ON JANUARY 1, 1990, President Václav Havel1 of Czechoslovakia addressed his nation. It had been a few weeks since his country peaceably ousted the Communist totalitarian government that had held power for forty years. Only two days before, Havel had been elected President by a parliament still dominated by Communists. Havel said:
We live in a contaminated moral environment…. We learned not to believe in anything, to ignore each other, to care only for ourselves. Concepts such as love, friendship, compassion, humility, and forgiveness lost their depth and dimensions, and for many of us they came to represent only psychological peculiarities, or to resemble long-lost greetings from ancient times…. When I talk about contaminated moral atmosphere … I am talking about all of us…. Why do I say this? It would be quite unreasonable to understand the sad legacy of the last forty years as something alien, something bequeathed to us by some distant relative. On the contrary, we must accept this legacy as a sin we committed against ourselves.2
There are many points of similarity between this brief excerpt from Havel’s speech and the letter of James. Havel writes from the heart, and like James his is a heart that has known adversity as well as joy. Both are keen observers of human nature. Both are vitally interested in the creation of true community, a community marked by mutual care and interdependent responsibility. In an era in which a sense of personal responsibility seems endangered, Havel calls it true. James also is unafraid to call sin by its true name, and like Havel he will not allow us to shirk responsibility for our own actions, or for the evil that occurs because of our inaction.
James wrote to a church beset by a number of problems. These problems included divisiveness, intolerance, favoritism, and the overpowering desire for wealth and status. Giving shape to and electrifying these problems were the presence and popularity within the community of errant teaching that was vibrant enough to question the great commandment as expressed by Jesus and yet to maintain an influential place in the community. It was a teaching tailor-made for the time, for it allowed its followers to understand the church as one among many opportunities for social climbing and the exhibition of social snobbery.
This false teaching not only exacerbated these selfish and aberrant activities, but it also sanctioned them as acceptable and even exemplary. The danger of this false system is both obvious and lethal. Perhaps the most severe of these tensions divided the wealthy (and those who desired to be wealthy) from the poor in the community. Uppermost in James’s mind is the creation of true Christian community out of the interpersonal rubble caused by the blasts of the teaching of self-interest.3
James combats this teaching and its effects with a frontal assault. He points out that the rich will be humbled and the poor exalted; that the poor are God’s elect; that far from being a sign of divine displeasure, periods of adversity are used by God to purify and strengthen those whom he loves. James supports this approach by calling on Jewish notions of suffering, sin, poverty, and wisdom. He makes crystal clear his assertion that friendship with the world is enmity with God (4:4). Those who wish to have it both ways are the double-minded, and James warns them that this folly has unsavory and eternal consequences. To them he proffers the forgiveness of God if only they will repent.
James and His Letter
BY ALL ACCOUNTS James is something of an oddity among the books that comprise the New Testament. This letter is difficult to categorize and elicits a wide variety of descriptions. It is simple and straightforward, marked by unambiguous ethical teaching and authoritative pronouncement, but seems bereft of any sustained theological argument. These factors, in part, led Dibelius to conclude that James is a jumbled series of unrelated bits of teaching material, strung together in a largely haphazard form.4 On the other hand, Francis has argued that far from being a random collection of disconnected teachings, the letter of James is actually a carefully constructed document that conforms to established patterns.5
James is notoriously reticent to yield clues concerning the traditional questions of authorship, date, and addressees. It claims to have been written by James, but there are a number of persons named “James” in the New Testament. The letter is addressed to a generic audience (“to the twelve tribes scattered among the nations,” 1:1), not to a specific church, as are most of Paul’s letters. Nor is the body of the letter of much help in answering these questions. The difficulties the letter attempts to solve, while onerous, are likely to have afflicted numerous early Christian communities. Any attempt to answer these questions is necessarily an adventure that requires a willingness to settle for uncertainty.
Nevertheless, several general observations can be made with no little confidence. (1) It is clear that James can be placed within the context of the earliest forms of Christianity. There is no shortage of evidence to support this contention.
• There are numerous and striking parallels to the teachings of Jesus in the synoptic tradition, and apparently in a form more primitive than that which appears there. Perhaps the best example is 5:12, which closely resembles what Jesus said concerning oaths in Matthew 5:33–37. The Matthean text contains every element found in James 5:12, plus a number of others. This suggests that James had contact with an early source of the sayings of Jesus, perhaps the same source(s) that the synoptists (especially Matthew) had at their disposal.
• The many other parallels between James and the Synoptics all but cement this conclusion. These include: believers are to rejoice in trials (James 1:2; cf. Matt. 5:12); believers are called to be perfect/complete (James 1:4; cf. Matt. 5:48); believers are encouraged to ask God, for God loves to give (James 1:5; cf. Matt. 7:7); believers should expect testing and be prepared to endure it, after which they will receive a reward (James 1:12; cf. Matt. 24:13); believers are not to be angry (James 1:20; cf. Matt. 5:22); faith and action go together in such a way that actions are the proof of true faith (James 2:14; cf. Matt. 7:16–19); the poor are blessed (James 2:5; cf. Luke 6:20); the rich are warned (James 2:6–7; cf. Matt. 19:23–24); believers are not to slander (James 4:11; cf. Matt. 5:22); believers are not to judge (James 4:12; cf. Matt. 7:1); and finally, the humble are praised (James 3:13; cf. Matt. 5:3).
• Beyond the merely aphoristic and terminological similarities lie deeper ones, such as a shared theology of prayer between James and Matthew.6
• Both James and Paul are concerned with the dynamic of faith and works, and while it is probably wrong to read James as a reaction against Paul, it is nonetheless evidence of the Christian environment of James, if not also a clue as to date.
• When James calls Jesus “glorious” in 2:1, it is hard not to see in this an acquaintance with a Christological trajectory that also surfaces in the Gospel of John.
In short, there is ample evidence that James belongs to the world of the earliest forms of the Christian faith.
(2) James is fully at home in the world of Judaism. While this book is unquestionably a Christian one, its roots in Judaism are virile and deep.
• The first letter of Peter is the close companion of James. But while 1 Peter uses Christ as its hero of endurance and faith, James chooses Old Testament models of faith, such as Abraham, Rahab, and Job.
• James’s picture of God is consonant with the Jewish understanding of God. He knows that “there is one God” (2:19). He knows the importance of the terms “Almighty” (5:4) and “Father” (3:9) used in reference to God. He teaches that God is merciful (4:8), and that he desires purity and humility in his people (4:8, 10). He is aware that the world tends to work in ways that oppose God and his intentions (4:4). Finally, he knows that God desires to give (4:2).
• James is aware of other characteristic features of the beliefs of first-century Judaism. He knows the term Gehenna, and that it often served as a cipher for satanic power (3:6). He is aware of rabbinic theological and psychological anthropology, specifically the belief in the yeṣarim, the two impulses within each one of us (1:14): The “good impulse” (yeṣer ha-tov) is pure, while the “evil impulse” (yeṣer ha-ra) leads one to sin. James knows that within the Judaism of his day the poor had become associated with the righteous (2:5; 4:6). Finally, he knows about the perfect law, the law of the love of one’s neighbor as found in Leviticus 19:18 (James 1:25; 2:11).7
• Furthermore, James frequently uses the Old Testament. He makes reference to what “Scripture says” (4:5) and even quotes the Old Testament (4:6). His concern for widows and orphans (1:27) shows his familiarity with the prophetic notion of justice. Further, he refers to the great Old Testament heroes of the faith, such as Abraham (2:23), Rahab (2:25), the prophets (5:10), Job (5:11), and Elijah (5:17–18).
• Unlike Paul, James does not argue the Christian position against Jewish purity laws or food laws.
(3) But James also is familiar with the Hellenistic world. These factors all but guarantee that this book was written by someone familiar with broader Hellenistic culture.
• The letter is written in good and even fluid Greek, betraying a relatively wide vocabulary and skill (with rare lapses) in wordplays and figures of speech. On the other hand, the letter avoids both complex words and sentences that mark the highest Greek literature.
• The author knows and makes use of Hellenistic literary conventions (1:1–12).
• The letter also betrays an interest in Greek oral composition, as its use of alliteration and rhyme bear witness.
• A number of the metaphors in the book are drawn from the stock wisdom of the Hellenistic Mediterranean world and are alien to the Palestinian context.
• James uses more than sixty hapax legomena, and of these as many as thirteen are used for the first time by our author.8
Authorship and Date
SCHOLARS OFFER THREE basic options concerning authorship and date. (1) James is essentially a pre-Christian Jewish document, which at a later date came to bear a patina of Christian teaching after it was embraced by one of the infant Christian communities. According to champions of this position, the author and editor(s) are unknown. The Christological formulae found in 1:1 and 2:1 are seen as the chief Christian accretions. Supporters of this position consider the book’s concern with adherence to the stipulations of the law as evidence of the Jewish origin of the letter. Further, the many features that betray the letter’s comfort with the Old Testament and other typically Jewish themes are diverted to support this view. This position is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain.
(2) Others see the letter as composed of a different type of two-stage development. Martin, for example, surmises that the letter originated with the teaching of James, the brother of Jesus, who was martyred by the high priest Ananus II in about A.D. 62. Then after the Jewish War of A.D. 66–70, the community of which James had been a part left Palestine and settled in Syria. There they refined the teachings of James and created a final product, the letter we know as James. The conflicts to which the letter bears witness (rich vs. poor, Sadducees vs. messianic priests, and Zealots vs. the rich) were already at work in the larger matrix of the Palestinian Jewish sociocultural landscape.9
A. S. Geyser has argued much the same point, claiming that the original document was a letter written by James, the Lord’s brother, before the Jerusalem Council, most likely no later than A.D. 48.10 The idea that behind this letter is a Zealot-inspired tension within the community is not without its supporters.11 Davids12 offers a sober and more modest proposal. He envisions that the early traditions that eventually wended their way into the letter began to circulate in the late 40s and were then edited just prior to the Jewish War. To him the conflicts that face us when reading the letter more likely reflect Palestinian conditions before the war. His claims are admirable for their restraint and correspondence to the available evidence.
(3) A third option is that James, the brother of the Lord, is the sole author of the letter. There are six (perhaps seven) persons named James in the New Testament: James the brother of Jude (Jude 1); James the father of Judas (Acts 1:12) not Iscariot; “James the younger” (Mark 15:40); James the son of Zebedee (3:16); James the son of Alphaeus (3:18); and James the brother of Jesus (Matt. 13:5; Gal. 1:19). If the letter of James was written by someone not found among these six, then we have seven figures named James in the New Testament.
However, there is no good reason to suppose that James the brother of Jesus is not our author. James the son of Zebedee is the only other serious candidate, but his early martyrdom (see Acts 12:2) seems to rule him out. Moreover, references to James in Paul (1 Cor. 9:5, 14; 15:7; Gal. 1:15–2:12) and Acts (15:13–21) make clear that James the brother of Jesus held a prominent place in early Palestinian Christianity.
The position is not unassailable, however. One of the difficulties is the paucity of references to James in the early church fathers relative to the other books in the New Testament canon. Origen (ca. 185–ca. 251) mentions the letter and claims that it was written by James. Eusebius (ca. 266–ca. 339) makes the same claim, notes that the letter of James was “read publicly in many churches,” but adds that some in his own day doubted whether James wrote the letter that bears his name. Today the view that James the brother of Jesus wrote the letter in a form substantially as we have it is not popular, but it must be admitted that the evidence for later redaction on stylistic grounds, theological or otherwise, is at times not firm or, where it is apparently firm, uncertain.13 In short, it seems likely that James the brother of Jesus did write the letter, or at the very least is the origin of the teaching it contains.14
The Teaching of James
JAMES OFFERS INSTRUCTION on a wide variety of issues, and those surveyed here are among the most significant. Each serves to assist the community and individuals within the community to understand the path to Christian maturity.
Suffering
IN MANY WAYS the theology of suffering is the starting point of the letter. This is the theme with which James begins, and it is also the theme that binds all the others together. James says that trials are often a challenge to the faith of the believer, and that when we waver, the trial becomes for us a temptation (1:12–15). Both the English terms trial and temptation are derived from the same Greek word, peirasmos. This indicates that what is at issue is not only the condition of the trial, but also the attitude of the one undergoing the trial. It is this matter of personal character and its development that is central to James. For this reason we should not give in to temptation, but rather should stand fast and even rejoice in trials, for they are opportunities that God uses to mold and shape as he wills, until we are “mature and complete, not lacking anything” (1:2–9). This theology of suffering undergirds his discussion of community dissent in chapter 2, as well as the suffering of the poor (4:13–5:12).
There is a rich Old Testament background to this theology of suffering. At times Judaism connected suffering to sin, as can be seen in the wisdom tradition. Proverbs, for example, argues that the righteous and diligent are blessed, while the wicked and slothful suffer (see Prov. 10:1–6). Personal experience, however, taught the Hebrews that the righteous are often made to suffer, and that in fact it is precisely God’s chosen servants whom he allows to suffer.
Job is a prime example. He is the archetypal wisdom figure. He is upright, and God has blessed him. Satan challenges God, claiming that the respect Job has for God is thin and fragile, and that the only reason Job fears God is the material property his pure life has earned from God. Job’s friends believe that his affliction has been caused by sin. Note Eliphaz’s comment to Job: “Consider now: Who, being innocent, has ever perished? Where were the upright ever destroyed? As I have observed, those who plow evil and those who sow trouble reap it” (Job 4:7–8). But by the end of the book Job has come to know better; he has come to know that life is not that simple and neat. His suffering has broadened his understanding of God and of himself.
The book of Daniel offers another variation on this theme. Daniel is righteous, and because of his steadfastness he endures suffering. So in Judaism suffering is often the lot of the righteous because at times the world persecutes the righteous because they are righteous; God can use suffering to purify and strengthen his people. Thus, suffering is, in a sense, a sign of God’s activity in the life of the believer.
The church to which James wrote was experiencing adversity, and James sees this complex of trials as a cause for joy, because he discerns that God’s purpose is purificatory. He knows that if they endure with patience, they will be both purified and approved (1:12). But there is another possibility. If like Israel in the desert they blame God or seek to blame others for this adversity, they will fail in the test. It will have become for them a temptation. They will have succumbed to the evil impulse (1:14).
There appear to be three major sources of adversity afflicting the community James is addressing. The first is the “evil impulse” within each person. James says that this is the cause of the selfish attitude that has led to the internal divisions within the church (4:1–6).
The second source of adversity involves money and status. The community was marked by the presence of individuals who desired recognition and status and who were not afraid to use the church to serve this end. This is what lies behind the injunction against showing favoritism in 2:1–4. But the church has also suffered from problems involving money. Some in the community were consumed with becoming wealthy, while others were used to the prerogatives that the wealthy arrogate to themselves. In either case, such persons ignored their responsibilities to others in the community (2:4; 4:13–5:6). In this way they stared unblinking at the prospect of God’s condemnation but were so blind they failed to recognize it (1:10–11; 2:4; 4:16; 5:5–6, 9).
The third source of adversity is Satan. James introduces this character slowly and in a veiled fashion, but not because he judges Satan’s role insignificant. Satan is the ultimate source for the false teaching that has recognized, united, and championed the various elements of the trials affecting the community.
Sin
CLOSELY RELATED TO the idea of suffering is James’s notion of sin. There are two primary sources for evil that lead us to sin. (1) The first is external, and James makes it clear that this source is Satan. But he makes this point in a curious way, beginning with circumlocutionary references before identifying the devil in plain fashion. The first reference is to Gehenna (or “hell”) in 3:6, which James says lights the consuming evil fire that is the tongue. The second reference is to “the demonic” (lit. trans.) in 3:15, by which James indicates the source of the “false wisdom” of the errant teachers, who have caused such trouble for the church. This is an expression of Satan and his minions working in concert with the “evil desire.” Finally, James in 4:7 instructs Christians to “resist the devil.”
Thus, James presents us a picture of the world that is dualistic, but only in a truncated and limited fashion. Satan is powerful, but when measured against the power of God, he is not a serious contender for ruler of the universe. God is so superior to Satan that the believer can resist Satan and he will flee (4:7). However, without vigilant attention the lure of Satan over the believer can be devastating in its effects. For this reason James implores his readers to “come near to God” (4:8). There are cosmic forces of good and evil at work in our world, but God is far more powerful than the devil.
(2) James knows that this talk of the devil carries the potential for a dangerous side effect. It could cause us to believe that we are not responsible for our sinful actions because Satan is the source of temptation. James will not allow us to deceive ourselves on this matter and so cowardly to shirk our responsibility. There is another source of temptation—the “evil desire” that is within each one of us. Here James is building on the Jewish idea of the yeṣerim. Hebrew theological and psychological anthropology posited the existence of two desires within each of us. The first is the good impulse, the yeṣer ha-tov; the other is the evil impulse, the yeṣer ha-ra.15 The latter (Gk. epithymia, 1:14) is within us, as an integral component of the human condition. It impels us to evil all on its own, and therefore we are responsible for the evil we do.
Paul likewise builds on this notion when in Romans 7:21–24 he speaks of “another law” at work within himself, one that prompts him to sin and evil. James wants us to know that ultimately we are responsible for our actions. In a fashion similar to Paul in Romans, James urges Christians to control this internal evil desire and live in such a way that faith and actions are in harmony. When we fail to see adversity as an opportunity for God to purify us and to see the test as a reason for joy, we prove ourselves in love with the world (4:4) and out of touch with God (4:3). Thus, we contribute to strife within the community by giving in to the desire to possess things; this is among the most acidic of forces undermining the health of the church (4:1–2).
Christology
JAMES DOES NOT develop a Christology for us; rather, when the need arises, he presses into service an assumed Christology.16 For James Christ is “Judge” (5:9), several times “Lord,” and perhaps even king (cf. 2:8). His use of the word “Lord” is particularly striking. Note how James
• declares himself a “servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” (1:1)
• offers the claim that the Lord gives (1:7)
• describes “our” Lord as “glorious” (2:1)
• notes that we praise our Lord and Father (3:9)
• instructs that we should “humble” ourselves before the Lord (4:10) and that we should be concerned about the Lord’s will (4:15)
• refers to “the Lord Almighty” (5:4)
• says that the Lord will return (5:7) and that his coming is near (5:9)
• reminds us that the prophets who “spoke in the name of the Lord” are examples of patience (5:10)
• claims that the Lord uses adversity to purify us and balances this with the contention that the Lord is full of compassion and mercy (5:11)
• reminds us that we should pray in the name of the Lord (5:14)
• finally, claims that the Lord will “raise” up the sick person (5:15).
Clearly James uses kyrios (“Lord”) both in contradistinction to “God” and in ways that seem to equate the two. His reference to the “Lord Almighty” is in close juxtaposition to the claim that the Lord will return (5:4, 7). The phrase “God Almighty” (Heb. ʾel šaddai) is a common reference for God in the Old Testament. If “Lord Almighty” in 5:4 refers to God and “the Lord’s coming” in 5:7 refers to the return of Christ (as it must), we have evidence of a high Christology.17 Furthermore, James says that both God and “the Lord” give (1:5, 7), and that Christians are to come in humility to both God and to “the Lord” (4:8, 10). In short, James does not offer a developed Christology, but his assumed Christology is one that freely links the resurrected Jesus as Lord with God the Father.
More must be said, however. For James, Christ is not only the heavenly Lord, who will come as judge, but he is also the leader of the church. The members of the community belong to him (2:7), and the church continues to be guided by him. James is deeply interested in the moral application of the lordship of Christ in the concrete, pedestrian stuff of daily life. Note James’s frequent quotation of and allusion to the teachings of Jesus. Indeed, it is not inaccurate to say that James represents not teaching about Jesus but the teaching of Jesus applied to a new situation.
The Poor Are Righteous
THE PIETY AND righteousness of the poor is a frequent theme in James (see 1:9–11, 27; 2:3–7, 15–16; 5:7–11). In the ancient world more than 90 percent of the population qualified as “poor.” In Palestine, as everywhere else in the ancient Mediterranean, the few who had wealth exercised power over the many who did not. True, the Old Testament has examples of wealth as a sign of God’s favor (e.g., Prov. 14:24: “The wealth of the wise is their crown, but the folly of fools yields folly”), but the exigencies of life taught the Hebrews that the righteous often suffer poverty. As a result of the national experience of exile and the admonitions of the great prophets, the poor came to be seen as “the righteous,” because they had no other recourse than to rely on God. This is why “the LORD hears the needy” (Ps. 69:33). The poor were considered innocent sufferers, especially at the hands of the unfeeling rich (see James 5:4), and God is portrayed as the defender of these poor innocents and the champion of justice (James 1:27; cf. Amos 4:1; 5:11–12, 24).
The poor whom James knows of have been placed at the margins of society—widows and orphans, and those victimized by economic conditions as well as the dishonesty of their employers. The poor are the pious because they throw themselves on the mercy of God in the face of injustice. It is this inclination that James extols.
James has little good to say about the rich. But it is not so much the fact of their wealth that he finds odious, but rather the corrosive effect this wealth has had. Their wealth has dulled their spirits and minds so that they ignore the injunctions of the Old Testament concerning the care of the poor. They impudently claim the right to be above the command of Jesus to love the neighbor, and in so doing they have, in effect, made themselves “god.” The possession of and desire for wealth has caused them to be in love with the world, to possess a divisive spirit as they seek social status, and to become hard-hearted toward others. To them James offers the serious warning: The Judge is at the door (5:9), their wealth is as transitory as the flower’s bloom (1:11), and in fact it has already begun to become worthless (5:2–3). For the poor James manifests great compassion, and to the rich he counsels humble penitence.
Wisdom
THE IDEA OF wisdom is of key significance for James. Wisdom is not primarily of human derivation. Rather, true wisdom
• is a good gift from heaven that has the capacity to render us truly the children of God (1:17–18)
• is the gift of God through prayer that assists the Christian during times of trial and helps us understand why God allows adversity (1:5–8)
• is the source of a variety of Christian virtues that God desires to develop in the lives of believers (3:17)18
• serves as the pure counterpoint to the evil desire within us
• is linked to peace and health within the community (3:17), and to discernment with regard to healing (5:14–15).
In the Old Testament wisdom is closely linked to the work of the Holy Spirit. Isaiah 11:2, for instance, says, “The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him—the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding.” The locus classicus of wisdom is, perhaps, the book of Proverbs, in which personified wisdom plays the roles normally assigned to the Spirit (Prov. 1:20–33; 8:1–36). Wisdom theology is creation theology, and this explains James’s penchant for the themes of God’s original intention (James 1:4; 2:7; 3:7). For Paul wisdom is linked to Christology, but James presents us with a wisdom pneumatology.
James’s Relevance
APPLYING THE MESSAGE of James to our world is fraught with difficulties. James sounds themes that are familiar, but the details do not always bear close correspondence to our own age. He is vitally concerned with the poor, for example, but in his world the poor comprised more than 90 percent of the population. He writes to wealthy landowners who abused the trust and rights of their hired laborers, but there are few such “gentleman farmers” in America today. These minor differences might make it easy for us to consider James only an interesting and perhaps even quaint letter of purely antiquarian interest, but we would do so at our peril. The message of this brief book is as sharp and needful today as ever. Perhaps our tendency to read its unequivocal ethical instruction as somehow distant reflects the accuracy of James’s analysis of sin—the sins of his ancient brothers and sisters as well as our own.
James has some harsh words to say concerning wealth, and people in the Western world are among the wealthiest human beings ever to have lived. I am writing this on a notebook computer in my home, and I have another computer at the office. I am surrounded by furniture, and I have a nice car in the garage. What would James say to me about my use of wealth? The church needs to take seriously the ethic he has here outlined.
When James says that true religion is to care for widows and orphans, he is speaking with deadly seriousness. We need to have our eyes and our hearts open to the “widows and orphans” in our world. We have a responsibility to others and are called to use our wealth with that responsibility in mind. Like Jesus, James offers us a warning in the most stern terms at his command: Wealth can be acidic and lethal in its effects. Here is grist for careful thought, deep prayer, and courageous prophetic action.
James also extols the virtues of adversity. This is clearly an idea that is alien to our culture. We seem fascinated, even obsessed, with the elimination of even discomfort, let alone actual trials. But James calls us to eschew the patterns of thought that undergird and sustain our culture, and instead to pray for God’s wisdom in order to discern the purpose he intends through trials. James exhorts us to encourage each other along the path of prayer, for prayer is the key to enduring trials.
James also provides for us a picture of sin. As a culture we are not too willing to admit to sin. In reviewing a number of public scandals, the Wall Street Journal commented:
The United States has a drug problem and a high school sex problem and a welfare problem and an AIDS problem and a rape problem. None of this will go away until more people in positions of responsibility are willing to come forward and explain, in frankly moral terms, that some of the things people do nowadays are wrong.19
When we fail to recognize things we do as sins, we treat them as unimportant, minor, too weak to gain a hold on our lives, as if the Lord’s Prayer read, “Forgive us our miscalculations as we forgive those who miscalculate against us.”20 At other times we redefine sin in terms that sound more savory. We also confuse nature with behavior. “This is how I am,” says the habitual sinner. “This is the way the world works,” say the comfortable wealthy. We have begun to accept this sort of thinking as accurate. But James does not recognize that formula. His vocabulary is studded with terms like “moral filth” and “humble yourselves.” To this false view he says that sin has the power to spring up within us, intertwine itself in the stuff of our lives, and finally cause death. He tells it like it is, and he wants us to understand the origin, progress, deceptive powers, and eternal consequences of sin.
James also calls us to true community. His heart yearns for the creation of true community in the church. Like the prophets of the Old Testament, he defines “true religion” with the vocabulary of the compassion of God: “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world” (1:27). He envisions a Christian community composed of relationships of mutual care and mutual responsibility. The challenge for today includes not only the creation of such community within our local churches, but also of such a spirit among Christians worldwide.
A particular feature of the community concern of James is the elimination of factions based on wealth. This presents a serious challenge to the American evangelical church, for we segregate ourselves on the basis of wealth, status, and race. James calls us to seek ways to admit that these walls exist, then to practice humility before one another with the aim of mutual understanding, and finally to work together to eliminate these walls.
In the end, the letter of James is eminently practical. One challenge that faces us is to refrain from emasculating the practicality of the letter with either academic obfuscation or self-righteous reinterpretation. We need to allow James to make us uncomfortable, for his message bears eternal consequences.