Quotes of Note:

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
—Robert Frost, “The Road Not Taken”

There are no atheists in the foxholes.
—William Thomas Cummings, sermon (1942)

Education is simply the soul of a society as it passes from one generation to another.
~G.K. Chesterton

Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, GID, and Evil

Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, author of ONENESS, THE TRINITY AND LOGIC, is also the one who has constructed what is known as General Intelligent Design (GID). Recently Dr. Herrmann has written Science Declares Our Universe Is Intelligently Designed. You can purchase the book here or at Amazon.com.

Dr. Herrmann also believes in the Oneness of God and believes he has come to this conclusion in his personal journey of research and logical thinking. He is also a retired Professor of Mathematics (U. S. Naval Academy). He has a Ph. D. and an M.A. in Mathematics from American University. He also has a .B. A. in Mathematics from Johns Hopkins University.

Dr. Herrmann has individually published 73 articles in 30 different journals from 14 countries. He has written over 250 published reviews as well as 7 books, 5 of which are available, free of change, from his Internet site or the arXiv.org archives. He has personally presented 31 papers at scientific conferences and over 1,200 scientific disclosures.

Here is a great link from CreationWiki on GID and Dr. Herrmann. He is also listed as a Scientist of the Christian Faith by the apologetics website Tektonics.org.

It is my privilege to be dialoguing with Dr. Herrmann, in a private email interview, about 12 concerns and questions about human and supernatural reality. The questions are:

(1) God as described within the Bible has rational attributes.

(2) It is rational to assume that He exists.

(3) Miracles are rational events.

(4) The Holy Ghost is a rational concept.

(5) Everything that exists within the universe is evidence that God exists.

(6) The rationally described Holy Ghost can influence our thoughts in a rational manner.

(7) The rationally described Adversary can influence our thoughts in a rational manner.

(8) Our universe as a whole is designed and produced by actions taken by a higher-intelligence, where the higher-intelligence has the same attributes as those displayed by the Biblical God.

(9) Every defined elementary object, if such exists (a neutrino and the like), is designed and produced by the same higher-intelligence.

(10) Every combination of elementary objects, if any exist, and used to form any other physical object is designed and produced by the same higher-intelligence.

(11) The physical laws and theories are purposely designed by a higher-intelligence. These allow intelligent beings to construct additional physical-systems and subdue the Earth. Based upon physical laws or theories, every physical change in the behavior of every system composed of physical objects is controlled by the same higher-intelligence. (Controlled does not mean personal choice is removed.)

(12) This higher-intelligence can design and produce our universe in a manner that follows a very strict (literal) interpretation of the creation statements make in Genesis 1. He can do this in such a manner that the results of His endeavors produce everything that we observe today including apparent age. Some will observe remnants of God's original creations while others are presented with a strong delusion. (This correspond to 2 Thess 2:11). This higher-intelligence can also design our universe so as to correspond to any of the proposed cosmologies.

The replies to these questions will be posted on Evidential Faith soon. From what I understand, GID indicates that God is involved in "every instance" of change; micro or macro. Dr. Herrmann also states that this "models at lest two Bible verses Heb 1:3 where His power sustains everything and Col 1:17 where His power holds everything together."

This being the case it is a more philosophic inquiry then to account for the reason of evil, sickness, and disease. Since God is involved in "every instance" of change what of the only apparent argument for Atheism? Popular atheists (e.g. Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins) raise this issue frequently in their attacks upon the Christian worldview. Is there suspect morality in God creating changes that lead to cancer cells?

Dr. Herrmann replies:

"There is no such "problem" with evil or what some term as "natural" evil (disease etc.). Humankind originally resided in Pleasantville (Eden). There is a mathematical model that leads to the following interpretation. During day-four via the rapid formation model a very hostile-to-human-life exterior universe was formed. Pleasantville and its local environment still retained physical laws and processes highly different from those of the exterior universe. One purpose for such an exterior universe is to indicate the highly special treatment God accorded humankind as compared with what exists elsewhere. God made humankind in His own image. Hence, He gave humankind the right to make choices. Note that the physical laws and processes of this exterior universe do not depend upon the behavioral choices that human beings make.

Now evil behavior is instituted by a spirit-being, the Adversary. Such behavior is often the opposite of what God considers as correct (i.e. good) behavior. As stated above, there is a mathematically modeled process that allows the Adversary or his associates to influence our thinking. (This also is how the Holy Ghost influences our thinking. A medium for this may be related to the immaterial medium for human thought that Nobelist Sir John Eccles claims exists and can be indirectly verified via experimentation.)

Humankind chose to "listen" more to the Adversary's voice than to God's and they lost their Pleasantville residents. The Bible states that various Pleasantville physical laws no longer applied to their second residents, but they now corresponded to some, but not all, exterior universe physical laws and corresponding processes. In this regard, because of sin, as we are told, evil in the form of the Prince of the world influenced more and more individuals. Indeed, it was only after the first sin of disobedience that physical death, via the changed physical laws, occurs exterior to what was Pleasantville. God started to give human beings what they desired - freedom to choice evil or Him.

Humankind continued to listen to the suggestions of the Adversary or his associates and they chose to follow more of the suggestions. God once more stepped in and completed destroyed not just everything on the land but also the land itself. The remnants of humankind were deposited on a world that is physically controlled by the same laws that govern the physical behavior of the exterior universe. But, the earth that is now our home still has certain remarkable aspects that continue to protect us from the exterior hostile universe. In simple terms, we are now faced with death and all the unpleasant aspects fostered by the present physical laws and corresponding processes since God has given us what we desired. The Prince of the world voice is often much stronger than that of God's. But, we know that there is a way out of this "evil world," a way that will allow us once again to exist in a type of Pleasantville. I need not describe "the Way" since we know what it is.

One final thought on what is classified as evil. The GID model shows explicitly the following: there is a Divine language. (Probably that of the "third heaven.") God is (or has) an infinitely power "mind." A complete description of His power probably cannot be obtained by using the language we are accorded. Further, we can ask questions and they can have answers but these answers may require that His Divine language and His stronger mode of logic be used. Such questions often come about since we do not truly understand what the Greek "to believe" means. The oldest meaning is related to "obey." In this context, an individual's belief in Jesus is directly related to obeying Jesus. It is not related to questions such as "Why should I do such and such?"

Quotes of Note:

‘All attempts to find a way out of the plight of today’s world are fruitless unless we redirect our consciousness, in repentance, to the Creator of all: without this, no exit will be illumined, and we shall seek it in vain.’—Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

"Apparently it was just an amazing coincidence that every Communist of historical note publicly declared his atheism…there have been twenty-eight countries in world history that can be confirmed to have been ruled by regimes with avowed atheists at the helm …These twenty-eight historical regimes have been ruled by eighty-nine atheists, of whom more than half have engaged in democidal acts of the sort committed by Stalin and Mao." -Vox Day

Commenting on Tertullians consternation about the Trinitarian view being a minority in his own times, "It was difficult for them to see in Trinitarian conceptions aught else but an assertion of tritheism." -Williston Walker [A History of the Christian Church, Scribners. pg. 68]

Manifest Faith: James 2:14-26 Part Three

In any journey for meaning in the Scripture, we must apply meaning from the ancient times and theological principles of scripture to the modern times of now. This is no easy task. A river made of ancient culture, language, situation, and time separates us from the text and also hinders our grasping of the actual meaning of the text. As we do this we must seek to understand the plain meaning of James’ letter. He has definite principles and ideals in mind, we should look for them.

As an attempt to cross this river, we develop a principilizing bridge to gain accurate meaning in the texts. Each text is different yet it is our pursuit to find the original meaning as well as the universal theological principles that are still relevant for us, today. As we read our pericope a few questions should emerge. Anytime we, as modern readers, look into the Word of God for guidance we should attempt to read it correctly. Let us look at a few questions from each verse.

(14) Here James begins by asking questions with an assumed answer of no (rhetorical inquiry). This use of rhetorical questions and answers, as mentioned earlier is quite frequent. James also begins with the use of emotion by invoking the phrase "my brothers". Is it possible then that he wants to ensure kinship with them as he broaches a controversial topic? Does the particular "faith" mentioned in this passage relate to one's salvation (Romans 5:1; 6:1)? Does pistis here carry the same import as in Romans 5:1? In the English translations we see that James mentions the word "faith" at least 11 times in this pericope (James 2:14-26). Thus, faith of some sort is primary.

(15) Becoming more specific, James creates a “for example” situation. He makes a practical case by using the example of a "brother or sister" that is destitute. Here he moves from the general to the specific by citing a specific example. Does this mean our generosity should only extend to our fellow believers?

(16) This verse begins with a conditional clause. The use of "if" here predicates a response or action by people. The action then is active. The entire verse is rhetorical and explanatory.

(17) This verse begins with a conjunction, "In the same way." Vs. 16 is enjoined by 17 in that either situation (a brother or sister without food or one with faith) should experience some action on account of saving faith. The content of either verse, then, is contrasted one to the other. Is faith then qualified by good deeds? Are good deeds essential? What if one professes to have genuine faith but never produces positive faith in action? Is that genuine faith?

(18) This verse puts James' argument in a more practical way. "Someone will say" is James’ intuitiveness in knowing that some will say, "I have faith" and yet others will lean upon their deeds alone and say, "I have deeds." James goes on to indicate that the two are actually mutually inclusive. James is actually being sarcastic because it may be impossible to prove the presence of faith apart from deeds because the antithesis to the aforementioned is that "I will show you my faith by what I do." Does our good works spring from our faith?

(19) Again James uses a conversational device by dialoguing with an imaginary person. James possibly answers certain questions by asserting that even the devil believes in the existence of one God. James’s point seems to be that even the devils believe in one God, yet they obviously do not act according to that God, but do tremble—something more than those who simply profess faith. Most Americans profess a faith in God, or a higher power. Likewise, it is probably that many people in the time of James’ letter were vocal in their monotheism but were absent in manifesting the faith. Could it be that James is indicating that faith should naturally be appropriated in some action?

(20) Even more emotion and accusatory is introduced. James rhetorically asks the imaginary person if he wants "evidence that faith without deeds is useless". Interestingly enough, those who still seek this evidence may find themselves amid the prior company--the demons.

(21) Here James begins with more specifics in moving to further prove that, historically, faith accompanies positive obedience. James sees mere profession of faith inadequate if it is not manifested in fruits. Did the righteous deeds of Abraham justify or was it his faith? Is faith contingent upon obedient acts?

(22) James brings greater clarity by telling us that the faith and actions of Abraham worked together and thereby making his faith "complete". Does this mean then that faith can rest in some sense in an incomplete stage?

(23) Here James introduces further data about the Abraham, the OT patriarch of faith. James seems to reach a pinnacle here in declaring that it was actually because "Abraham believed God" that he was justified and became in friendship with God. Does this undo what James has written prior? Or, does this statement lend to qualify the prior?

(24) This verse is a crux interpretum for many in NT theology. Does this statement actually contradict other Pauline discourses? How do we reconcile this seemingly contradictory statement? The imaginary opponent is dropped here and the recipients of James' epistles are invoked by "you see".

(25) Again a conjunction is used to bring continuity or relationship of thought. The conjunction, though, leads us back to rhetoric in the example of Rahab and her positive acts to save her life. Would someone really act if faith was not already active or present? Is works then, given the example of Rahab and Abraham, something that is done BECAUSE of faith or to PROVE faith? James uses many emotional clauses. Is it possible then that James is actually taking aim at a cultural attitude?

(26) The verse is very plain, short and begins by comparison to a body without a spirit. Is it possible then, given the analogy of a body dead without a spirit, that James is addressing a stale orthodoxy that could no longer save? Is the address of James towards a local area or people group that was possibly backsliding?

Rhetorical Inquiry with Case in Point- James 2:14-16

The use of rhetoric enables James to be direct in his approach without offense. He further uses this approach, possibly, by using the phrase “my brothers”. In such a time as James’ this subject would be controversial. If faith, that one supposes to have, does not provide the benefit of salvation then that faith is defective. It profits us nothing to simply say we have faith.

The word for "faith" here is exactly the one used in Romans 5:1 and Ephesians 2:8. It is quite difficult to imagine the faith described in James as something not relating to personal salvation. Faith is the subject of most of the Letter of James, but notice here that he is referencing a person that says, or proclaims to have faith but has not works. Faith is fine, but to declare it without demonstration is incongruent with the thinking of James. James is not speaking of the man who has true faith, rather he aims at those who say that have such a faith.

Herein lays the rub. James takes aim at those who say he believes but whose life does not bear out that profession. OT Jews knew well the command by God to supply the needs of the poor (See Deut 15:7-8). A brother or sister should certainly be given help, but the poor in general were too as well. They knew that to do so was disobedience before God. In verse 16 James uses a Jewish farewell blessing, “Go, I wish you well” (NIV), but may should reflect something like “go in peace.” The mention of being warmed was probably an allusion to the cold that easily developed because of the high elevation of Jerusalem, especially in winter. It is said that “Jewish people held Abraham to be the ultimate example of such hospitality.”

NOTES:

1. Keener, C. S. (1993). The IVP Bible background commentary: New Testament (Jas 2:14). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.

Manifest Faith: James 2:14-26 Part Two

Just before our pericope, in vss. 1-13, we see James proclaiming a warning against favoritism. Those receiving this letter may have played favorites with the middle-upper class, or the rich, while they ignored those possibly like themselves—poor. In the Letter of James, we shall see a call for consistency between the words and deeds of believers. We shall also see that faith in quantity is not the discussion, but it is faith that lives and makes alive.

James vs. Paul?

Furthermore, our pericope is also one of the most controversial in Christendom. Its content manifests the classic theological struggle of whether or not James and Paul contradict or complement each other. As we shall see my view is the latter. Apart from the syntax or theological interpretation, Paul is known for having the fortitude to confront theological error directly and publicly (Galatians 2:11). Because of this, and considering the seriousness of this issue, I feel it plausible that he would have done this with James, if such existed, through rather direct reference. Paul tells us that he met James while in Jerusalem (Galatians 1:9) and that James was, ironically, one of those who extended to him the “right hand of fellowship” (Galatians 2:9).

It seems plausible that some communication of such a matter between Paul and James would have been well known and well written, especially considering the status of James in the Jerusalemic church and early Christianity generally. In this paper I have been careful, as should we all, to mitigate Lutheran presuppositions in my interpretive paradigm. Luther has made considerable influences in popular theology. It is also commonly known that Luther’s view of the Letter of James is highly unfavorable. Some suggest that “Luther rejected James because he knew that it contradicted his theory; and it is amazing that any should hold that this is not the case.” This letter has been divinely placed and preserved in our present canon, I feel we should honor it as inspired and seek to understand its meaning further in harmony with the Pauline writings, rather than begin with the paradigm that it is possibly contradictory.

I feel it is quite certain that Paul understood faith to have expressions beyond positive mental assent; to Him faith worked. It was active. This activity is rooted in love and thereby has its sustaining power in love (See Galatians 5:6). Paul and James, no doubt, have some of their intensity from the very teachings of Christ, who said that if we love Him we will keep His commandments (See John 14:15). The theological rationale of James and Paul, diverge at times, but are comfortably similar. As James does, Paul understands that there is life working in us, something compelling us to some activity (c.f. 2 Corinthians 4:12, Ephesians 3:20).

Written In The Holy Land:

The Letter of James does not let us know of any specifics to his location while writing, but given James’s prominence in the Jerusalem church it is quite plausible that it was written somewhere in the Holy Land around the early or mid 40's. During these times, the Holy Land area was under Roman control. Around 40 B.C., Augustus appointed Herod the Great as king and Jerusalem, of course, was to be his home and place of reign. The history of Roman governors or many Roman leaders generally, is characterized with ruling by power and intimidation, but would yield some flexibility to the religious leaders.

Such accommodations, though, actually resulted in Herod constructing an outstanding temple. Such accommodations also aided the notions of Pilate when he bowed to public pressure (Matt 27:15-26), concerning the crucifixion of Christ. Let it be known however, that the bulk of Jews disdained Roman rule and longed for freedom. The role of the Zealots, civil uprisings and insurrections were common. This type of atmosphere basically continued until a later Emperor—Titus—destroyed the city and the temple in A.D. 70.

Defections From The Faith:

In times of blessing and prosperity defections of the faith exist. Consider, Jerusalem or the Holy Land as being the location of this letter and the times of James and you will begin to see that compromise and defections from the faith were a high probability. Under Roman domination the city and area would be in literal religious turmoil, not only by the profaning presence of pagans with the sacred, but the certain conflict caused by Christianity between Sadducees, Pharisees, and of course a high priest. In such climates, Christians were the minority. Because of the conditions in and around the Holy Land, it is likely that many early Jewish-Messianic believers were tempted to compromise their values and beliefs in order to escape persecution or to improve the economy of their life situation.

The Letter of James is an attempt to make certain theological truths, some elaborately composed by the Apostle Paul later on, to come alive in practical understanding. James, the brother and later follower of Christ, writes earlier (before A.D. 49) than any of the Pauline discourses (1 Thessalonians being earliest; written A.D. 49-54). Carson-Moo-Morris suggest that “if, then, we allow some time for Paul’s teaching of justification by faith to develop and become known, the most likely date for the letter of James is sometime in the early or middle 40’s. "

Letter of James Written Prior to Jerusalem Council and Style:

In fact, this letter, was written before the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 or A.D. 48-50. It would cause one to wonder why Paul would not address any preconceived inconsistency with his understanding of The Faith with that of James. A sincere and inductive focus upon the reciprocity of the two should be sought.

For some time the Letter of James has been recognized as an example of religious paraenesis; ethical instruction rooted in religious values and beliefs. The purpose of this type of writing is to influence, direct, and further ground the actions of the readers with a particular understanding. “The letter of James resembles a letter only in its opening greeting. It has none of the other formal features that are usual in ancient letters, no personal information about the readers addressed, and no farewell message.”

It also sets an imperative tone since there are about sixty imperative verbs in a total of 108 verses. Carson-Moo-Morris suggests that this frequency is actually greater than any other New Testament book. Craig Keener suggests that “James reads more like an essay than a letter, but one kind of ancient letter in which moralists and skilled *rhetoricians engaged was a "letter-essay," a general letter intended more to make an argument than to communicate greetings. Writers like Seneca and Pliny used literary epistles of this sort, which were published and meant to be appreciated by a large body of readers."

Still other styles are suggested such as the Letter of James being an example of New Testament wisdom literature. In this style, James would be a wise teacher instructing his readers in ways of wise living. "His short, rather disconnected maxims resemble the ancient proverbs of Solomon. This feature has led some scholars to suggest that James wrote in the manner in which he taught. They suggest that this epistle is written catechetical (instructional) material.”

As we read The Letter of James a clear distinction between good and evil wisdom is seen (3:13–18). “A person whose life reflects jealousy and selfish ambition has not the true wisdom of God, but is earthly minded and unspiritual. But true, God-given wisdom is “first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, without uncertainty or insincerity” (Jas 3:17).

One possible problem for James being a well-polished apologetic or instructional essay seems to be that James changes topics frequently, and randomly (e.g. 2:1-13, 14-26; 3:1-12). The Letter of James exhibits traditional wisdom, and has many of its sensibilities in Jewish thought rather than Greco-Roman. However, passage after passage lists crucial subtexts that are biblical references, not Greco-Roman—a perspective recently defended in L. T. Johnson’s commentary on James (See L. T. Johnson, The Letter of James (Anchor Bible; New York: Doubleday, 1995).

Dr. James B. Coffman has illustrated the Christocentric nature of The Letter of James. Coffman suggests that “there is no similar portion of the Sacred Scriptures so surcharged with the mind of Christ as is the Epistle of James. This is true to such an extent that the entire epistle exhibits all of the qualities of an inspired commentary upon the red-letter portion of the New Testament, especially upon the Sermon on the Mount.” Coffman also points out more than a few applications of the principles Christ laid down while on His earthly ministry. Christ said, "Blessed are ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of God" (Luke 6:20); James wrote: "Did not God choose them that are poor in this world, rich in faith, to be heirs of the kingdom?" (James 2:5). Christ said, "Every one that asketh receiveth" (Matt 7:8); James wrote, "If any of you lacketh wisdom, let him ask of God ... and it shall be given him" (James 1:5).

It may be wise to consider these similarities as part of James’s theology but we should be careful that we do not make it primary. Ben Witherington suggests that the Letter of James exhibits a more conventional, less prophetic theological conception than found on the lips of the Synoptic Jesus. As we read the Letter of James we can also see many stylistic features in his text. The use of rhetorical questions is quite abundant (2:4, 5, 14, 21; 3:13; 4:1, 5), an imaginary debating partner (2:18-19; 4:13; 5:1), and abrupt changes (4:4). James also employs many metaphors, and figures of speech, e.g. tossing sea 1:6, the bridle (1:26), the brushfire (3:5), and so on.

I favor the advice of Carson-Moo-Morris here, which requests that the Letter of James not be too specific in genre. Yet, it can be seen as a series of homilies put into a letter to address issues with other Christians from afar.

NOTES:

1. As it is well known, our pericope and the book of James as a whole, practically was rejected by Reformation father Martin Luther.
2. Coffman, Burton James, Coffman's Bible Commentary, Copyright © 1971-1993 by ACU Press, Abilene Christian University. All rights reserved.
3. Mare, W. H. New Testament Background Commentary. © 2004 by W.H. Mare. All rights reserved.
4. Carson, D.A. Moo, J. Douglas, et al. An Introduction to the New Testament Copyright © 1992, 2005 by Zondervan Publishers
5. Loh, I., & Hatton, H. (1997). A handbook on the Letter from James. UBS handbook series (1). New York: United Bible Societies.
6. Keener, Craig S. (1993) IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament Published by InterVarsity Press. All rights reserved
7. Packer, J., Tenney, M. C., & White, W. (1997, c1995). Nelson's illustrated manners and customs of the Bible (360). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
8. Elwell, W. A., & Beitzel, B. J. (1988). Baker encyclopedia of the Bible. Map on lining papers. (2152). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House.
9. Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments Copyright © 1997 by InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA®. Electronic Edition STEP Files Copyright © 1998, Parsons Technology, Inc.
10. Witherington, Ben. Jesus the Sage, The Pilgrimage of Wisdom. Pgs.236-247 © 1994 by Ben Witherington. Augsburg Fortress Press.

Manifest Faith: James 2:14-26 Part One

James 2:14-26
Much of our culture has lost its way in thought due to the negative influences of Post-modernism. It has caused some to question the very fundamentals of their faith. Some begin with an open mind but end with it slammed wide open as it is filled with even the most improbable of notions, at the hands of moral relativism. Our culture, no doubt, but the church is also being infected by this reasoning.

The Letter of James was written to impart practical absolute truths to the Christian faith and it is for believers who face the very situations that our culture presents. It can also inform our world that Christianity is about doing and not just talking. James is about truths enforced with divine wisdom for a people at a crossroads in religious thought and Post-Modernism has helped us reach this crossroads—for good or bad. Understanding the whole of this letter will better help us grasp the theological principles of our text under discussion.

This letter is the very wisdom of Christ made plain and practical. As our culture gropes for modernism and relativity we must reach their grasping hands with transforming truth. It is difficult, if not impossible, to make Jesus Christ of the 1st Century relevant to modern peoples of the 20th Century. Jesus is the Incarnation of the person of God, but He also existed as an actual historical man in an actual time and place. We are to demonstrate (as The Body) Jesus to the world so that they can see His eternal relevancy; the need for a Savior; faith in our Lord, be filled with His Holy Spirit that has come with enablement, and identify with our Lord in the waters of baptism. Evangelism must never supersede the need to disciple (See Matthew 28:19, literally “go” or “move” with imp. to “teach”)

Just before a sharp increase in public doubting, brought about by myths—partially revived by Dan Brown and the Da Vinci Code or Simcha Jacobovici-Charles Pellegrino’s The Jesus Family Tomb theory—Dr. Josph Stowell wrote a book entitled The Trouble with Jesus (A Christianity Today’s Gold Medallion Book Award Winner 2003). Chicago Annually holds a Leadership Prayer Breakfast, the first Friday after the week of Thanksgiving. In this book Stowell tells us that attending the Breakfast was the religious thing to do. He admits that he has attended the Breakfast for 15 years (at the time of the book) and that up until a couple years ago the name of Jesus was freely used in prayers and sermons.

Stowell also goes on to say that at the 2003 Prayer Breakfast “new” change was introduced. The name of Jesus was never mentioned in any prayer or sermon. Instead, says Stowell, the emcee opened the service by expressing to the audience that diversity of religion in America now demands a new representation regarding the expression of our faith. The emcee continued to call for a “new wind” of cooperation and tolerance. Such interfaith language only set the tone for the rest of the Breakfast. Before the Breakfast ended a representative of Islam chanted, a Rabbi prayed, a Catholic priest took his turn and then a Protestant minister prayed, both without ever mentioning the name of Jesus. At the end the entire group held hands and prayed together.

Modern culture is replete with this philosophy in almost all areas of human thought, e.g. religion, politics, sociology. The need to herald to a lost and confused world the name of Jesus and its saving, healing, and delivering power should be foremost (c.f. Acts 4:12, Colossians 3:17). The Letter of James as a whole, and certainly the discussion in James 2:14-26 clearly compels believers to make their faith practical, to demonstrate authentic faith.

This faith, demonstrated and visualized, can help to bring certitude and faith to the skeptics and the Gnostics of our time. Intellectual demonstration is limited, but a Christian lifestyle with mercy, love, and justice at work can also aid in informing any person’s doubts. The Inquisition has served to springboard doubt and unbelief because it is the antithesis of Christian works. Guided by the wisdom of Christ, through the pen of his brother James, we can allow our “light” to “so shine before men” so that they may see our good works and glorify our Father in heaven (See Matthew 5:16). We can impact our culture positively with authentic Christianity.

The purpose of this discussion, on James 2:14-26, will be to get to its meaning by first looking at its historical and literary contexts. Secondly we will ask some questions of the text to help us in the interpretative process. Thirdly, we will seek to answer those questions by doing some word studies and syntactical analysis. Finally, we will seek to apply the passage to contemporary audiences.


NOTES:

1. Zodhiates, Spiros. Faith, Love & Hope: An Exposition of the Epistle of James, (1:1) Copyright © 1997, Dr. Spiros Zodhiates

2. Stowell, Joseph M. The Trouble with Jesus © 2003 by Joseph Stowell