Grappling with James

This morning I spent some time studying what must be (God forgive me!) my least favorite passage in the whole of Scripture. And the Scriptures are not and should not be easy reading for a Christian, for one who subject himself to every word and who must maintain that every word is good and true. Still, I beg, terrify me with dire warnings and commands, command me to believe things utterly anathematized by our culture, baffle me with apparent contradictions which I cannot resolve before you ask me about James 2. And yet here I am.

Martin Luther is said to have called James “the most worthless book in the Bible,” and I suspect it must have been because of this passage. One sympathizes. I mean, Paul writes a dozen epistles, including Romans, a lengthy and detailed theological treatise, with the central theme that justification is “by faith apart from the deeds of the law” (Romans 3:28), and then some guy called James (oh, apparently he’s the brother of the Lord?) comes along and seems determined to use his own short letter, his only contribution to the canon, to bring that all down. “You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only” (James 2:24).

That’s how it appears at first glance anyway. Of course, having read II Timothy, I know (and Luther knew) that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God.” So the epistles of Paul and of James are not, ultimately, the works of two men who were unaware of the tension between them or unable to come to an agreement on how to resolve it. They are the words of God for His people, and as such they cannot be contradictory or unnecessary. If what God said through James forces us to significantly revise our understanding of what He said through Paul, then so be it; this would certainly not be worthless.

But many theologians have shown that this is not necessarily the case. Most people have probably heard the argument that this passage is entirely consistent with justification by faith alone, that James is further exploring the kind of faith through which Christ saves us, and that he is using the term “justification” in a different sense than Paul tends to do. I believe that this argument is good, as far as it goes. It occurred to me this morning, though, that it might be possible to do more than just defend the doctrine of entirely unmerited justification from this passage. In fact, I think, these verses provide further evidence of our utter powerlessness to save ourselves and our total dependence on God for our justification. Let me explain.

Following the traditional resolution, I take James to be saying something along these lines: “Yes, we are saved by faith. But not by living faith, not dead faith. Anyone can have a dead, purely intellectual faith – even the demons do! But saving faith, living faith, the kind of faith that Abraham had, always makes itself known by good works.” There is such thing as a dead faith, an intellectual assent to the factuality of God’s claims. But James denies that this kind of “faith” is enough, or else even the demons would be saved. The kind of faith which saves us is fundamentally different – it involves intellectual assent, yes, but it cannot stay parceled off in the mind. It permeates the whole life and being of the believer so that he cannot help producing good works.

So consider what this means for human effort. It is possible to produce an intellectual belief by entirely human means. For example, a while ago I was reading about the “Monty Hall problem.” When I first heard the solution stated, I was highly skeptical, for it certainly sounds quite strange. But after I read some of the arguments presented for it, I recognized their validity and accepted their conclusion. While the claims that the Bible makes about God and about salvation are much more complex, a man could conceivably, following Christian apologetics, become convinced that they are true and assent to them intellectually. Dead faith can be produced by human effort. But can living faith?

Living faith, remember, is characterized by good works. And on the surface, this seems to support the idea that human effort is what is needed. But both Scriptural doctrine and our own experience teach us that good works are the very things which human effort never does produce! We know that man “drinks iniquity like water” (Job 14:16), that “all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6), and that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Paul, even as one who has been saved from slavery to sin, finds that “in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find” (Romans 7:18). We only ever accomplish what is good because of Christ living in us (Galatians 2:20) and the Holy Spirit working in us (Galatians 3:2-3).

It seems, then, that the effect of James 2 is to throw out a sense of “justification by faith” which means salvation by our own efforts. There is a certain kind of “faith” which men can achieve on their own, but this is the dead faith which James rejects. What we need is living faith, and living faith can only be achieved by God working in us. It is faith “not of yourselves, it is the gift of God” (Ephesians 2:8). This passage, far from contradicting the gospel theme of totally unmerited salvation, drives it home by demonstrating just how far out of our reach saving faith is.

Praise God who resists the proud but gives grace to the humble!

Nothing New Under the Sun

    Truly, "there is nothing new under the sun." We moderns, right or wrong, are incredibly arrogant. Material determinists proclaim triumphantly that they have finally discovered the argument that will put Christianity in its grave: "Surely, now that we have dispensed with that irrational concept of free will, everyone must see that there is no such thing as sin!" And in response, we scurry around desperately to come up with arguments against this new attack. When we have finally shown it to be empty and self-defeating, we sigh, "Now that was an accomplishment – we dealt with an issue that no Christians have had to fight before!"

    If only we read our Augustine. "Astrologers try to destroy this entire saving doctrine when they say: 'The reason for your sinning is determined by the heaven,' and 'Venus or Saturn or Mars was responsible for this act.' They make a man not in the least responsible for his faults, but mere flesh and blood and putrid pride…" (Confessions, IV, iii). This is no new attack at all, only a new spin on an ancient lie. Modern philosophers and scientists are far too sophisticated to believe that the planets control our actions. Instead, it's psychology, evolutionary instinct, or (go as low-level as you like) chemical interactions within our brain. But the goal is the same – to undermine Christianity by reasoning away sin, by shuffling the responsibility off onto nature.

    In fact, at its very core the argument is far older than that. The first human to try to fend off God's claims on him by passing off the blame for his sin was… well, the first human. "The woman whom You gave to be with me…" Adam attempted to put all responsibility for his sin onto Eve and onto God. Did God reply with a long, detailed, merciless treatise proving that Adam
was, in fact, guilty? He knows He could have. But He didn't bother, because it wasn't necessary. Adam knew perfectly well that he was guilty – imagine how heavily one's conscience must weigh after committing the very first sin in human history!

    The situation of the modern determinist is fundamentally the same. He knows very well that he is guilty of sin – God wisely made us so that we can never entirely forget that fact. His goal is not to prove his innocence, but merely to confuse and distract us, himself, and ultimately God with his excuse. Don't be fooled; don't waste time swatting down such a worthless excuse. Not the most brilliant argument in the world can change the mind of a man who, deep inside, already knows the truth. The only answer to sin which can give any solace is the one that God gives: "whosoever believes on Him shall not perish but shall have everlasting life."

Some Capital Resources

I found this very well done series of columns on capital punishment through Townhall.com. I don't agree with everything he says - I think that capital punishment provides a stronger deterrent than he gives it credit for, and I dislike his statement that he would consider arguing against the death penalty if he thought it would make him look more consistent with his pro-life stance on abortion - but in general, it seems a very solid and well thought through set of articles. It's in several parts, so I've listed links to all of them here for your reading convenience:

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3
• Part 4
• Part 5
• Part 6

Because he very wisely wants to keep his series focused, he spends very little time dealing with the validity of retributive punishment. But that's an important issue, since the general attitude of our society is that retribution should be excluded from the reasons to punish. For an utterly fantastic defense of retributive punishment, see C.S. Lewis's article on "The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment."

Two Sonnets on Theodicy

I wrote these sonnets last year for Literature class. We were reading Moby Dick, and the poems were supposed to cover the reactions of Ahab and Melville/Ishmael to the suffering that they experienced and witnessed. I stumbled across them on the computer today and reread them, and I think they're worth posting, because they stand pretty well alone, without any knowledge of Moby Dick.

The first one is the musings of Ahab, or anyone who is driven to reject God because of the evil in the world:

My God! My God! Forsaken, here am I;
No man can cure the ailments of my soul;
Does heaven also leave me here to die?
Can neither spirit nor my flesh be whole?
God, you are good, or so they say – then why
Does evil dog me so – is’t your desire?
All-powerful God, if naught escapes your eye
Then why am I left bare to this world’s ire?

If there’s a God, why should he rule my pride?
Or weak or spiteful – neither earns esteem
I must strike out – must sail against the tide
That bears me to and fro as God doth deem.
God, I reject thee; govern Me no more.
I turn My face and soul from heaven’s shore.

This one's the response - the proper way to view things:

This world seems no fit place for mortal men
What have we done to earn our agonies?
Beyond all doubt, it seems, much pain has been
Quite undeserved. Can God be hurt by these
Whom He created? Surely ‘tis not so,
Is God, then, not almighty, as say some?
Then what is God? Or can He wish us woe?
A demon then, not God, He would become.

But hold – the answer’s clear as break of day,
For life is good; each breath of air we draw
Is undeserved. If grief’s unearned, I say
That joys are far less ours by any law.
God’s seeming spite but serves to make us see
The mercies He pours out so liberally.

Our State Religion

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." These are the famous first words of the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America – the first amendment in the Bill of Rights. I expect that if you asked most Americans how they felt about this amendment, they would probably tell you that it was very important, and that fortunately we seemed to be doing a good job of following it so far. They would be half right – the freedom of religion is one of the ideas that have always been central to this country. Unfortunately, over the past few decades, this law has gradually been infringed upon. Today, we live in a nation with a firmly established state religion.

Our government asserts the truth claims of this religion against all others. Many of our laws have their foundation in its dogma. Its adherents submit our children to constant indoctrination in the public schools. Yet most Americans are completely blind to this colossal violation of our civil rights. How can this be? It is because this religion has refused to accept the label "religion," and because for some reason, we accepted that. This is as if the government circumvented the Third Amendment by claiming that the military personnel it was forcing citizens to house were not actually "soldiers." It is an absurd bit of verbal and ideological trickery, and it does nothing to change the fact of the matter – the First Amendment has been trampled into the dust.

So what is this religion that has so insidiously established itself in authority over all others? Perhaps you have already guessed – it is naturalism, specifically Darwinism. It has become the state religion by claiming that it is not a religion at all, but a science – science itself, as a matter of fact. This disguise is so thin, so flimsy, that it is astounding that so few seem to see through it. Naturalism claims to be an established fact – science has proved that nothing supernatural can exist. This is a bizarre line of reasoning. How in the world could science ever prove such a thing? Science only studies the natural world, and thus cannot say anything whatsoever about the supernatural. It is as if I were to claim that the stars do not exist, and to offer as evidence my careful study of the ground. Naturalism, at least, cannot be proved by science – it, like any religion, is based on faith in a few broad assumptions about the world.

"Still," the naturalists say, "Darwinism, at the very least, is not based on faith. There we have good, solid science on our side." It is irrelevant to my current topic to discuss whether Darwinian evolution is a viable model of the world. It is more relevant to prove that it requires as much faith as any other creation account. It's commonplace to say that there are astronomical odds against life, specifically intelligent life, ever evolving by chance. For obvious reasons, it is hard to know exactly how astronomical those odds are, but it is clear that it was extremely unlikely. And the most favorable estimates make the phrase "extremely unlikely" sound about as appropriate as the phrase "a good step" would be for the distance from earth to Alpha Centauri. Does this, by itself, mean that Darwinists are illogical? Not necessarily – it just means that Darwinism, like all other religions, has to deal with topics that science can't address, so it relies on faith.

Now let's look at the signs that naturalism is indeed the state religion. Consider our laws about abortion. It is hardly surprising that naturalism has led to the mass murder of innocent children. If there really exists nothing that science cannot explore, if humans are truly no different from the other animals, and if animals are ultimately no different from the next clump of atoms and molecules, why should we "respect human life?" Why does it matter whether one clump of atoms causes another one to dissipate and join other clumps? And don't argue that it is only legal to kill unborn infants since they are not actually human – aren't old people that we euthanize human? Wasn't Terri Schiavo? Naturalism is, unsurprisingly, destroying our respect for human life.

Then there is our schooling – all of our education is based on the principles of naturalism. The government practically forces us to teach Darwinism to our children and won't even allow public schools to teach other religions in any sympathetic way. Remember that it is irrelevant whether naturalism is true – the governmental establishment of any religion is unconstitutional. In fact, it is illegal for teachers to lead their students in prayer in school, since prayer is incompatible with the state religion, though it is legal for teachers to ridicule other religions during class time.

It is deeply ironic the way in which the First Amendment has been used to support the establishment of our state religion. Those who believe in naturalism tore the amendment to shreds and then used those shreds to kindle the support of their followers. Have not all of these grievances been done under that magical phrase, "Separation of church and state?" Another irony is the fact that the vast majority of people in this country, even the majority of people in government, are not naturalists themselves. Somehow this religion, though it is completely hostile to every other religion, convinced us that it was neutral ground that could be agreed upon by all.

I love America. I believe it is the greatest and most free country in the world, where the majority of people, including most in government, still believe in freedom of religion. But we have allowed ourselves to be easily deceived by proponents of naturalism who claimed that they were not religious. We must open our eyes and repeal the laws which oppress those of other religions. We must act so that America can remain free for another two hundred years.

Elections 08

When I first heard of him, my first thought was something like this: "Okay, this may be really unfair, because he might be an excellent candidate, but do I really want someone with a name like 'Huckabee' to be the President of the United States of America?" That was a few months ago. Now, I don't care whether his name is Huckabee, Schwarzenegger, or Tikki tikki tembo-no sa rembo-chari bari ruchi-pip peri pembo - I want this man to be our next president!

A word on how I was introduced to Mr. Huckabee. (Aside: For some reason, it I feel called to use the title "Mr." when speaking of Mike Huckabee, in a way that I don't with other candidates. I freely talk of "Mitt Romney" or just "Romney," "Hillary Clinton," and "Barack Obama." Here's why I think that is: I usually use the title when speaking of adults, but not of celebrities that I know only impersonally. Maybe I feel like I know Mr. Huckabee. End aside.) A few months ago, I was reading an editorial in WORLD Magazine where the author brought up Huckabee's name. At that time, he was not extremely well known. Well, I can't say whether that's entirely true - what I do know is that I had never heard of him. The author had some very positive things to say about Mr. Huckabee, and it sparked my interest in him.

Now, a few short months later, he is in a very different position, both in the public eye and in my personal view of him. He is no longer some obscure Republican candidate - he is the clear winner of the Iowa caucuses, and a serious contender for the Republican nomination. And in my view, he has gone from someone to consider, a candidate who has most of the qualifications except electability, to a good man and the best presidential candidate I've ever come across (which admittedly is not saying much since this will be my first time voting!). What follows are my reasons for supporting Mike Huckabee.

I am a conservative - you might call me an extreme conservative, if it didn't bother you too much to use oxymorons. I'm all for free trade, low taxes, limited government, the works. But absolute political conservatism is not my number one priority in looking for our nation's next leader. If it was, I would probably be pulling for Ron Paul, with whom I agree on most issues with the (not un-important) exception of the war. But like I said, it is not my highest requirement that a candidate openly support all of the positions I take. For one thing, such a candidate would probably never be elected in our left-leaning nation. I do not necessarily agree with every position Mr. Huckabee takes. There are many that I whole-heartedly stand behind: his immigration ideas, for instance, as well as his stand on abortion and homosexuality. But there are a couple that strike me as less than perfect - while his proposed tax reform addresses some of the issues, it's still a just bit more... socialist than I would like to see. But like I said, his politics, while very important and generally encouraging, are not what win me over to him.

Another of Mr. Huckabee's positive traits is his winning, down-to-earth, straightforward attitude. He is certainly one of the more charismatic candidates out there, and he seems like the sort of guy that you would like to meet and become friends with even if he wasn't running for President - even if no one else had ever heard of him. Almost everyone that talks about him talks about his ability to identify with the "average American" - his proof that the presidential election does not have to be elitist. If he were elected, or even came close, it would certainly go a long way toward restoring my faith in our political system. A system where only millionaires can come to power is clearly flawed, and Mr. Huckabee's success seems to indicate that this is not always the case. Still, this could be said of other presidents in our past (a man who is NOT my namesake comes to mind) who I would be less than likely to vote for again, so his "common man" status and his charisma are not his most important attributes either, to my mind.

In the end, I'm going to say what all the militant atheists, all the self-appointed Keepers of the Religious Neutrality of the Government, all those who cross themselves and utter the protective spell "Separation of Church and State" whenever a Christian runs for office, what all these claimed I was going to say. I will vote for Mr. Huckabee, not because I absolutely agree with all his politics, not because he is a talented and genuine speaker, but because he is a shining example of a Christian in government. With regards to his faith, I can literally not see a single area in which Mr. Huckabee has gone wrong. He walks a fine line - it would be both wrong and foolish to try to hide or downplay his faith, but if he overplays it, he risks incurring the wrath of those who would suppress Christianity in the name of tolerance. From what I have seen, he has stayed on this line with skill that would put a tightrope walker to shame. This is already an overlong post, else I would cite some examples of the masterful way he has spoken of his faith. I encourage anyone who reads this to read the relevant information on his website and to watch videos of him in action, which can be found in plenty on YouTube.

Well, there are my two cents on Mr. Huckabee. I'll be honest - I would love it if I have convinced you to support him. Despite his victory in Iowa, he is going to need every last vote he can get if he wants to beat better financed opponents like Mitt Romney, and perhaps more than that to defeat the Democratic candidate if he wins the nomination. But even if I haven't, I hope I've got you thinking about these issues, and I hope that you will make a more-informed choice because of it. To end this gargantuan post, I have just three words: I like Mike!

Who is blind?

It's noisy here, in the HUB, at lunchtime. But I'm in a relatively quiet corner, and so individual conversations stand out against the general hubbub in the background. One in particular. Is it just because the guy is speaking particularly loudly? Or partly because the topic is one that interests me - that keeps grabbing my attention, even though I'm not trying to eavesdrop?

I can't tell for sure, but it sounds like a couple of atheist guys are trying to convince their Christian friend (a girl) that the Bible couldn't possibly be the word of God. It's hard to sit idly by - what can she do when she is outnumbered so heavily, and out-volumed even more? I don't know if she knows how to answer the stupid arguments they are raising; certainly, she does not do so, except in a dogmatic, meek, "this-is-just-what-I-think" way.

Obviously, it would be rude to butt in on the conversation, but it's so hard to resist when the guy says stuff like "You do know that the Romans edited the Bible the way that they thought the common people should read it, right?" and "There are two versions of the Bible, the Catholic version and the Protestant, and both have been constantly changed throughout history." Honestly, if you want to make a historical argument, learn a little about history. Is faith blind, or are those who seek to destroy it?

I guess I'll just pray for her - pray that she believes more strongly than she's letting on (what would I do in her position?), pray that her faith is not shaken, pray that she's instrumental in opening the eyes of these guys. "Just pray for her," did I say? I am asking the God of all Creation to bring about a result that is not even outside of His ordinary providence, and He tells us that the faithful prayer of a righteous man avails much. Have a little faith yourself, Carter. I guess I'll pray for her.