Original Meaning

IN THIS LACONIC conclusion James returns to the themes of sin and forgiveness. In so doing he reveals his pastoral heart. The passage is related to the previous section in that forgiveness follows confession. James’s opponents in the church have arrogated to themselves the right to teach, and to teach a doctrine clearly at odds with the Jesus tradition, a tradition James knows.

In its effects this false teaching was savagely corrosive of the true faith. It exalted an impudent antinomian spirit pervasive enough to dismiss even the great commandment, and it claimed that “faith” is separate from any particular ethic.1 It also extolled the values of Roman provincial society, and in so doing portrayed the Christian church as one among the many collegia, and thus an avenue for social climbing and social stratification for the scores who were not (or only marginally) included in the broader political and social life of the civic community. Yet to these purveyors of pernicious doctrine, James holds out the hand of forgiveness and encourages others in the Christian church to win them back to the true faith. Here is a model of the very teaching he has put forward. This is an apt conclusion, for the entire letter is written to turn and prevent people from error.

The passage is short—in fact, a single sentence. But it should not be missed that in this one sentence James marshals no less than three significant theological ideas: (1) Christians have the opportunity and the responsibility to care for one another through the task of loving doctrinal and moral correction. The theme here is not evangelism, but the care and maintenance of the Christian community. (2) The penalty for sin is death; James will not equivocate on this. (3) In this process, the agent of reconciliation “covers” a multitude of sins.

The usual Pauline concluding elements (greetings and personal comments to individuals with whom he is familiar, as well as a benediction) are not in James’s arsenal. Instead, he ends with an exhortation to seek out those who in teaching and practice have wandered from the truth. This implies, of course, an exhortation to avoid disobedience.2

As he has frequently done, James uses the phrase “my brothers” to remind his readers of his relationship to them, a relationship marked by warm interpersonal regard and by a shared status before God. In urging Christians to seek and save those wandering, James aptly sums up the core thrust of the letter. The many particular errors he has catalogued (misuse of the tongue, jealousy, desire for social status at the expense of brothers and sisters in the faith, disputatiousness, false teaching concerning faith and works) can be summed up as markers of wandering ways. That James is directing this conclusion to the Christian community does not come out strongly enough in the NIV, which renders tis en humin with “one of you;” it probably should be translated as “one among you.”

The word used for “wander” is planao, which can mean “lead astray” as well as “wander.” The implication is that this “wandering” is not wholly innocent. The wanderer may understand that the path chosen is a deviant path; or if the wanderer has pursued the path accidentally or unconsciously, those teaching and practicing this error are certainly conscious of it as different from the truth that they know. This term conjures up a rich array of Old Testament references, most having to do with transgression of the law, and more particularly with idolatry (see, e.g., Prov. 14:8; Isa. 9:15–16; Jer. 23:17; Ezek. 33:19). It is possible that this deliberate waywardness James sees as somehow influenced by Satan. He has already made reference to this possibility (James 3:15; 4:7), and such teaching is consonant with the witness of the New Testament generally (cf. Rom. 1:27; Eph. 4:14; 1 Peter 2:25).

The wanderer has wandered from “the truth” (aletheia). For James truth is not simply something to be believed, but also and necessarily something to be practiced. It is much closer to our English word “conviction.” The Bible reflects this in its penchant to speak of truth as a way to go, a path to be followed, the “way of … truth” (Matt. 22:16; cf. Ps. 26:3). And the wanderer is not left to his or her own devices; the burden of reclamation is laid on the community. In this James has much in common with Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:18–21. While Paul seems to be referring to the initial conversion and James to a second turning back to God, both are “conversions.”

James concludes his letter in a surprisingly abrupt fashion (v. 20). The person who “turns” the errant wanderer saves the wanderer from sins. The Greek word James uses for “turn” is epistrepho. The idea here probably owes its origin to two passages in Ezekiel. The first is Ezekiel 33:11:

Say to them, “As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, O house of Israel?”

The other passage is Ezekiel 34, in which calumny is called down on the false shepherds of Israel, and God as Israel’s true shepherd is extolled. One of the functions God assigns to himself is that of seeking and saving those who wander. Furthermore, God will appoint for Israel a true shepherd, his servant David, who will carry out the same tasks.3 Thus, those who seek and save the wandering are truly the people of God, for they are like God. “Death” (thanatos) here is, of course, spiritual death. Consonant with the teaching of the Bible generally, this death has eternal consequences (Deut. 30:19; Job 8:13).

When we come to the phrase “cover a multitude of sins,” we enter a difficult landscape. Certainly the idea here is to forgive sins. The action of the high priest on the Day of Atonement was to cover (kaphar/kippur) the sins of the people by sprinkling blood on the atonement cover, the lid of the ark (Lev. 16:15–16), and James is drawing on that image. What is not so clear is the identity of the one who is saved from death, and of the one whose sins are covered. The NIV has made an exegetical decision on the first matter, clearly indicating that it is the wanderer who is saved from death. This is a sound decision theologically, as it comports with the thrust of James and with the theology of Ezekiel. It is also a good decision grammatically, although the grammar would also support the idea that the one saving the wanderer is also saved by that action.

The second matter suffers from the same grammatical ambiguity, and in this case there is less of a theological trajectory to serve as a reference. It is likely that James intends the “covering” of the sins of both the wanderer and the one who saves the errant party. We also should not forget that James lays responsibility for the wanderer on the Christian community generally. In fact, this is just one example of the sort of mutual care and responsibility that he expects of all within the Christian community.

James ends his letter abruptly by reminding his readers that the wise person walks with God in wisdom. Sin is a problem both corporate and personal. It is subtle, tenacious, and dangerous; it should not be underestimated. Christians have a responsibility to their world and to one another.

Bridging Contexts

A CLEAR PRIORITY for James has been to establish the idea of the church as community. For this reason he has used the term “brothers,” he has spoken of shared concerns, and he has asked the church to confess their sins publicly. Now James adds to the list: He instructs the church as a whole to seek and save the lost and the wandering.

This idea of Christian community does not come naturally to us. A good friend of mine is a pastor on staff of a church of nearly four thousand members. Their list of pastoral staff positions is astounding: Senior Pastor, Executive Pastor, three Senior Associate Pastors, Pastor for Education Ministries, Pastor for Outreach, Pastor for Small-Group Ministries, Minister of Visitation, Singles Pastor, Director of Student Ministries, College Pastor, High School Pastor, Junior High Pastor, and Director of Children’s Ministries. A church of this size may very well need this many pastors, with these tightly focused job descriptions. But there is a not too savory side-effect to this creeping specialization, for it often creates a sense of professionalization concerning ministry. When this idea becomes lodged in the minds of our congregations, we are afield from the New Testament idea.

I have been on the staff of two different churches and am well acquainted with the staff dynamics of a dozen more. One of these churches devoted more than a year to the creation of a mission statement, the point of which was that the members of the congregation are the “ministers” and the pastoral staff the “enablers.” After devoting so much time and energy to the creation of just the right statement, with months spent haggling over terminology, the members of the church were exhausted.

But their mission statement is no closer to coming true than the day it was conceived. Many in the church continue to think of the pastoral staff as their “paid help,” whose job it is to do the work of ministry. This provides us with a critical lesson, which is, quite simply, never to be content with right doctrine. James implores us to combine right practice with right belief. We must find ways to teach and train our members in Christian community responsibility.

The New Testament model is different from the one operative in many evangelical churches. In his insightful book Paul’s Idea of Community,4 Robert Banks points out that Paul seems to have made no distinction between clergy and laity, but rather entrusted to the entire church, not just elders, virtually all the responsibilities within the body. He notes that we are all free in Christ (2 Cor. 3:17), and that this freedom is a freedom to live in interdependence.5 In fact, in matters of organization,6 corporate welfare,7 discipline,8 and growth,9 Paul assigns responsibility not to a specific group with the body, but to the body as a whole.10 For Paul the functions of official priesthood, that is, to mediate between God and human beings, are shared by the entire Christian community. He never says that these responsibilities belong to any one person or group.11

James offers a remarkably similar picture. With few exceptions (such as the prayer for healing in 5:13) James stresses persons in leadership roles only when he is referring to false teaching and practice. His entire letter is an appeal to the Christian community at large, not simply to its leaders. His instructions concerning prayer, doctrine, divisions within the church are, with few exceptions, instructions to the entire community. We are called, then, to seek ways to be faithful to this teaching.

Contemporary Significance

JAMES HERE PLACES before us two responsibilities: to teach and practice a biblical model of Christian community, and to balance discipline with mercy. To these we now turn.

Christian community. The New Testament conceives of the Christian community in ways that are often alarmingly dissimilar to our own patterns of organization. This is not to say that having pastors with specific job descriptions is wrong, because the New Testament offers no one pattern of church leadership. But it is to say that we have a responsibility to and for each other as the local body of Christ, and these responsibilities often involve matters of church order, discipline, teaching, and welfare. It is the responsibility of pastors to teach this as a matter of New Testament theology.

For this to take place our pastors need to allow others in the congregation to step forward and develop the gifts God has given to them. This requires a certain humility on the part of pastors. Well do I remember my first experience in youth ministry. I was one month out of college, and 113 high school students had signed up to go water skiing. I was placed in charge of the event. I faced the task with some trepidation, for although I grew up in California, I had never tried water skiing. Nevertheless, I took my assignment seriously. I planned and taught every Bible study. I kept the roster of when each student got to ski in which of our six boats. I decided when we got up and when it was time for the all-quiet to be sounded at night. In short, apart from the actual cooking of the meals, I had reserved for myself each and every “official” decision made on the trip. As a result, I not only deprived the other counselors of opportunities to develop their gifts and skill, I also booked myself so solid that I had no time to spend with the students. I was an abysmal role model on all counts. I learned that weekend that as pastor I had a responsibility to allow others to gain experience in ministry, and that I could not do everything myself.

We need to seek ways to help the members of our congregation discover their gifts for ministry and to engage in responsible Christian service along the general pattern outlined in the New Testament. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways, including offering spiritual gift surveys, schools of prayer, concerts of prayer, and training in Stephen Ministry. However it is accomplished, as evangelicals we need to allow our fellow believers to shoulder the burdens and responsibilities that attend to church membership. We are not true to either our members or ourselves if we fail in this regard.

Forgiveness and discipline. At a number of points in his letter James indicates that he is in touch with the Jesus tradition, perhaps even portions of the tradition more rudimentary than those related in the Gospels. His teaching here is another case and bears similarity to the Matthean teaching on community discipline and forgiveness.12

Matthew 18:1–35 manifests a clear tension between rigor and mercy, which is also evident in James. The members of the community are expected to grow to maturity and even perfection (James 1:4). Yet the community is also called on to follow what Richard Hays calls “the hermeneutic of mercy.”13 Both James and Matthew instruct members of the community to attempt to turn those who are wandering back to the truth. Both make clear that the case of an unrepentant sinner is serious, because righteousness must be taken seriously. In Matthew Jesus counsels the expulsion of an unrepentant sinner and instructs the community to treat such a sinner as “a pagan or a tax collector” (Matt. 18:17)—that is, as a person who becomes the object of the missionary interests and efforts of the church. With James the situation is no different. The one who wanders needs to become the object of the reconciliation of the church. His or her sin has placed them outside the community. Jesus and James both argue that the entire community of faith must be about this task and make the relevant decisions (cf. Matt. 18:17–19).

The teaching of James throughout his letter is often harsh and even rigid. But then, so was the mandate given by Jesus. But here at the end of his letter James allows the note of grace. The note that has sounded in pianissimo through most of the letter here rings out loud and true. Forgiveness must be offered, but it must be balanced with faith that is active, faith that has captured mind and heart and body.

This tension is enormously difficult to live out. On the one hand, we must not fall victim to the siren song of lassitude. Far too often the church of Jesus Christ has, chameleon-like and with dulled senses, adapted its moral vision to fit in with the surrounding culture. Ron Sider reminds us that Jesus spoke some extraordinarily harsh words concerning the corrosive power of money,14 but American evangelicals easily choose to ignore these words.

Recent years have seen the growing acceptance of women in ministry within evangelical circles, and some say that in like fashion homosexual practice will come to be accepted. The disturbing aspect of this statement is that concession to culture is presumed to be natural, inevitable, and good. As evangelicals we are committed to Scripture as our guide, not the capricious winds of social fashion. We do no one any favors when we tell them that attitudes and behaviors that the Bible calls sinful are, instead, lifestyle choices that God actually blesses.

But there is a grave danger on the other side. We need to be honest with ourselves, certain that today’s sinners (and this includes you and me) ought to receive the same unconditional love from us as those of first-century Palestine did from Jesus. It is all too easy to maintain an attitude and practical posture of moral superiority that excludes persons on whom Jesus would shower his unconditional love. Hannah More put it well:

We contrive to make revenge itself look like religion. We call down thunder on many a head under the pretense that those on whom we invoke it are God’s enemies, when perhaps we invoke it because they are ours.15

James calls us to recognize sin and to forgive the sinner with warm welcome. To fail at the first is to take sin too lightly. To excuse sin, whether as a harmless quirk or a lifestyle choice, is to deny both the seriousness of the offense and the responsibility of the offender. To this James offers the sternest warning at his command: The result is death. To fail at the second, however, is to fall prey to sterile doctrine and to miss the forgiving spirit at the core of Jesus’ ministry. Both are needful.

This tension between righteousness and mercy is a difficult one to negotiate properly. We rarely do it well, as even a cursory investigation of popular conceptions of the Christian faith reveals. This confusion concerning the tension between morality and rigor demonstrates that the Christian community has not consistently understood or practiced the balance as both Jesus and James have expressed it.

James calls us to moral purity and to maintaining a heart of forgiveness. When we do so, we are the true children of God, combining both faith and actions in the fashion that James has taught. It is a call true to the Lord that James served, and to whom we owe ultimate allegiance. But James is not merely the standard bearer of a sterile and impersonal code of conduct. Rather, he writes from an experience of the living Christ, who animates this standard, giving breath and vitality to what can otherwise become a barren and shallow code. He invites us to enter into this love relationship with God and to learn what it means to live in the Spirit. George Caird put it well when he said:

To follow Jesus or to follow his example turns out to be, as popular tradition has held, the higher road, that particular morality which the gospel imposes on the Christian. But such morality does not consist in conformity to any stereotyped pattern; it consists rather in learning from Jesus an attitude of mind which comprises sensitivity to the presence of God and to the will of God which is the only authority, a constant submission of personal interest to the pursuit of that will in the well-being of others, and a confidence that, whatever the immediate consequences may appear to be, the outcome can safely be left in God’s hands.16