Original Meaning
JAMES HERE OFFERS us a series of clear contrasts between two kinds of wisdom. This passage is also a fine example of the essential unity of the letter, despite the opinion of many that the letter is an ill-fitting collection of moral teachings.1 The early portion of chapter 3 dealt with the problem of false teachers and their dangerous teaching by employing the image of the tongue. This “fire” (3:5–12) is almost certainly the cause of the bitter envy, ambition, and divisions discussed in the present section.
James holds up for approbation the wise teacher and the wisdom that comes from God and contrasts it with the false wisdom offered by his opponents. James also continues here his discussion of the source of the evil within us. In chapter 1 James touched on the presence of the yeṣer ha-ra within us, and in 3:6 he referred to Gehenna, a circumlocution for Satan. In 3:15 James offers a more direct observation: Some within the church are exhibiting behaviors that are “of the devil.” This telescopic series of statements concerning the source of evil therefore anchors this passage firmly within the letter as a whole. Clearly we have here the product of careful thought, for it is marked by clarity of thematic structure and dexterity of presentation.
Five pieces of evidence demonstrate this care on the part of our author. (1) The entire section is marked by the idea of wisdom, which serves to bracket the passage and appears in verses 13 and 17. (2) These verses employ two catalogues: a list of vices with their corresponding evil origins, and a list of virtues with their corresponding wholesome origins. Note particularly the descending order found in verse 15: “earthly, unspiritual, [and finally] of the devil.” (3) The list of virtues in verse 17 is marked by assonance (see below). (4) The use of wisdom (sophia) suggests a contrast with the “wisdom” of the teachers James has called into question.2 Furthermore, the themes of discordant community life, envy, and ambition are present not only here but in the preceding sections. In fact, this section serves as a kind of summary statement for what has gone before, positing that teachers and others should not misuse the tongue, but rather develop authentic Christian virtues. (5) Finally, the passage contains an earlier and prominent theme: Faith without works is dead (2:14–26). The theme appears here in terms of heavenly wisdom and the sort of deeds that are its evidence and confirmation.
James here offers a contrast of two wisdoms. False wisdom is marked by “envy” and “selfish ambition,” two traits that are the tangible result of false teaching within the lives of those who follow it. James notes these and points out that such traits cannot be of God; therefore, the teaching that spawns them is false. The result of these traits in action is disorder and even “evil practice” within the Christian community. James has already told us that he believes faith results in good deeds (2:14–26). He now reveals that aberrant faith also reveals itself by its deeds. Once again we are reminded of the teaching of Jesus: “Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit” (Matt. 7:17).
True wisdom reveals itself by several markers as well. These include “deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom” (James 3:13). Such deads reveal a person connected to the “truth” (v. 14)—a term James reserves for the proper understanding of the Christian life, one that combines a healthy cultivation of the word and shows itself in action. Those who follow true wisdom are described by seven attributes, which function as the mirror images of the blunt description of the false teachers present in verses 14–16. The practical result of this wise teaching is peace within the community. This is not a false peace at any cost, for James is insistent on placing his convictions beyond equivocation. It is, rather, the peace that comes from making correct but difficult decisions.
As far as James’s structure here is concerned, the opening verse establishes the topic to be discussed. It is followed by a double list of virtues and vices. Worldly wisdom (3:14–16) as offered by the teachers with whom James is at odds is characterized by ambition and a desire to seek status through wealth or the securing of a position of power. True wisdom (3:13, 17) implies a vision of heaven, is marked by humility, and results in good deeds. The passage concludes with an apt proverb: “Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness.”
Pure Speech Comes From Wisdom
JAMES BEGINS BY offering an alternative vision of wisdom to that of his opponents, that true wisdom is marked not by ambition and a desire for status, but rather by humility. The chief interpretive problem of verse 13 is the identification of the “who” that opens the passage. Clearly the teachers whom James has opposed are in view. They have arrogated to themselves a position of authority as those qualified to instruct the Christian community, and in so doing have offered themselves as “wise,” just as the false teachers of 1 Corinthians 1:19 laid claim to the mantle of wisdom. In James’s eyes, however, it is a wisdom of the world and therefore false. But it is also likely that many others within the church are within the field of the author’s gaze. Certainly there were some, perhaps more than a few, who were captivated by the message of these teachers, a message that spoke to their human desires to attain privilege and status.
The fact that James connects someone who is wise (sophos) and understanding (epistemon) is significant. In the LXX these two terms are frequently linked. In Deuteronomy 1:13, 15 the terms refer to leaders, but in 4:6 they appear in tandem and refer to the people at large.3 To follow God’s decrees is the hallmark of wisdom. Other nations, the Hebrews are promised, will call them wise if their deeds match the decrees of God. Just as in James, the leaders of Deuteronomy 1:13, 15 must have deeds to match their words.
James next offers a rapier-thrust definition of wisdom intended to devastate the position of his opponents. True wisdom, he claims, results in humility and good deeds shown in a “good life.” The noun the NIV translates as “life” is anastrophe, which is better rendered “way of life” or “mode of life”—a term used favorably by 1 Peter (1:15; 2:12; 3:1–2, 16). The force of the term indicates that these deeds of humility relate to the core of the Christian. True believers radiate such principles and actions.
The contrast is not between a practical wisdom that results in action and an earthly wisdom that affects only the life of the mind, as Martin seems to suggest.4 The “worldly wisdom” of the false teachers has not been so irenic or ineffectual. It has had its corrosive effects. This acid force has manifested itself in concrete actions—acts of favoritism within the Christian community and a legitimizing of actions that are at odds with the “law of love.” Rather, the contrast is between the different origins of these two “wisdoms” and between the different actions that follow in train.
The phrase en prauteti sophias (“the humility that comes from wisdom”) is somewhat unwieldy, suggesting that its origin is Hebrew and not Greek. There are parallels in both the Old Testament and the New. Neither Moses (see Num. 12:1–3) nor Jesus (see Matt. 11:29) were interested in personal popularity or power, nor did they defend themselves, but in humility pointed others to God.5 In similar fashion the Christian in humility is to do good deeds to the glory of God. This is the spirit of true wisdom.
Verse 14 presents a contrasting picture: a bitter and selfish person. Here, instead of the indirect address of verse 13 (“Who … among you”), James becomes more direct: “If you….” Although James writes a conditional clause, the rhetorical force is such that it is a statement of fact and accusation. The term the NIV translates as “bitter envy” is zelon pikron. Zelon is derived from zelos, which is often translated into English as “zeal.” It can bear a negative nuance,6 often depicting some overblown and therefore inappropriate sense of devotion to God. Paul describes his own past as marked by a zeal for God in persecuting the church.7 The term can also be used in the positive sense,8 but of course any zeal has the potential for great destruction if turned. In this case zeal for self-interest has resulted in attitudes of envy and desire, which engulf whatever better judgment may have been present.
The term the NIV translates as “selfish ambition” is eritheia. Some argue that this word is derived from eris, which can mean “discord.”9 However, others point out that the word is rare outside the New Testament; its only appearance prior to the New Testament is in Aristotle, who uses it to mean the self-seeking pursuit of political power by unjust means.10 This more precise rendering makes sense here. Paul’s use of eris appears in lists of vices and, together with zelos, describes leaders who cause discord by claiming superior wisdom and by gathering to themselves followers while they charge others in the church with a lack of spirituality. Discord has come to the Christian community as a result of their status-seeking, and they have usurped the spiritual offices of the church in order to teach and propagate this worldly philosophy.
To understand James’s urging these teachers and their followers to refrain from “boast[ing] about it” (v. 14), we must first understand to what the “it” refers. Most likely this refers to the wisdom they claim. So we might translate: “Do not boast about your worldly wisdom, because to do so is only to deny the truth even more clearly.” This causal sense is endorsed by Ropes.11 What the teachers falsely call “wisdom” is in fact the virulent work of the yeṣer ha-ra in human hearts. There is a heavenly truth—a truth they deny, a truth that is the polar opposite of the “truth” they disseminate.
Significantly, in verse 15 James does not call what his opponents espouse wisdom, preferring to refer to it in veiled fashion. Their “wisdom” is not from God, which can be had simply by asking (1:5). In saying this James makes a clear argument that the wisdom of these teachers is not neutral or trivial. He does this by arranging the sources of this “wisdom” in an escalating crescendo of perniciousness. The first is epigeios, or “earthbound.” Here the image of the world, as elsewhere in James, plays a negative role. “Earthly” by definition is less pure and inferior, and in this instance refers to the forces arrayed against God. James also intends to remind his readers that the world is at odds with God. He is saying, “Do not fool yourself into thinking that this attitude is in concert with God, for such is a lie.”
Next, this wisdom is psychikos, or “unspiritual.” This is a fairly unusual word, found in only four other locations in the New Testament.12 Paul uses the term to describe the “natural man,”13 as it is drawn from Genesis 2:7, where God breathes life into Adam and he becomes a living psyche. In this regard it can denote the unrealized potential to respond positively to God. Psychikos was sometimes used by heterodox groups to describe their opponents.14 The term therefore denoted beings possessing merely life, bereft of the touch of the Spirit of God. Such persons were responsive only to natural stimuli. The false teachers had accused James of this and of a lack of wisdom. Deftly James causes this accusation to turn in their hands. He points out that the activity of the false teachers, this self-righteous name-calling, is in fact a facade that is the result of the very natural, base, and unspiritual desire for personal status and prestige.
Such “wisdom” is, worst of all, demonic in origin. This term, daimoniodes, is rare; it appears nowhere else in Scripture and is not to be found in Greek literature before James. There are two options as to its meaning: (1) This teaching and its derivative behavior is instigated by demons and the unwholesome spiritual world; or (2) the behavior depicted here is similar to that of the demons. There is no good reason to suppose that James did not have the first in mind.
In verse 16 James argues from the perspective of the practical. The wisdom of his opponents, rooted in “envy and selfish ambition,” has done nothing to strengthen the body, but rather has served only to bring “disorder and every evil practice.” True wisdom does not confuse issues of primary allegiance with those of secondary or tertiary character.15 It does not brook the discord that results from selfish personal interest. The source of such tumult and mean-spirited talk is Satan. The word the NIV renders as “disorder” is akatastasia, the same word used in 1:8 for the unstable, double-minded person. Here, as in 3:8, the scenario is writ large as the subject is not an individual, but the Christian community. This teaching has not added to the church, but instead has caused the church seriously to question its direction, and even its heart and soul. Combined with this is all manner of evil practice.
James goes on, then, to outline what he considers to be among the most important results of heavenly wisdom. He does so in a list of virtues similar to those given by Paul in his list of “the fruit of the Spirit.” James has offered seven for consideration. First, this wisdom is marked by purity. The Greek term, hagne, is unusual.16 It connotes the absence of the spiritual, ethical, and behavioral imperfections that are necessarily a part of the double-minded person. The idea is found in the Old Testament, usually in connection with the character of God. God’s words are pure (Ps. 12:6); and the ways of the righteous are pure, not bent (Prov. 21:8), because their lives mirror God’s character. Here, then, is another reference to the rightful “end” or “purpose” of humankind.17 A person marked by purity partakes of the character of God, following after God with “unmixed motives.”18 Purity is listed first because in many ways it is the most important, paving the way for the others.
James has arranged the remaining seven virtues to employ assonance, first with e, then with a: peace-loving (eirenike), considerate (epieikes), submissive (eupeithes), full of mercy (meste eleous), good fruit (karpon agathon), impartial (adiakritos), and sincere (anupokritos). Such wisdom also creates a peace-making spirit. This is of particular importance here, given the problem of discord in the church.
“Considerate” is usually associated with justice, especially with the administration of justice, and suggests someone who does not abuse a position of power, but remains calm and sober and true to the highest ideals of such a position.19
“Submissive” can mean “trusting” and “easily persuaded.” It does not indicate a person without convictions or one easily swayed. Rather, it conjures the image of a sober, thinking, and intuitive person who recognizes the truth when heard and willingly receives such instruction. Together the pair denote someone who is both gentle and reasonable, whether in a position of authority or of subservience.
James next mentions “full of mercy” and “good fruits” (karpon agathon). Earlier, he has told us that true religion is evidenced by acts of kindness (1:27) and that faith is seen in deeds of love (2:15–18).
Finally, James offers for consideration “impartial and sincere.” The first is a word of great rarity, found only here in the New Testament. It is the opposite of “double-minded,” a word James has used frequently. Wisdom, then, is without double-mindedness; it possesses a singularity of purpose in its trust in God. “Sincere” is a fine capstone to the list, as it also means “without hypocrisy.”
Taken as a whole these words counteract the divisive and party spirit and prompt an openness to God’s leading, so that even the teachers James opposes might “see the light.”
In his final comment, James not surprisingly focuses on peace, given the discord in the church. Righteousness and peace are regularly linked in the Old Testament (see Ps. 85:10; Isa. 32:17). Isaiah 32–33 is of particular importance, as in these chapters the image of cultivation is linked with righteousness and peace.
The phrase “harvest of righteousness” is somewhat difficult in that the genitive can be read as either “the harvest that belongs to righteousness” or “the harvest that consists of righteousness.” In the first righteousness has a fruit that will be produced in the context of peace; in the second “peace” is the condition that gives rise to righteousness. Laws20 insightfully argues that the “harvest of righteousness” is in fact wisdom. If she is correct, then the argument of James is as follows: (1) Where there is divisiveness, there is no wisdom; (2) wisdom is peaceable; (3) therefore, the peacemakers are the ones who possess wisdom; and (4) the ones who create tumult and discord do not possess wisdom, however much they protest to the opposite. The opponents of James have claimed, either explicitly or implicitly, to possess a superior wisdom. By defining wisdom in biblical terms, James has shown his opponents to be purveyors of a highly corrosive brew of worldly wisdom and deficient teaching. In short, he has shown them to be psychikoi, the very charge they leveled at James.
Bridging Contexts
THE PASSAGE BEFORE us is comprised of a discussion of true and false wisdom. Such teaching is not simply an arid intellectual exercise. Rather, in the experience of James teaching about God is always potent, extending to all areas of human endeavor. Pure teaching and sullied teaching both have effects. He is at pains in this section to make those effects clear. James sums up this section by encouraging his readers to be peacemakers.
The most significant single issue for investigation in this section is the biblical notion of peace. There are several reasons for this. (1) Peace is the point of the concluding proverb, and this is a clear sign that the idea of peace is significant for our author. (2) Wisdom, the gift from God (1:5), is needed to help us achieve maturity, and maturity is connected to righteousness. Righteousness is, as James tells us, the harvest realized by peacemakers. (3) Thus, peace is the idea that gathers together a number of disparate ideas that are at work in this passage, as the wisdom of God leads to the peace and wholeness God desires of and for us. Unless this is discerned, we will be unable to understand the richness of James’s thought, and we will be tempted to seek contemporary applications that settle for inferior, abiblical notions of peace. It is for these reasons that “peace” is the subject of this Bridging Contexts section.
The richly textured Old Testament notion of “peace” (šalom) is one of those ideas that can legitimately be linked to a single word. šalom means “to be whole, to be healthy, to be complete.” In this regard it is distinct from most words for peace. For example, the Greek word homonoia (“harmony”) originally conveyed only a negative meaning, denoting the absence of political turmoil within a city. Only later did this word come to possess a positive nuance. But šalom bore from the outset a primarily positive meaning. In the LXX eirene (“peace”) is regularly used to translate šalom, and it occurs over 250 times.21 While other terms can be used, depending on the nuance of šalom in a given context, in the LXX eirene appears when the wholeness and well-being that is of God is in view.
šalom was employed in the Old Testament in a dizzying variety of ways. The daily greeting in Israel was šalom ‘alekem (“peace be upon you”), a blessing and greeting meaning “may you be well.”22 The Old Testament also contrasts peace with warfare, but the emphasis is on peace as close and harmonious relations among peoples.23 šalom is used of prosperity (Ps. 73:3), physical health (38:3), and salvation (Isa. 43:7). It can also be used in connection with death. The promise to Abraham is, “You, however, will go to your fathers in peace and be buried at a good old age” (Gen. 15:15). šalom is likewise connected to the covenant. In Numbers 25:12 the Lord says to Moses, “I am making my covenant of peace….”
True wholeness, true peace, is intimately linked with the character of God. This idea is present in Psalm 34:14, where the psalmist says, “Turn from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it.” Here we see the notion of peace linked to the twin ideas of justice and righteousness, which together are integral components of the character of God. We should not forget that the definition James has offered for “true religion” is the embodiment of the notion of justice and righteousness: to visit widows and orphans (James 1:27). In Psalm 34 peace is substantial, it is linked to the very core of God’s character, and it must be pursued. The idea of “truth” (‘emet) is added to this complex when in Zechariah 8:16–17, 19 God addresses the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judah:
“Speak the truth to each other, and render true and sound judgment in your courts; do not plot evil against your neighbor, and do not love to swear falsely. I hate all this,” declares the LORD…. “Therefore love truth and peace.”
Of course, the reality of life dictates that peace such as this is rarely known. For this reason peace has a future orientation as well. The “Prince of Peace” is the agent of God who brings God’s justice, truth, and peace.
In the New Testament the idea of peace is prominent in the teachings of Jesus. It is significant that in the Beatitudes the term “peacemaker” is one of virility; all the other characteristics mentioned by Jesus “designate a state or an attitude, while this one describes a concrete act.”24 Peace, then, is the creation and maintenance of a state of truth, honesty, righteousness, and justice. This notion of wholeness in terms of social relations has obvious merit, given the context in the church of James. But the question of truth and justice should not be overlooked.
When James encourages his readers to be “peacemakers who sow in peace [and who] raise a harvest of righteousness,” it is this complex idea of šalom to which he refers. Justice, righteousness, and peace are central to the character of God. To develop such character in ourselves and within the Christian community has been a frequent theme throughout the course of this letter. What remains is to consider how its use as revealed here can be applied today.
Contemporary Significance
EVANGELICALS WOULD DO well to recapture the biblical idea of peace. In practice we often confuse the biblical idea of peace with its impoverished modern counterpart, the absence of obvious tension. We do this in part because we find it expedient in the short run to avoid disagreement and the tension it brings.
In a passage in Thucydides, a Corinthian delegation attempted to persuade the Athenians to join their cause with the words, “The true path of expediency is the path of right.”25 The Corinthians spoke the truth, but in the long annals of human history there is little evidence to support the popularity of their view. Our more typical course of action is to succumb to the temptation of the path that in prospect seems to afford the least resistance and the smallest chance of personal harm. Having registered our choice, we honor it with pious rationalizations.
The evangelical church is not immune from this pervasive malady. In fact, it is surprising how frequently the contemporary evangelical church has blindly chosen nonbiblical ideas of “peace” instead of the more profound biblical idea. Routinely we pursue peace as “absence or denial of tension within the body” over peace as “wholeness within the body.” Most evangelical churches I know of are petrified of tension; thus, discussion of issues that might cause conflict is suppressed. In the last four months I have heard a number of such stories—some fresh, some the memories of events long past.
• To the surprise of many within a congregation, one of their associate pastors was dismissed. A few in the congregation knew that there were problems afoot, and others felt the pastor in question was not effective. Many others, however, disagreed, having found the pastor quite helpful. The announcement of dismissal, therefore, was a shock. Still more surprising to many was the service on the last Sunday of the pastor’s tenure. A litany was prepared, in which both the pastor and the congregation read appeals of forgiveness asked of one another. To many in the congregation this seemed excessively odd. There has been no further discussion.
• The entire executive board of a church resigned, claiming that the pastor was “running the church” through his friends instead of through the elected board structure. Tension between the pastor and the board had been growing for nearly a year. The congregation at large had been deliberately and effectively shielded from this growing tension by both parties. Both had begun to elicit support for their positions from selected members of the congregation. To most, however, knowledge of this development came only with the mass resignation. This brinkmanship soured the spirit of the church, and attendance dropped 45 percent.
• A volunteer counselor with the youth group was found in a mildly compromising position with a female student. The volunteer was dismissed from the high school counseling staff, and the pastoral staff at the church decided to cover up the incident. Nonetheless, reports of the incident began to circulate in the small community, many of them wildly exaggerated. The church continued to stonewall the truth. Respect for the church in the community, which had been high, began a rapid free-fall.
• After two years of prayer and deliberation, a congregation decided to move forward with plans to build a new and larger sanctuary, a plan with which the pastor was in full accord. During the week following the vote, however, several members of the congregation met secretly with the pastor and convinced him to change his mind. The following Sunday the pastor dutifully announced that he now viewed the plans to build a new sanctuary “sinful.” The pastor soon left the church, realizing that he had been manipulated. The leaders of the “coup” and the elected leaders of the church have refused in the ensuing decade to speak with each other or about that chapter in the history of the church, citing the need to “keep peace” within the congregation.
• A new senior pastor announces to the congregation that he desires the entire staff to stay in place, but in private makes it clear to one staff member that his resignation is required. The resignation comes as a surprise to many, and when asked if he is being “forced out,” the staff person lies with the words, “in the interests of peace and the welfare of the church.”
• A church member and frequent soloist is upset because the pastor has not agreed with her wish to be the featured Sunday morning soloist at least twice a month. She and her family leave the church, and no one besides the two principals knows why. When asked, neither will speak of the matter.
• A church that has remained at two hundred members for fifteen years has called a new pastor. He quickly realizes that there is a difficult family in the church. This couple insists on having their own way, even to the point of offering threats during business meetings of the church. Many church members commiserate with the new pastor and inform him that this couple has dominated the church for years, but no one wishes to go through the unpleasantness of crossing them. The pastor learns that the husband has been brought up on charges of child abuse in the past, and in a private session informs him that he can no longer work with the youth of the church. Realizing that the pastor cannot speak of this publicly, the man attempts to malign the pastor for excluding him from ministry. The pastor is days away from accepting a call to another church before the leadership finally stands up to this controlling couple.
None of these cases is simple. There are, as always, mitigating circumstances that must be considered. One of these is the protection of the privacy of individuals, whether pastors or members of the congregation. A second is often cited, the Pauline demand to protect the unity of the church in order to keep “peace” in the church. It is important to recognize that this command appears in a particular context in Philippians, a context in which Paul argues for the unity of the church, not so much as an end in itself but so the church may be firmly fastened upon its primary task, which he says is the spread of the gospel (Phil. 1:27; 4:2–3). If the church is consumed with divisions over tertiary issues to the extent that primary concerns are left unattended, then a not insignificant evil has been committed. In some of these situations listed above, either mitigating factor could legitimately be invoked. Nonetheless, there is something about contemporary evangelicalism that comes up short when compared to the biblical idea of peace.
Recently I asked a colleague to lead one of my classes through a discussion of “Christian community.” She began by inquiring of the students their impressions of relationships within the church. The initial responses were slow and halting, but within two minutes they came fast and furious. I dutifully recorded as many of their answers as I could. Here is the list:
• People put up a facade.
• Relationships are basically superficial.
• Most of the time people are not sincere.
• But there are plenty of people who are caring.
• It often feels artificial.
• People are really “nice,” as in the appearance of peace.
• People are usually considerate.
• When people are friendly, it is usually with other Christians; it is not usually extended to those outside the church.
• People are too busy.
• The church is not egalitarian, but highly structured.
• The church is hierarchical, with clear, unspoken rules of power: pastor, deacons, long-time members, and wealthy members have the power.
• People want to avoid conflict.
My colleague then asked them why they think this is so, given the biblical model of Christian community. Once again I recorded as many of their answers as I could:
• We have other priorities—money, appearance, recognition.
• We are dishonest with ourselves about these, our true priorities.
• We fear persecution by the world.
• We are afraid of the consequences of the truth. We often avoid telling someone else the truth, and we tell ourselves this is because we wish to protect their feelings. But we know the real reason is that we don’t want to have to deal with the potential unpleasantness of the situation.
• We are afraid of facing the fact that we cannot live up to biblical standards.
• We realize we cannot make a difference in the world or even in our church, so why try?
Finally, she asked them to describe the values our culture seems to extol or which mark our culture:
• Materialism—we want things.
• We want attention, even fame.
• We desire greed, power, status.
• We are careless about other people, especially people we do not know.
• Our culture loves temptation.
• Self-protection
• Fear
• Aggression
• Envy
• Pride, not humility
• Assumption. We do not bother to find out; we simply make assumptions about people and judge them on superficial grounds, without really knowing them.
In our desire to preserve what is an unbiblical “peace,” have we produced a situation of such unbiblical proportions? I was struck by several issues as I heard my students speak. I was impressed that they identified themselves with the deeper issues in the second group of responses. I was also struck by their fear of not measuring up to God’s standards. This is wholly commensurate with James. His letter teaches adherence to an exacting standard. But it also teaches the forgiveness of God and the truth that as the word is planted within and is nurtured, the Christian can grow into “perfection” (1:4, 18).
The final point that struck me about these three lists was the degree of correspondence between them and the list of vices outlined by James. His catalogue of evil in chapter 3 is frighteningly similar to the model of the biological growth of evil pictured in 1:15. These vices have their origin in desires that are “earthly, unspiritual, of the devil” (3:15), which lead to “envy and selfish ambition,” which in turn cause “disorder” (3:16) within the Christian community. James steadfastly refuses to allow us to view such developments as trivial. Their origin is unwholesome, and however innocent or irenic the garb in which initially they are clothed, ultimately they are a cancer in the body.
It is for this reason that James used unreservedly strong language in 3:1–12 in his discussion of false teachers, false teaching, and the devastating effect these have on the community. Do not be fooled or cowed, James intones. Such teaching, and the failure to recognize and resist it, is dangerous in the extreme. The poison begins innocently, in the fertile receptacle of our minds and hearts. It grows to dominate our actions. Finally, through our actions it spreads to infect the community around us. The most effective course to avoid this evil, James reminds us, is to walk firmly and with resolve in the path of heavenly wisdom and its fruits.
The impressions of my students do not, of course, convey the entire picture of American evangelicalism. There is more that can be said, much of it positive. But they are nonetheless accurate in pointing to features that, if not the entirety of the landscape, are nonetheless present. These impressions must be set in contrast with the catalogue James has left for us concerning a life in accord with “wisdom that comes from heaven,” which results in peace.
In 3:13 James speaks of heavenly wisdom placing its stamp upon an entire “mode of life” (anastrophes). The seven traits he outlines make for such a “consistent life” shaped by heavenly wisdom: It is “pure, then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere.” Together these are the characteristics of the peacemaker in 3:18.
“Purity” reflects God’s character. A pure person follows God’s decrees with motives unmixed. For such an individual the cleansing of 4:7–8 is unnecessary. The motives of the soloist mentioned above were not unmixed. She may well have imagined only pure motives, but I am confident most observers would detect a self-centered prima donna attitude at work here, not the humble and unselfish attitude extolled by James.
There are also cases in which mitigating circumstances might apply. Several years ago a friend of mine became friends with the members of a Christian heavy-metal band. Proudly she told me how the band would throw Bibles into the audience during their performances. While I hold reservations about the wisdom of this style of ministry and evangelism, it may be effective for some. She also showed me pictures of herself with the band members. I could not help but notice their pants. They were leather and skin-tight, so tight that nothing was left to the imagination—precisely the sort of pants that members of heavy-metal bands in the secular music industry wore. Perhaps I am something of a prude, but this seemed a mixed message to me.
As we have seen, “considerate” is usually associated with justice, particularly the avoidance of the abuse of power. Power has been an issue much in my mind of late. Some time ago I was asked to speak to a group of pastors about church governance, specifically about the role of the pastor, the boards, and the congregation in terms of the New Testament. With but a little probing I realized that the real issue was power. At least the most vocal members of the steering committee wished to see justification for greater power in the hands of the pastor. I am chary of power, as I believe James to be. But he places before us a key characteristic for those in power: consideration.
The first pastor I served under continues to have my utmost respect as a man of integrity, character, and consideration. Although superficially he can appear brusque, and although many view him as dictatorial (during those early years he once told me, “If you don’t know which way the vote in your board is going to go, then you have not done your homework”), I know better, for I have the privilege of knowing him well. Several times during the three years we worked together I saw him absorb misplaced and misdirected vituperation because he had the integrity not to reveal confidential information or information that might be damaging to someone else. In the years since, I have known many leaders, and nearly everyone has failed this very test. This pastor is a man who is unswerving in his dedication to see the work of Christ go forward and is diligent in attempting to discern the voice of God. He will not countenance wavering when the integrity of the gospel or the work of Christ is at issue. But he remains tolerant and even untroubled by misinformed forces that often work to his great personal detriment.
James includes in this list of virtues “submissive,” meaning one who recognizes the truth of God when it is heard and willingly submits to it. After spending more than a decade in pastoral ministry, I cast my lot with the academy, becoming a full-time professor in 1992. People often ask me which I prefer, and I can honestly say that both have appeal for me and that in my present capacity I am able to move in both worlds. But there is one aspect of pastoral ministry that I miss with passionate longing—the joy of working with a leadership team. During my last five years in ministry I had the privilege of working with a group of leaders, each of us solidly committed to God, to each other, and to the goals we had prayerfully established. Often we disagreed on precisely how to reach a certain goal; but once a decision was made, each of us willingly made ourselves submissive to that plan, that strategy, that program.
Such teamwork is not cheaply bought. We were a diverse group: black, Asian, white, even some from foreign countries; some were from wealth, others grew up in poverty. It took honesty, risk, and hours together—hours of play as well as work. I particularly remember one long drive with one of our minority leaders. There had been tension between us born of misunderstanding. After five hours of small talk and with only twenty minutes to our destination, I finally fortified my anemic courage and said, “I am concerned about our friendship.” The reply surprised me, “What friendship?” We spent the next two hours in deep and honest discussion, sometimes painful, but always in the knowledge that we shared a love of Christ and a love for each other. These virtues of honesty, submissiveness, and compassion suffused our leadership team, and working with them was one of the most extraordinary experiences of my life.
“Mercy” and “good fruit” go together, for mercy has a practical orientation that by definition manifests itself in “good fruit.” Mercy is not pity, for pity can be simply the emotion of concern that passes as quickly as the shadow of a cloud. Mercy is compassion that drives one to action. Jesus once addressed the Pharisees: “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to people who will produce its fruit” (Matt. 21:43). Fruit, as we have repeatedly seen, comes from the heart, from character, and character can be shaped.
The film Rain Man is in some ways a parable of redemption. Tom Cruise plays Charlie Babbitt, a smooth-talking, sleazy salesman who returns home when he learns that his estranged father has died. When the will is read, Charlie receives only the Buick convertible from his youth. The remaining millions of his father’s estate is left to his institutionalized, autistic older brother Raymond, a brother Charlie did not even know he had. Much of the movie is made up of Charlie trying to hustle the money from Raymond or trying to parlay Raymond’s amazing mathematical talents into a fortune in Las Vegas. But a change begins to take place within Charlie. He begins to care for Raymond, even against his own will. His heart changes, and as this change gains in depth and confidence, Charlie begins to do for Raymond more than for himself.
This is a “good fruit” from the heart. There may have been a core of righteousness in the hearts and minds of that small cadre of people who torpedoed the building plans of the congregation, but in the mix was a desire to control, a hatred of losing, and a selfish urge to have the church remain “just the way we like it.” Honest reflection may very well have revealed the true origin of their desires.
The final pair of virtues, “impartial” and “sincere” also go together. For James these describe a person who is not double-minded. It is the person who knows the heart of God and therefore the priorities of God. As we have seen earlier, one of the stickiest problems is knowing how to balance “peacemaking” with sticking to principle. One of the keys is understanding the priorities of God. For James these are, in short form, (1) devotion to the spiritual life, so that the word may be planted in you and grow strong; (2) care of the poor and marginalized, not only of their dignity, but also of their material circumstances; (3) a willingness frequently to take stock of oneself, to ensure that the virtues, and not the vices, are growing strong; and (4) the willingness to know the truth of the gospel and stand up for it when it is threatened. But we must remember that even the false teachers were “dear brothers” to James. For “sincerity” conveys the idea of treating all people equally, of holding to both truth and love.
Inherent to the biblical idea of peace is a standard, a caste of heart and mind and consequent behavior congruent with God, and which is, therefore, nonnegotiable. Peace at any price is not peace, as human history readily demonstrates. The horrors of World War I left the peoples of the former allied powers longing for peace and nearly pathologically incapable of believing that another war would ever begin. When the League of Nations conducted a poll on the issue of international disarmament, 10.4 million Britons were in favor, only 870,000 opposed.26 As the inhumanity of the new Nazi regime became more obvious, the British government, and indeed world opinion, seemed blind to the obvious. After an interview with der Führer, a British journalist wrote that Hitler had “large, brown eyes—so large and so brown that one might actually grow lyrical about them if one were a woman.”27 In fact, the eyes of the dictator of Germany were blue. The Jewish American journalist Walter Lippmann wrote an article in which he extolled Hitler as “civilized,” and spoke of Nazi persecution of the Jews as a way to “satisfy” the German desire to “conquer somebody.”28
British diplomats, who should have known better, believed that Hitler was basically a man of peace, who wanted only to recover for Germany a modicum of prestige and security. Speaking for the government of Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald in the House of Commons on March 23, 1933, Anthony Eden said that it is necessary to “appease” Hitler, because if appeased his anger would cool and Germany would become sensible and stable. “Appeasement” at first meant allowing Germany to break the conditions of the Versailles Treaty and forge a military arsenal equal to that of France. Later it came to mean allowing Germany to overrun countries such as Czechoslovakia, countries that Great Britain had sworn to defend. In this way was the honor and integrity of Great Britain compromised. Finally, of course, it meant descent into the cataclysm of another world war. In the early 1930s these British diplomats did not understand the untrammeled voraciousness of evil. Soon enough they would. The yeṣer ha-ra, Gehenna, Satan—these are voracious and uncompromising. They are not to be trifled with.
The members of the congregation who allowed one couple to dominate church life sought peace through appeasement. They allowed themselves to impugn the integrity of the biblical call to community by holding to the promise of “peace” in the congregation. By placing their feet on this path, they condemned the church to more than a decade of envy, bitterness, and strife. Peace that leads to righteousness is peace that steadfastly refuses to let go of its standard: justice, righteousness, and the wisdom of God. Peace bought at their sacrifice is not biblical peace.