum up the entire
song:
You're
so vain,
You
probably think this song is about you.
Now,
I'm not saying that egotism isn't a part of false religion. It is,
but it doesn't account for everything in false religion.
When
someone has been fighting for a cause, or working towards a goal, and
they come up short, they will sometimes say that their efforts were
in vain.
So,
we associate “vain” with egotism or failure. What definition
would include both of these concepts? “Empty.”
In
the case of an egotistical person, they have a high opinion of
themselves, but they lack the substance to back it up. So their
opinion is empty of substance.
In
the case of someone who failed, their efforts were empty of results.
So,
“vain” could mean empty of substance, empty of results, or empty
of value, or worth. Now do you see why “worthless” is more
descriptive than “vain” when speaking of false religion?
The
Greek language bears this out. The word translated “vain” or
“worthless” comes from a root word that means “empty.”
Now,
let's consider together the two aspects of false religion that we
have already seen. What do you have when you combine deception and
worthlessness? You have a counterfeit!
FALSE
RELIGION IS A COUNTERFEIT
Actually,
the best way to describe bad religion is to call it counterfeit
religion. On the other hand, the best way to describe good religion
is to call it true religion.
What
is a counterfeit? A counterfeit is a copy of an object that has
value, and the counterfeiter tries to exploit that value by
presenting the copy as the original object.
This
already tells us something about true religion. This tells us that
true religion MUST exist! We have plenty of evidence that
counterfeit religion exists. In case anyone still thinks that true
religion does not, or can not exist, consider this: No one will
produce a counterfeit unless the true, original, genuine article
exists, and it has enough value to make it worth exploiting through
deception.
Now,
not all copies are counterfeits. An honest copy is just that, an
honest copy. An honest copy can have value of its own; but obviously
it will not have the same value as the original.
Consider the case
of an artist who produces a copy of a masterpiece painting. He
meticulously replicates the original artist's brush strokes, type of
paint, type and age of canvas, etc. His copy is good enough to fool
all but the best experts. But, this artist is not out to fool
anyone. He is honest about his copy being a copy.
Of
course, when he puts it up for sale, he won't get as much as what the
masterpiece is worth. But he could still get a good price, and he
has other advantages from being honest.
First, he avoids
all chance of persecution for counterfeiting. That alone makes
honesty worthwhile.
Let's say he makes
a series of honest copies of masterpieces, and they are all high
quality. He then builds a reputation for himself as a skilled
artist. Then, when he starts producing original paintings, they are
more likely to sell and at a better price, just because of his
reputation.
Let's say he fits
the stereotype of a “starving artist.” He will be glad to get
whatever he can for his honest copy because, now he can eat! He can
pay rent! He can buy more art supplies!
Now
consider the case of another artist who produces another copy of the
same master-piece. But he presents his copy as the original. He
claims that the original was stolen from a museum, but the museum
didn't want the word of the theft to get out, so they have
displayed
a copy instead. Someone believes his lie, and he makes a sale. But
the buyer shows it to a top expert, and the expert reveals it is a
counterfeit. The artist soon finds himself teaching art classes in
prison to other inmates.
What
made the difference between the two copies? Deception!
Sometimes
a counterfeit can have some functional value, but you cannot rely on
it. We see this mostly with counterfeit fashion items.
The
counterfeiting of designer clothes and accessories has become big
business, and a major headache for law enforcement. You can find
these “knockoffs” openly sold on the streets of some big city
neighborhoods. Booth after booth, rack after rack, table after table
will hold dresses, blouses, skirts, jackets, handbags, etc., that
have designer names on them, but for prices that are very low. You
can also find these things for sale online.
Now
a dress is a dress. A knockoff of a designer dress will still do
what a dress is made to do – cover your body. But the stitching on
the counterfeit dress won't be as good as the stitching on the
original.
Consider the case
of a woman who has a chance to attend a formal banquet, but she has
no formal wear of her own. She shops around and finds a designer
dress that she likes, and she knows she will look good in it. But
the price is well beyond her budget, or her credit card limit. She
keeps looking, and then finds the dress online for about a tenth of
the cost.
She
shows up looking like a million bucks. She visits the powder room
before she sits down, and a couple more times during the meal. After
one of those visits, when she sits down, she hears RRRRIIIPPPPPP!
One of the seams now has a big gap in it. So, the dress wasn't worth
what she paid for it. No matter how much she “saved” on it, it
has cost her so much more in embarrassment.
The
type of item we see counterfeited the most gives us the best picture
of counterfeit religion. Counterfeit money has no value as money.
Counterfeit money
does have value, but not as money. It only has value as evidence in
a criminal investigation.
When
someone produces counterfeit money, all their bills have
characteristics that are common to each other, but those
characteristics distinguish the fake bills from real ones.
Investigators will
use those characteristics to build a profile of the counterfeiter
that will help them catch him. After he gets out of prison, if he
starts counterfeiting again, the new bills will match the old ones,
so law enforcement officials can know right away who they are looking
for.
As
counterfeit money is worthless as money, counterfeit religion has no
value as religion.
Let's
take a closer look at how this man-made religion worked as a
counterfeit.
“If
anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his
tongue...”
This
man thinks he is properly expressing his belief in God, but he has a
problem that indicates he is not. He has an unbridled tongue. His
words are out of control, but he can't see that.
Why
can't he see that his tongue is out of control? Because he is
judging himself by an external standard.
Remember that the
Holy Spirit used James to write this letter. James was the pastor of
the church at Jerusalem.
This
church was predominately Jewish. These believers still identified
themselves as Jews, and lived as Jews. They ate a kosher diet. The
continued to attend synagogue and
the
Temple. The continued to observe the Sabbath and the Jewish feasts.
The
central feature of Jewish practice is the Law of Moses.
Now,
we call it the Law of Moses, but God authored that law. Moses was
just the delivery guy. Because the Law came from God, it is His
Word. By nature, then, the Law is good.
We
often see the Law the same as criminal law – a system of defining
good and bad behavior, and the punishment for bad behavior. But the
Law contains three types of law – moral law, ceremonial law, and
government law.
Moral law is
represented by the Ten Commandments, and other commandments. Because
spiritually dead have a problem keeping the moral law, God gave the
other two types of law.
Ceremonial law
applies to the priesthood, the sanctuary (first the Tabernacle, then
the Temple), the sacrifices, and the festivals. These were all
designed to deal with the guilt of sin.
Government law
covers the handling of disputes, containment of disease,
investigation of crimes and their punishment. God intended for
government to keep society safe.
The
sacrifice of Jesus on the cross and His resurrection dealt with the
moral and ceremonial laws. The moral law is now written on the
believer's heart, and the ceremonial system is no longer needed.
The
government law remains as a pattern for the institutions of human
government.
Actually, the Law,
especially the moral law, was God's best instruction to spiritually
dead people on how to walk in love. We see this from the New
Testament, and the fact that the Hebrew word for Law, Torah, also
means “instruction.”
“Owe
nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his
neighbor has fulfilled the
law. For this, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER,
YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET,' and if there is any other
commandment, it is summed up in this saying, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR
NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore
love is the fulfillment of the
law.”
(Rom. 13: 8-10
NASV)
If
love is the fulfillment of the Law, then the Law must be instruction
on how to walk in love.
The
Law was not the problem. As a standard from God, it has no faults.
The problem was how the man in verse 26 applied it, as an external
standard.
The
Law has two commandments that apply to the tongue: You shall not
take the name of the Lord in vain; and you shall not bear false
witness against your neighbor.
The
man in verse 26 thought he was okay with God because he didn't cuss
or lie. What he did not see, or could not see, is that he could have
been violating those commandments and not known it, or he could have
been sinning with his tongue in other ways.
He
could have taken God's name in vain, and lied about God through false
doctrine. False doctrines are lies. They are false statements about
God, or His Word, or His people.
Here
is an example, based on a story from Gary Carpenter's life.
Let's say a child
dies in a terrible accident, or from a horrible disease, either one
involving great pain. At the funeral, the preacher wants to comfort
the mourners and make sense of the death. So he says something like,
“God needed another flower for His garden in Heaven, so he took
little Jimmy home.”
With
that statement, he has lied about God. He has said that God killed
that child. God doesn't kill children. The accident or the disease
did the killing.
By
naming God a child killer, the preacher has also taken His name is
vain.
How
could someone sin with his tongue besides violating the two
commandments mentioned? Here's a quick list:
Cussing
– obscenity, profanity, vulgarity.
Cursing
– verbal condemnation.
Criticism
/ complaining – expressing displeasure or disapproval.
Blasphemy
– contradiction, rejection, or degradation of sanctity.
Slander
– comments to make someone look bad through insults, devaluation of worth.
Boasting
– expressions of self-pride or self-exaltation.
Gossip
– combination of boasting and slander by making comments to make
someone look bad to make yourself look good.
Doubt
– disbelief, worry, the contradiction of God's Word.
Excuse me, but I
see a need to get on my soapbox for a while.
Most
times, gossip is based on rumors or speculation. But sometimes
people will try to justify their gossip by claiming that they are
only telling the truth about so-and-so. What makes gossip what it is
is your reason for telling it. The implication is always “I'm not
as bad as that person!”
Also, most of what
passes as political discussion is nothing but gossip. Conspiracy
theories are nothing but political gossip.
By
using the Law as only an external standard, the Verse 26 Man focused
on appearances. As long as he looked like he was doing what he
thought God wanted, he thought he was okay with God.
One
thing I must add concerning those caught in counterfeit religion:
Most are not aware they are deceived or their religion is a
counterfeit. Very few are aware that they have created a false
religion. Usually, they will repent when they do become aware, but
some will continue on the path they have chosen, and will persist in
their deception because of pride or greed.
If
you encounter someone caught in counterfeit religion, pray for them.
We
have already seen several characteristics of counterfeits that
distinguish them from the originals. Let me list them, and then give
an example that illustrates them.
Counterfeits
differ from the true, original, genuine articles four ways:
1.
Their source.
2.
Their substance.
3.
Their standard.
4.
Their emphasis.
I
have a nephew who travels often for his job in advertising. He's
smart.
This
job is the only one he has had since college. When he was about to
graduate, he gave them his resume, and they said they didn't have any
openings. He checked back a few weeks later and they said that they still
didn't have any openings, but they would create one for him! Now,
this company is not a small, local, or regional company. But they
are located in Dallas, not New York. They are big enough that they
don't have to be in New York to compete with the big New York
advertising firms. If a company like that hires someone even when
they don't have any openings, that person must have something going
on between the ears.
Also, in 13 years
with the company, he went from rookie to principal. That means they
treat him like a partner. On top of that, he works on one client's
account exclusively for one month a year, and he leads a team of 100
people when he does.
I
guess I've established his mental capabilities.
Yet,
this smart guy visited one of those big city neighborhoods I
mentioned earlier, and he bought a Rolex watch... for $8.00.
Now,
you are probably wondering, “Why would such a smart guy like him
buy such an obvious knockoff?” Well, like most smart people, he
has a somewhat warped sense of
humor.
He bought it as a novelty item! And he could definitely afford
eight bucks for a novelty.
This
watch looked like a Rolex. It even kept good time... until one of
the hands fell off.
Now
why did that hand fall off?
1.
It didn't come from Rolex. If it was a genuine Rolex, that hand
would still be where it's supposed to be. Rolex makes their products
to last. So, the phoney watch didn't come from the same source as a
genuine Rolex.
2.
It wasn't made from the same stuff as a genuine Rolex. I'm sure
Rolex is picky is about the material they use in their products. The
hand could have been made from a metal that was too soft to maintain
a tight fit on the stem. So, the knockoff wasn't made of the right
stuff.
3. It wasn't made to the same standard as a Rolex. As
a drafter, I am aware of the kinds of standards that companies use in
the design of their products. I've had to show those specifications
on drawings. They are usually called tolerances. Tolerances
specify how much variation is allowed in the size or placement of a
feature. The fake hand could have had a mounting hole that was too
big, or the stem might have been made too narrow to maintain a tight
fit.
4.
The counterfeiter's emphasis was not the same as Rolex's. His
emphasis was to make a product as cheaply as possible, and make it
look as much like a Rolex as possible. On the other hand, Rolex
emphasizes quality and value.
Now,
to complete the picture, I must move on to examine true religion.
INTRODUCING
TRUE RELIGION
Verse
27 describes true religion pretty well, but our understanding might
be lacking. The keys to fuller understanding are two clauses that I
believer most people just skip by.
James
describes true religion as and pure and undefiled. If you think those
are the same, they are not.
“Pure” means
clean from the source. It refers to the original status of the
substance or, item, and indicates that it comes with no
contamination, or foreign substances or objects within.
“Undefiled”
means that the object or substance remains pure. No one adds any
foreign substances or objects to it.
What
we often miss is that true religion is pure and undefiled IN GOD'S
SIGHT.
Why
is this distinction important? Because God sees not as man sees.
“Now
the LORD said to Samuel, 'How long will you grieve over Saul, since I
have rejected him from being king over Israel? Fill your horn with
oil and go; I will send you to Jesse the Bethlehemite, for I have
selected a king for Myself among his sons.'
“But
Samuel said, 'How can I go? When Saul hears of
it,
he will kill me.'
“And
the LORD said, 'Take a heifer with you and say, “I have come to
sacrifice to the LORD.” You shall invite Jesse to the sacrifice,
and I will show you what you shall do; and you shall anoint for Me
the one whom I designate to you.'
“So
Samuel did what the LORD said, and came to Bethlehem. And the elders
of the city came trembling to meet him and said, 'Do you come in
peace?'
“He
said, 'In peace; I have come to sacrifice to the LORD. Consecrate
yourselves and come with me to the sacrifice.'
“He
also consecrated Jesse and his sons and invited them to the
sacrifice. When they entered, he looked
at Eliab and thought, 'Surely the LORD'S anointed is before Him.'
“But
the LORD said to Samuel, 'Do not look at his appearance or at the
height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees
not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the
LORD looks at the heart.' “
(1Sam.
16:1-7 NASV)
To understand
this passage, we have to go all the way back to the death of Moses.
When
Moses died, Joshua took
over as leader of Israel, because God already designated him for the
position. But when Joshua died, no one was named as his successor as
leader.
Without
a leader, the people drifted off into into idolatry and other forms
of sin. This weakened them to the point where one of their enemy
nations came in, took over and oppressed Israel.
The
people then cried out to God for deliverance. He sent them a leader
who got them back on the right path and led them to victory over
their enemy. But when that leader died, they drifted away from God
again, and right back into the same mess they were in before.
They
repeated this cycle several times, and each time, God provided a
leader. These leaders were called judges, and you can read their
stories in the Book of Judges.
Samuel
was the last judge of Israel.
When
Samuel grew old, he appointed his sons as judges over the people, but
his sons did not follow his path. The people saw this, and
considering their previous pattern of idolatry, oppression, and
deliverance, they also saw danger in letting Samuel's sons take over
after his death.
So,
they asked Samuel to to appoint a king to rule over them. They
assumed that a king would keep them on the right path,or he would
lead them to victory over their enemies. (1 Sam. 8: 4-5, 19-20)
God
finally spoke to Samuel, and led him to anoint Saul as the first king
of Israel. (1 Sam. 8 & 9)
Saul
was okay at first. He did his job as king, leading the people to
victory over their enemies. (1 Sam. 10; 13: 1 – 4) But he soon
got off into disobedience, first concerning an appointed time for
sacrifice, and then concerning the eradication of the Amalekites.
(1
Sam. 13: 5 – 12; ch. 15)
God
had to reject Saul as king for his disobedience. Samuel grieved over
Saul, and might have hoped for Saul to be restored. But Saul had set
himself on a course that he would not repent from. We see this from
the monument he erected to himself. (1 Sam. 15: 12)
That
brings us to 1 Samuel 16.
When
Samuel went to Bethlehem, he knew only that he was to anoint one of
Jesse's sons as God's king. Saul was the people's king, because the
people wouldn't accept God as their King (1 Sam. 8:7). God was now
going to choose a king for Himself (1 Sam. 16:1), a man after God's
own heart (1 Sam. 13: 14).
Because
Samuel didn't know beforehand which one of Jesse's sons was God's
choice, he simply reacted to Eliab's appearance and stature. (1 Sam.
16:7)
Let's
consider why Eliab impressed Samuel.
We
can presume that Eliab was good-looking, maybe even handsome.
He
was probably tall because the passage specifically mentions his
stature. This could also mean that he was muscular as well.
How
did he develop those muscles? By working on his father Jesse's
estate. So, he was a hard worker.
As
the oldest son, he learned to handle responsibility. We know from
later passages that
he
was a soldier in Saul's army. From having learned responsibility at
home, he was most likely put in command at some level in the army.
To
sum it up, tall, handsome, muscular, hard-working, responsible,
leader-of-men Eliab looked like king material! Except to God.
Why?
Because God looked at Eliab's heart and saw something that
disqualified him.
I
don't know for sure what disqualified Eliab from kingship in God's
eyes, but I believe it might have been pride.
You
see, Saul was also tall, handsome, hard-working, and a leader of men
(1 Sam. 9: 2). Characteristics like these can lead to pride. Pride
led to Saul's downfall. God saw the same potential for pride in
Eliab that was already operating in Saul.
Just
as Eliab was disqualified to be king, David was qualified for
kingship – because of what God saw in their hearts.
Because
God looks upon the heart, true religion is pure and undefiled in
God's sight, and not man's. The religion created by Verse 26 Man was
pure and undefiled in his own eyes.
The
conclusion, then, is that true religion comes from the heart.
Now,
let's look at the next characteristic of true religion: the visiting
of orphans and widows.
But
wait a minute... Verse 27 adds something here: “...in their
distress.” Why add that phrase? Aren't all orphans and widows in
distress?
Not
necessarily.
An
older orphan who is big enough and strong enough can get a job or go
into slavery. Slavery wasn't necessarily bad under the Law of Moses.
Remember the Jubilee? Slaves were set free in the year of Jubilee.
Adoption
was another option. In a similar fashion, orphaned children could be
inherited by the parents' surviving relatives, or by a covenant
partner if the father had made such a covenant.
But
in the case of war, famine, or disaster, the entire community has
been affected, so no one would be available to take in orphans. Also
consider orphans that are too young to work, or they are sick or
crippled. Orphans in these conditions would be in distress.
In
a similar manner, a widow could not be in distress just because she
is a widow.
Provisions
for widows were written into the Law of Moses.
First
was the provision that if a married man died without children, but he
had a surviving brother, the surviving brother would marry the widow
and raise up children for the dead brother. Even though this was for
the dead man's sake, his widow would benefit.
Second,
the Law made provision for widows through the tithe. God primarily
intended the tithe to provide for the priests and Levites while they
served at the sanctuary. At other times, they would live in cities
spread throughout the land of Israel. In those cities, they could
own property, raise crops or livestock, run businesses, or apply a
trade. But when they went to serve at the sanctuary, they would
leave those provisions behind. The tithe consisted of crops,
livestock, wine, or olive oil. But because the tithe would often
amount to more than what the priests and Levites needed, any excess
would be available to the poor, including widows.
Widows
had other options: remarriage, getting a job, or being taken in by
family.
For
example, consider the case of Peter's mother-in-law, the woman Jesus
healed by rebuking her fever.
Where
was she when Jesus healed her? In Peter's house.
Why
was she in Peter's house? She lived there. We see this by what she
did after Jesus
healed
her – she got up and waited on Him and His disciples.
That
means she went directly to the kitchen, pantry, or hearth to search
for food and drink. I'm sure Peter's wife wouldn't let just any
woman into her kitchen, unless she was part of the family. After
all, if anything came from HER kitchen, it had to be kosher! So, she
wouldn't let just any woman use HER kitchen!
How
did Peter's mother-in-law come to live in his house? She was a
widow, and Peter took her in because she was family.
Now
consider a widow who is too old or too sick, with no chance of
remarriage or of going to work, and she has no family to take her in.
Also consider a young widow with young children who are totally
dependent on her. She also has little chance of remarriage or work.
Such widows would be widows in distress.
Why
would taking care of such orphans and widows be part of true
religion? Because that reflects the Father's heart.
God
cares about every human need, especially the most desperate, even
physical needs. If he didn't, Jesus would not have healed anyone, or
fed the thousands.
The
final characteristic of true religion we need to explore is holiness,
or holy living. God describes it as remaining unstained by the
world. James also states in chapter 4, verse 4, that friendship with
the world is the same as hostility against God, and being a friend
of the world makes you an enemy of God. That sounds very similar to
another New Testament passage, doesn't it?
“Do
not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the
world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the
world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the
boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the
world. The world is passing away, and also
its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever.”
(1 John 2: 15-17
NASV)
John goes into
more detail about how the world can stain us. He identifies three
factors he calls the things of the world. They are the lusts of the
flesh, the lusts of the eyes and the boastful pride of life. These
things are based on our five physical senses.
The physical
realm contains objects that have a pleasant effect on our senses.
This in itself is not evil, for that is often part of part of God's
design of creation.
What is evil is
when we develop intense desires, lusts, that dominate our thoughts,
emotions, plans, and actions. Paul describes this in Romans as
“worshiping the creature more than the Creator.” Jesus
described it as “lusting in the heart.”
Now, God
designed our physical senses to serve us. But when we develop these
lusts we become slaves to our senses. In our lusts, we seek out
these objects that appeal to our senses, based on pleasure.
Before I go into
the breakdown of of the things of the world, let me review what the
five physical senses are. They are sight, feeling, hearing, smell
and taste.
Years ago, the
Holy Spirit gave me the breakdown of how the things of the world
relate to the five physical senses.
The lusts of the
flesh are the things that feel good, sound good, smell good, and
taste good.
But what about
the sense of sight? Well, the sense of sight accounts for both the
lusts of the eyes and the boastful pride of life.
Why? Because
the sense of sight is so dominant in people that we take in more
infor-mation about the about the world around us through our eyes
than we do through the other senses. Not only that, we often
associate information taken in from the other senses with information
we take in with our eyes. I have an illustration of this that I call
the Apple Pie Allegory.
Let's say, just
for Illustration purposes, that your #1 most favorite dessert of all
time is apple pie, with a big scoop of vanilla ice cream on top.
Now, this is just for illustration; your actual favorite might be
something else. But let's say you love apple pie so much that you
would rather have it more than chocolate cake for your birthday!
(Remember, this is just an illustration! If any chocolate lovers are
reading this, please hold your comments!)
Now, let's say
that a restaurant chain runs an advertising campaign promoting a
special on apple pie a la mode. They put ads in newspapers and
magazines, and on radio, television, and the Internet. These ads
feature a slice of apple pie, with a large scoop of vanilla ice cream
on top. You can see a few wisps of steam rising up from the pie,
along with a trickle of melted ice cream running down the side. The
syrupy filling also glistens a little.
You see one of
these ads. Your eyes take in all the details I just gave you. But
that is not all!
In your mind,
you can smell the apple, the cinnamon, the crust, maybe even a hint
of vanilla. You can taste them too!
And you can feel
the textures as if you had taken a bite: the light, flaky crust, the
syrupy apple filling, the smooth ice cream.
Now, you haven't
actually taken a bite of anything. No apple pie or vanilla ice cream
is before you, just an image, a picture in an advertisement. But
your memory causes you to experience all of those sensations in
reaction to seeing the ad.
One minute you
are looking at the ad. The next minute, you grab your wallet and
keys, and head out the door because you just gotta getcha some!
This also works
in reverse. Information we take in through our other senses will
bring images to our minds.
Let's say you
are in a part of the house away from the kitchen. So, you don't see
that someone has slid an apple pie into the oven. Before too long,
the aroma of apple pie comes wafting into the room where you are.
You inhale
deeply, and relish the fragrance of apple, crust, and cinnamon. Your
mind imagines one of your plates with slice of apple pie on it. You
know a fresh half-gallon of vanilla ice cream sits in the freezer.
Then you rush down the hall, asking, “When can I have some? When
can I have some? When can I have some?”
I think I've
shown just how much the sense of sight dominates our perception of
the world around us. Now I can give you the complete breakdown of
the things of the world.
The lust of the
flesh is what feels good to me, what sounds good to me, what smells
good to me, what tastes good to me.
The lusts of the
eyes is what looks good to me.
The boastful
pride of life is what makes me look good; not what makes you look
good, but what makes MEEEEE look good!
How does true
religion keep your unstained by the things of the world?
By mortification
of the flesh through strengthening of the born-again spirit.
We could also
say the source of true religion is the Law written on the believer's
heart at the rebirth through faith in Jesus Christ.
Remember what I
said about connecting Christianity and true religion. Christianity
is not religion, but it is the source of true religion.
COMPARISON
AND CONTRAST OF THE TWO TYPES OF RELIGION
I
have prepared a chart to show side by side the characteristic of the
two types of religion.
CHARACTERISTIC
|
COUNTERFEIT
RELIGION
|
TRUE
RELIGION
|
SOURCE
|
Man acting
on lies, either self-told or told by Satan or demons |
The Law
written on the heart at the rebirth |
SUBSTANCE
|
Works
performed by man's strength: rites, rituals, ceremonies,
sacrifices, offerings, lip service |
Acts of
charity and holy living performed in obedience to the born-again
spirit, empowered by the Holy Spirit
|
STANDARD
|
External
moral and ceremonial codes |
The Father's
heart |
EMPASIS
|
Adherence to
moral and ceremonial codes, or the appearance of moral character |
Obedience to
the Law written on the heart, or the promptings of the Holy Spirit |
