A. INTRODUCTION

Imagine you’re in an auditorium, and you’ve come to listen to a debate—a debate between two people who both claim to be Christians. And what you’re being asked to do is to decide which is the better Christian. The first person is someone who claims to have a “spiritual” understanding of the Christian faith. They take a very strong intellectual approach to their faith, and they spend all their time learning more and more about their “God”. And the second, is someone who claims to live by “Christian principles”. They are law abiding, they’re very active in the community. They’re always helping out someone else in need. And they generally do their best to make the world a better place.

Now, of course, you can envisage the content of the debate. The first person is very strong on the fact that God isn’t someone who is remote and unknowable and, therefore, they have concentrated their lives on getting to know God better. And, indeed, they have done so, to the exclusion of all else. On the other hand, the second person is very strong on the fact that they live according to the laws of the land. They pay their taxes, they never do any wrong (well not deliberately at least). And the amount of time they spend helping others demonstrates that they take seriously the need to contribute to the wellbeing of others. They also take seriously the need to care for God’s created world.

And the debate goes on for some time. However, at the end of the debate, it’s your turn. It’s up to you and your fellow members in the audience to decide which of the two has argued the better case. Now, both have claimed to be Christians. But who do you think is the better Christian? Is it the first person, the one who was pursuing a more “spiritual” line, dedicating themselves to getting to know God at the exclusion of all else? Or, is it the second person, the one who is actively involved in helping others, and trying to make the world a better place?

B. FAITH v WORKS (James 2:18-19, 26)

Well, something like that debate is what we have spelled out for us in the letter of James. Because in his letter there is a section where he wrote a kind of debate between two protagonists, each debating their own particular position. One is proclaiming the importance of intellectual faith, and the other is concentrating on the need to do good works. And each of them are proclaiming a superior position to the other.

Now, what’s interesting about this letter is its author. Because the author, James, was the eldest natural son of Mary and Joseph—a brother to Jesus (Mt 13:55). And we know that at first James didn’t believe in Jesus, because James misunderstood Jesus and even challenged his mission (John 7:2-5). However, all that changed, and after the resurrection, James was one of the select few that Jesus appeared to (1 Cor 15:7); he evidently had close ties with both Peter and Paul (Paul – Gal 1:19, Acts 21:18, Peter – Acts 12:17); he was a leader in the important council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:13); Paul considered him to be a “pillar” of the church (Gal 2:9); and history books tell us that in 62AD James was martyred for his faith.

From this background, then, James was eminently qualified to speak on the debate between faith and works. And, on an issue that was obviously just as relevant then as it is now, James easily recalled the two sides of the argument. Only, with James, he gave the argument a slight twist.

Because although he described the first protagonist just as I’ve described before—as someone very keen on learning and on developing their intellectual faith to the exclusion of all else. Regarding the second protagonist he didn’t just describe someone who went around doing good deeds and good deeds only. James tried to describe himself—and with the need to do those good deeds—but from the perspective of someone who had faith. As a consequence, James’ challenge was: “Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.” (18b).

Now, James had a very different way of expressing the argument between faith and works, than is elsewhere described in the New Testament. But then the context of what he was trying to teach was different too. However, behind James’ message the basic message is clear.

Firstly, you can spend as much time as you like learning about God and accepting him intellectually. However, if that intellectual belief does not manifest itself into action then it’s going to get you absolutely nowhere with God. At the end of the world you will have failed God’s test. Because as James said, “You believe that there is only one God; that is good. But even demons believe—and shudder.” (19).

Secondly, you can live however a good life that you wish. But if your good deeds don’t come from the background of faith—then as far as God is concerned—your good works will get you nowhere. At the end of the world – you will have failed God’s test too. And as James said, “the body without the spirit is dead.” (26a).

And, as a consequence of those two failures, thirdly, the real test of faith—how you can distinguish the genuine believer from someone who simply says they believe—is whether their faith manifests itself in doing good works.

Now, we have to be careful here, because, getting the order right is vitally important. Doing good works will not necessarily result in a person having faith. However, a person who has genuine faith should demonstrate that in doing good deeds. Because as James said, “faith without works is dead” (26b).

C. COMMENT

And, on that basis let’s getting back to our original scenario: that imaginary debate between two modern day protagonists, where as members of the audience we have to decide who is the better “Christian”. Now, remember, the first person was the one who claimed to have a superior “spiritual” understanding of God, and was pursuing an intellectual knowledge of God at all costs. And the second, was a person who went around simply doing good works, and good works only. And the question for us as an audience is: Who is the better Christian?

Well, according to James, the answer is neither. Both may call themselves Christians, but neither are really Christians at all. And the reasons? Well, the first person who was pursuing a more intellectual approach was unable to demonstrate that they had any real faith. They may have intellectually acknowledged who God was, but they were unable to demonstrate that what they intellectually believed made any difference to their lives. And as James said, “Even the demons do that.”

And the second person may have been going around leading a good life. But that’s all, the person had not demonstrated that they had any faith. They may have had a concern for others, but their efforts were not rooted in even the basics of the Christian faith.

Because, according to James, it is only faith in God that will get someone into God’s kingdom. Consequently, it is only faith that gives anybody the legitimate right to call themselves a “Christian”. People without faith shouldn’t call themselves Christians at all. Having faith should be demonstrated by good works. And if it doesn’t? Then maybe it reflects that the person doesn’t have any genuine faith at all.

D. FAITH V WORKS

1. Our Dilemma (1)
Now to me, James’s teaching leaves us, as members of God’s church, with a major problem. Because, there are many people who associate themselves with God’s church and the Christian faith who believe that they are something they are not—and even call themselves something they are not. And that’s particularly true amongst people who live in western style nations.

Because, many people call themselves Christians or identify themselves with the Christian faith who either have an intellectual faith or who only do good deeds. And they think that’s enough. (And that is evidenced in the census we have every 5 years, and in the number of people who nominally affiliate themselves with a particular church.) But are their lives based on faith, which is then evidenced by the good works that they do? Or, according to James, are they just deceiving themselves?

Indeed, many people do not have a genuine relationship with God at all. As a consequence, they may not be prepared for the eternal consequences of their misunderstanding. And come judgement day, they may be in for quite a shock.

And for us—that belief that either intellectual faith is enough or that simply doing good deeds is enough—puts quite a task in the hands of the church. Because it’s part of any Christian’s responsibilities to unravel the misunderstandings in regard to the faith. But, with the intention not of focussing in on people’s faults, but on pointing people in the right direction.

2. New Testament Teaching
Now, of course, the simple solution, for us, would be if James had got it all wrong. Because it would be so much easier if his teaching was inconsistent with other New Testament writers. And if that was the case, we could simply dismiss his very different ways of expressing Christian truths.

Unfortunately, the Apostle John in his first letter also questioned the integrity of a believer who had no compassion on a fellow believer. Johns’ words: “Suppose someone has worldly means, sees his brother in need, and closes his heart to him. How can the love of God be in him? Little children, let us not love with words or tongue, but with works and truth.” (1 John 3:17-18).

The Apostle Paul may have been strong on the argument that a believer is justified by faith alone (Romans 3:21-31)—as in the one-off initial basis of becoming a Christian. However, he didn’t believe that exempted the Christian from caring either. Indeed, he was strong on the need to not only acknowledge who God was, but to obey his rules too. Paul’s words: “Those who hear the law are not righteous in God’s sight; it is those who do the law who will be considered righteous.” (Romans 2:13).

And what about Jesus himself? Well apart from telling his disciples that there was only way to God, and that was through faith in him (John 14:6), didn’t Jesus also tell a story about judgement day? A story of dividing the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:31-46). And what made the two groups different? Well the issue wasn’t whether people intellectually assented to a faith in God, but rather on whether they cared, or not, for the hungry, the thirsty, for strangers, for the needy and for the sick.

And add up the teaching of the Apostle John, the Apostle Paul, and Jesus himself, we find that they didn’t say anything different to that which James wrote about in his letter at all.

3. Our Dilemma (2)
So, as I said, that leaves us with quite a dilemma. Because, not only do we need to make sure that we have our lives in order, that we are people of faith and that we take seriously the need to put our faith into action. But, as part of that, we have the responsibility to try to correct some very widespread misconceptions too.

And those misconceptions, again: Firstly, that to be a Christian all a person needs to do, is to have an intellectual faith. That it’s enough to know who God is without getting one’s hands dirty. And, secondly, that going around doing good deeds automatically makes one acceptable to God, that it makes one good enough to enter into God’s Kingdom.

Now, trying to combat those misconceptions is not easy, because those ideas are so widespread. But, then, what it means for us to put our faith into action, is not an easy thing either.

4. James’ Examples (James 2:20-25)
And lest there be no misunderstanding, James provided two examples of what it means to put faith into action.

a). Abraham (Genesis 22:1-19)
And James’s first example was Abraham—a man sorely tested by God to put his faith into action.

Now, Abraham was a man of deep conviction. And it was only when he was well advanced in years that God blessed him with a son, Isaac. Indeed it was only through a miracle that Isaac was born at all. Consider, then, that Abraham was asked by God to take Isaac to the region of Moriah, and there he was to sacrifice him on a mountain top.

But, as the story goes, Abraham didn’t object. He didn’t complain. He just went and did what God commanded. To the point where he’d even tied up Isaac on the altar, before God intervened with an alternative sacrifice.

b). Rahab (Joshua 2)
And James’ second example was a prostitute named Rahab. Now, she lived in Jericho at the time that the Israelites had completed their journey from Egypt and were only a couple of days away from entering the Promised Land. And even though her occupation may have been questionable, what God asked Rahab to do was to hide two Israelites who had been given the job of spying out the land—to provide them with food and shelter.

Now you can imagine what that meant. God was asking her to betray her own people., with the likely consequence of the destruction of the city that she lived in, with everyone in it. What’s more, as things turned out, the authorities found out about the two spies, and they found out something of her role in the endeavour. But regardless, even though her actions left her at risk from her own people, she did as God required. She kept the spies safe. And later aided their escape from the city.

c). Comment
Two shining examples, then, of being tested to the limit. Where the faith of two believers was well and truly required to be put into action.

5. Our Dilemma (3)
Now we may not be asked to do such things as required of Abraham and Rahab. But when we consider what is expected of us in regard to the need to have faith and the need to put our faith into practice, we have two wonderful examples of people who have been asked to express their faith in very dynamic ways.

But whatever sort of thing God asks of us. We need to remember both the “faith” and the “works” components of our lives. And, sad to say, the need for us to be active in trying to correct the widespread misunderstandings of the Christian faith that are so prevalent in our society today.

E. CONCLUSION

Now, we started with an imaginary debate—about faith and works. About two people who claimed to be Christians. One whose emphasis was on an intellectual faith, and the other whose focus was on doing good works. And it was the audience’s task to decide who was the better Christian.

The reality, however, is that neither of them were Christians at all. Because, James quite clearly teaches, firstly, that it doesn’t matter how much time we spend learning about God and accepting him intellectually (and I don’t want to denigrate such study), but if that intellectual belief does not translate itself into action then we have missed the point. Indeed, at the end of the world we will have failed God’s test.

But, secondly, that it doesn’t matter how good a life we lead, it doesn’t matter how many good deeds that we do, as far as God is concerned if that is all we do, and it’s not based on faith, it will get us nowhere. So, on judgement day, we will have failed God’s test too.

The real test of faith is whether a person genuinely believes in God and, whether that is translated into doing good works. Because, whilst good works on their own will not result in a person having faith. A person who has genuine faith will involve themselves in doing good works.

The challenge of James is for us to show that not only do we profess faith, but that is translated into actions too. Because only faith accompanied by action, gives anyone the legitimate right to call themselves a “Christian”. And that is a challenge not only for us, but one with which we need to confront the world with too.

Posted 21st February 2019
© 2019, Brian A Curtis
www.brianacurtis.com.au

A. INTRODUCTION

I am constantly amazed at the stories that I hear. So much so that I wonder where some of them come from. I’ve heard stories of people which were apparently true, but were told to someone in confidence. I’ve heard stories which were only partially true, but the facts had been blown out of proportion. And I’ve heard stories that were totally untrue, and yet had been spread to the point where people actually believed them, and consequently they had taken on a whole new life of their own.

And in regard to things which are not true, or only partially true, I’ve heard a number of stories about myself, about things that I’ve supposed to have said or done, many of which are very far from the truth.

Now obviously some of the stories that we hear can be amusing. And we can laugh at some of the things that people say. However other stories can be quite damaging. And the truth is that mud sticks, and it sticks regardless of whether there is any truth in the stories or not.

Now, of course, the problem behind all of this . . . is our tongues. And to give just a few examples . . . Our tongues can get us into real trouble by the way that stories are spread. Our tongues can be used to be very critical of one another. And our tongues can be used to discourage one another too.

So if we are Christians, we need to be very careful about how we use our tongues. And in this regard, it can be helpful to recall the words of James, the brother of Jesus.  Because although regarding the use of our tongues, James is really a prophet of doom and gloom. If we can get beyond that, there is much wise advice that we can have to share.

B. THE (NEGATIVE) POWER OF THE TONGUE

1. Positions of Authority (1)
And the first thing that James teaches relates to positions of authority and leadership.

Now James was writing to a situation where teachers were held in high esteem. A teacher was someone who was financially supported by the church. A teacher was the guardian and interpreter of tradition. And a teacher was someone whose role it was to guide and help people in all the aspects of life—intellectually, spiritually, liturgically, and morally. And because a teacher was honoured, people were seeking positions as teachers, particularly those who were not considered at the top of the tree.

Nevertheless, James’s message was clear . . . Those who sought such positions needed to realise the responsibility that went with those position. Indeed, anyone who aspired to be a teacher, who wanted to pursue a position of great responsibility, needed to realise that if they misused their position of trust, they would be judged even more harshly by God than any other person, because of the nature of the positions that they held.

So those who found it difficult to control their tongues, James suggested, should steer clear of such leadership roles. Because if they didn’t, their words would bring their position into disrepute. And then God would have to deal with them more harshly than he would have to deal with others.

According to James, anyone who is aspiring or considering a role which gives them great authority and honour, needs to consider their ability to tame the tongue, and their ability to maintain the respect that their position deserves.

2. Universal Failure (2a)
Now that’s not to say that James considered only those who could control their tongues perfectly, should offer themselves for a leadership role. Because he knew that that just wasn’t possible.

Because his second point about the taming of the tongue is that no matter who we are and how much we try, we all fail. We all have times when our tongues get us into trouble. We all have times when we spread a story we shouldn’t, and we all are the cause behind some people getting hurt.

Those in leadership may have special responsibilities. But whether we are leaders or not, James says, we all fail in the use of our tongues. And as a result we are surrounded by instability and disunity, because of the truths, half-truths, and bare faced lies that surround us.

Like it or not, for such a small organ like the tongue, we are all responsible for a lot of heartache and damage.

3. The Power of The Tongue (2-6)
Which is where James’s third point comes in. Because despite the tongue being so small, it exercises a lot of power—and all out of proportion with the rest of the body.

And to illustrate the extent of the power of the tongue compared to the rest of our bodies, James used a number of illustrations to make his point.

He likened the tongue to a horse with a bit (3). Because with a bit in a horse’s mouth, a rider (or charioteer) could steer a horse wherever he wanted. Illustrative of the amount of control our tongues have over the rest of our bodies.

He likened the tongue to a ship with a rudder (4), where the rudder controls the ship, even when the wind wants to blow it in a different direction. Illustrative of the amount of power the tongue has over the rest of the body.

And he likened the tongue to a fire in a woodpile or in a forest (5), where one small flame can spread so easily, and the consequences can be devastating. Illustrative of the destructive force of the tongue.

With one small part of the body, great power can be exercised, and out of all proportion with the rest of the body. Control over the tongue, then, is imperative, because for James, the tongue can be such a force for evil.

4. Lack of Total Control (7-12)
And that leads us to James’s fourth point. And that is, that having indicated its destructive potency, James is forced to admit that mankind is incapable of controlling the tongue. We may be able to control other things; we may be masters over the animal kingdom through either domestication or hunting; but James concludes, we cannot control the tongue.

As far as James is concerned the tongue is simply full of deadly poison. And he not only gives an example of what he means, but he also tries to illustrate our hopelessness as well.

Indeed, his example illustrates our inconsistency and double standards. That is, we bless God and we curse our fellow man. Which, according to James, effectively means we are blessing and cursing God. Because what we do to someone else, reflects on the person who created them.

And our helplessness in this situation is illustrated by a series of questions, all designed to illustrate our impossible situation. His examples: “Does a spring pour out fresh and bitter water from the same opening? Can a fig tree produce olives, or a vine produce figs? Can salt water produce fresh?”

C. COMMENT

Now as I said, James really is a kind of prophet of doom and gloom when it comes to the tongue. And what makes it worse is that he makes no positive comments on the subject whatsoever. Furthermore, at this point in his letter he simply drops the subject. And one could easily conclude that if the tongue is that bad then why don’t we just cut it out. After all, didn’t Jesus say, “If your right eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it away. For it is better for you that one part of your body should perish than for your whole body to be cast into hell.”? (Mt 5:29)

However, I don’t believe it was James’s intention to finish the topic on such a negative note. And the reason I say that, is because I believe that James was much more encouraging than that. As a consequence, it’s more likely, that like the Apostle Paul so often did, at this point he simply got side-tracked and never got around to finishing his argument. He never got around to telling the positive side of the story.

Which is a shame. It is also an opportunity for us to speculate about what that would be.

Perhaps he could have started with the apostle Paul’s argument. The one that says that all parts of the body are necessary, and that there is a necessary interdependence of one part with another. Indeed Paul’s words were “God has placed the limbs, each one of them, in the body, just as he wished” (1 Cor 12:18). Perhaps he could then have continued with the idea of the tongue being used, but in a much more positive fashion.

After all, if we all considered our tongues so negatively that we cut them out to stop us from sinning, then it would be impossible to use our tongues in any positive manner either.

So perhaps he could have finished his debate by taking the negative points that he made so clearly and give them a much more positive twist.

D. THE (POSITIVE) POWER OF THE TONGUE

1. Positions of Authority
And if we do that, firstly, regarding positions of authority, it maybe that power brings greater responsibility, and a greater need to control the tongue. It may be that those in authority will be judged more harshly than those who aren’t. But having accepted that, shouldn’t we aspire to the positions that God calls us to? And shouldn’t those who are leaders use their tongues to improve people’s situations, to help people intellectually, spiritually, liturgically, and morally?

For sure even leaders make mistakes. And they say things that they shouldn’t, which (hopefully) they later regret. But to be called to a position of leadership is not something that should be ignored. It is only wanting to be a leader for other reasons that needs to be discouraged.

The tongue can be a trap for people in positions of authority. But if we can accept that, then the tongue can be a powerful tool for helping others as well.

2. Universal Failure
Secondly, it may be that it isn’t just leaders that fail, but we all fail. That we all say things that get ourselves and others into trouble. And we all say things from time to time that hurt others.

But being mindful of that, that is no reason for giving up on life. For sure what we say may sometimes cause some instability and disunity. But isn’t it possible, with God’s help, that we can use our tongues to build up and encourage others as well?

That may mean that we will need to use our tongues to apologise, to admit our weaknesses, and our failures. But it will also mean that we can use our tongues to help heal the rifts, and even go beyond just patching up the damage.

3. The Power of The Tongue
Thirdly, it maybe that the power of the tongue is all out of proportion with the rest of our bodies. And it maybe that the tongue is often used for bad reasons. But the tongue can also be used for good as well. And if it exerts power like the bit of a horse, like a rudder on a ship, and like the flame that starts the fire, think how much the tongue can be used for good.

The tongue may often be seen as a force for evil. But as Christians, with God’s help and guidance, it can also be a powerful tool for great good as well.

4. Lack of Total Control
And, fourthly, we may not have total control over our tongues. But being alert to the danger of loose lips, with God’s help, we may well get on our way to start learning how to control it.

James may have said there is a tendency to praise God and curse people, even amongst God’s people—effectively cursing their creator in their attitude towards others. But don’t we also praise God, through praising others too? And if we did that, wouldn’t we not only be taking God seriously but be building up our fellow believers at the same time?

E. CONCLUSION

As we live life from day to day, we are all in positions to hear some strange stories. We can hear stories that are perfectly true but are just not meant to be shared. We can hear stories that are based on truth but have been twisted and have taken on a whole new meaning. And we can hear stories that are not true at all but have been passed on as though every aspect of the story is true. Etc., etc., All evidence of the reality that our tongues are used in such destructive ways, in spreading rumours, in discouraging others, and in being critical. Nevertheless, our tongues can also be used in a far more positive way, to bridge gaps, to mend wounds, and to encourage and to build up others.

So even though James wrote in such a negative fashion—and the principles that James shared may well be true—I believe we can take those principles and apply them in a much more positive way.

Yes, our tongues can be instruments of harm. And yet, as Christians, think of the good we can do with them too. Not least of which is in encouraging and building up others, and in sharing with someone the good news of Jesus.

Posted: 9th January 2020
© 2020, Brian A Curtis
www.brianacurtis.com.au

A. INTRODUCTION

In the western world today, there is a wide variety of choice when it comes to picking a church to suit one’s expression of faith.

There are churches that are strong on tradition, while there are others who take a more modern approach. There are churches which are strong on liturgy, while there are others for those who like something a little more free. There are churches which expect a high degree of participation, while there are those which expect people to be little more than more than spectators. And there are churches who take an intellectual approach to the faith, while others respond to the emotions.

Indeed, there are churches that can suit just about any Christian. And some people go to a lot of trouble to find one that suits them best.

As a consequence, the church has often been criticised for its apparent disunity—with its many different denominations and expressions. And yet the availability of different expressions of the faith—even within the one denomination—can actually be a healthy thing.

However, whilst diversity in expressions can be healthy, we should not lose sight of the basic expressions of the faith—expressions that should be common to all. And to help us in our understanding what some of those expressions are, I want to refer to the letter of James. Because in his letter he outlined some basic principles that he expected every congregation to follow no matter what their particular preference.

B. JAMES’S SIX EXPECTATIONS

1. Honouring of God: Standards of Behaviour (12)
And his first expectation is in regard to the need to hold God in high esteem, and the standard of behaviour expected of any congregation.

Now at the time that James wrote, there was a problem with people making oaths and swearing statements using God’s name. But as far as James was concerned, the commandment not to take the Lord’s name in vain was of paramount importance in the expression of one’s faith.

Indeed, James suggested that such practices of swearing and using God’s name in vain should cease. Because not only was the practice bringing the name of God into disrepute—the practice did not reflect well on God—but people were using such expressions to either deceive others or put themselves in difficult situations.

For example, swearing something in God’s name was being used when people were trying to cover up a lie; oaths were being said when a low level of truthfulness was being expressed; and commitments were being made in God’s name, which should never have been made and were leading to disastrous consequences (e.g. Judges 11:30-39).

For James, a basic standard of behaviour for all members of God’s church is essential. And the basic expectation of James for all churches—and for all congregations—is the need to not only hold God’s name in the highest esteem and respect, but for members of the congregation to live lives in a way that was truthful and open.

In other words, no swearing by God’s name. And no lying either. Rather let our ‘Yes’ be yes and our ‘No’ be no. Because anything else is likely to lead to condemnation and judgement by God.

2. Communion with God (13)
James’s second expectation is in regard to the need to be constantly in communion with God—to communicate with God at all times, whether through times of grief or through times of joy.

If anyone is in difficulties, James suggests, let them pray for relief or deliverance. And if anyone is cheerful, let them sing God’s praise. In other words, for James, there is no situation where a member of God’s church should be out of communication with God.

God wants to know about our sad times, how we are feeling and what’s going through our minds. God wants to know about our joys, and the excitement of the good times that we experience. For all followers, for all members of his church, the practice of constantly keeping in touch with God, and telling him how we are feeling, is something that should be a feature of every member of the church.

3. Praying and Anointing the Sick (14-15)
James’s third expectation is related to those in the church who are sick, and those who are responsible to care for them.

And when someone is sick, James suggests, the person who is sick should be able to call on the carers, who in turn should pray for them and anoint them with oil.

Now, when James suggests that the sick person should call in the elders, he is not describing sickness of a trivial nature, like the flu. James is clearly describing something beyond the visiting of someone with a mild illness. Because the visit of those who care makes the visit of a very formal nature. However, taking that into account, what’s behind James’s idea is that the carers of a church should be a group of people who are noted as being people of faith. And the expectation is that their prayer of faith will help the sick person, and the anointing of oil will help in the healing process too.

Now, regarding the idea of anointing with oil, that stems partly from the fact that in New Testament times oil was used for medicinal purposes. It was used for soothing and cleaning wounds, warming a sick person’s body, toning the muscles to help with paralysis etc. etc. However, in this call for prayer and healing we mustn’t lose sight of the fact that, from a religious perspective, we are talking about more than just physical healing. We are talking about spiritual healing too. And it would be wrong for us, today, to distinguish clearly between the two.

The whole picture then is one where James reminds the church that it needs to be involved in both physical and spiritual healing—the physical healing of the body and the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with God. Because although God is quite capable of doing both perfectly well on his own, he does have the habit of using his people to do both. And therefore in any one church there should be people appointed for this valuable task.

4. Confession of Sins (16a)
The fourth expectation of James is in regard to the confession of one’s sins, and the need for the church to support the sinner.

Because for proper confession, James suggests, there are three aspects which need to be considered. The first is the need to confess one’s sins to God. The second is the need to confess one’s sins to another person within the church. And the third is that having confessed one’s sins to someone else, that that other person should then pray for the sinner.

Now that may sound very scary and radical. But there is a point to the suggestion. The fact is that even among believers we all make mistakes—none of us is perfect. The point of the community’s involvement then is not to say what a naughty person the sinner has been. But rather to support that person in the hope that the sin will not be repeated.

With the community’s awareness, or a particular member’s awareness of a particular problem, there is more encouragement not to repeat the same mistake. And there is a level of support and encouragement so that the person is less likely to give into that same temptation again.

At the heart of the issue is not the condemnation of the sinner, but rather the healing of their sin, and for support in whatever consequences that arise from it. At the heart of the issue is the basic need for the sinner to receive forgiveness and restoration.

5. Praying for One Another (16b-18)
The fifth expectation of James is the need to pray for one another. According to James, prayer is a very powerful medium, where God hears the prayer of the righteous. And as a consequence James was concerned to encourage the practice.

But he wasn’t talking about the odd occasional prayer. James was encouraging ‘active’ prayer. Prayer where people pray, and pray, and pray. And James used the prophet Elijah as a kind of model to which we should all aspire.

Because Elijah was a man who having been told of God’s plan for a drought, prayed constantly that it might come about. Some considerable time later he then prayed that it would end. And the implication is that Elijah prayed for the people that they might repent and return to God constantly during the three-and-a-half-year drought.

Now, James suggested, there was nothing special about Elijah himself. He may have been a prophet chosen by God but, in many ways, he was just an ordinary person. He was human, not divine. But regardless of any gifts that God bestowed on him, he was a model on which all church members should mould their lives, particularly regarding the issue of the need for constant prayer.

6. Dealing with Sin within the Community (19-20)
And the sixth expectation of James is in regard to the community’s role when one of its members strays. or when the moral standards of one of its members declines.

In such circumstances, James suggests the community’s role is not to judge the sinner, but to face them with their error. And it is to do so in the hope that they will return to acceptable Christian standards.

In other words, the church’s role is not to just let the person go their own way, but to attempt to return them the fold, so they might receive salvation and the forgiveness of their sins.

And with that, James suggests that the blessing will be two-fold. Firstly, the person who drifts away—if they are returned to the fold—will be blessed by deliverance from death. And secondly, those instrumental in changing that person’s behaviour (and who should be conscious of their own errors, because none of us perfect) will be blessed by God too, through what they have done.

C. COMMENT

Now, at this point it might be helpful to say something of the New Testament church. Because the New Testament church was invariably based on the model of the Jewish synagogue, whose worship had a fairly rigid structure. However, developing from that there was becoming a much more open expression of faith, where its members were encouraged to use their gifts in the expression of worship and in their day to day Christian service.

By the time we get to James, then, we find a congregation with a very solid organisational structure. But at the same time, filled with people who were expected to contribute openly to the life of the church. And it is from this backdrop that James’s expectations are focussed.

Now, of course, one of the problems today is that we have generally lost the idea of community. We’ve lost the sense of responsibility and support that we should have for one another that in New Testament times was expected to be the norm.

And, as a consequence, regarding honouring of God and our expected behaviour, we live in a community where God’s name is used in vain more now than it ever was before. Indeed, swearing in God’s name has become meaningless.

Regarding communion with God, people don’t call upon God as much as they should. In times sadness and times of joy, modern attitudes are often that we simply have to put up with whatever life brings our way.

Regarding sickness, people don’t always call out for help. Even church people don’t want to make a fuss; they don’t want to put anyone out.

Regarding the confession of sins to someone other than God . . . well that is far too threatening. It can be so embarrassing, and there is a reluctance to let anyone else know our faults and failings.

Regarding prayer, people generally don’t pray, and pray, and pray to God. Because that’s not the kind of relationship that people have with God anymore.

And regarding turning back those who have gone astray. Well, isn’t there a tendency to think that that’s their affair? Added with that is the tendency to not want to get involved.

Now those are some of today’s attitudes. But that doesn’t mean to say that we can just forget the teaching of James or the Christian concept of community. We can’t just tear out certain pages of the bible because we don’t like what they say, or just hope the issue will go away. But it does mean that we need to relearn what life’s all about; we need to relearn what the church is all about; and we need to relearn what being a member of a community of faith actually means.

D. CONCLUSION

Of course, from the New Testament onwards, the structure of congregations have changed, from one based on the background of Jewish practices, to the more open style of the New Testament where people were expected to contribute, to today’s world where it is represented in many different ways. And yet, regardless of modern-day structures, there are still certain behaviours and expectations that should be a feature of every congregation. Not least of which should be the six expectations described by James.

Expectations regarding the need to hold God in the highest esteem, and to maintain acceptable standards of behaviour. Expectations regarding the high level of communication with God, and for that level to be maintained no matter what the circumstances. Expectations regarding the sick, and the need to be able to call on church members for prayer and even perhaps the anointing with oil. Expectations regarding the confession of sins, and in particular for the need for others to hear a confession to prevent a re-offence. Expectations regarding praying for one another, and the need to pray and pray and pray. And expectations of the church community to not let people simply go off on their own, but to be actively involved in returning stray members to the fold.

Six things then, which should be features of any church; six goals for all churches to pursue; and six things which should be found in any congregation, regardless of its culture, churchmanship, or structure.

Posted: 4th December 2020
© 2020, Brian A Curtis
www.brianacurtis.com.au