Luther fan that I am, I have a huge soft-spot in my heart for the whole idea of the NT promoting Christ. You know, the whole life death and resurrection of Jesus thing? I tend to think that stuff is pretty important in defining Christianity and setting the trajectories for faithful Christian action. The idea that Christianity is inherently “cruciform,” in both message and life, is something I have tremendous sympathy for.
This has me wondering: how should we teach or preach James in an ecclesiastical context?
As is well known, the book is almost entirely devoid of overt references to Jesus (it contains two clear ones). Folks have often pointed out that the book seems to echo a tremendous amount of Jesus’ teaching, especially from the Sermon on the Mount.
But the huge difference between the Sermon and James is that the Sermon is ultimately about Jesus and Jesus’ authority as God’s messenger. In James, this is nowhere to be found.
So here’s the question: Should we Christianize James when we teach it in settings of Christian instruction and/or worship? That is, should we intentionally provide additional frames of reference that the book itself does not have so that it becomes a clear participant in the Christian story rather than book of more or less generic “wisdom” and “instruction”?
For me, I would definitely do this if teaching on the Old Testament in such a venue. I’m curious what other people think about Christ-izing part of the New?
I think you are asking the wrong question.
Should I be asking, “Should we be teaching James” rather than “How should we be teaching James”? Gosh, pduggie, I thought you were more of a canon guy than that…
But unlike the OT, don’t you think we can presume that for the writer of James, there is some sort of belief in Jesus as God’s Messiah, or God’s agent, or whatever, that lies behind what he says? If this is the case, then can’t we presume this in our instruction/proclamation/ministry? So we are not “Christ-izing” James in the same way that some do with the OT.
Sure. But apparently the assumption hasn’t worked through the material very well. So how categorically different is it from an OT person who hasn’t seen it clearly? If we have to bring Christ more to bear on the text in order to faithfully proclaim it as Christians, I’d say we’re “Christian-izing” it in the same way, but perhaps to a slightly lesser degree.
But the real question, Kyle, isn’t what we’d call this sharpening of focus / reframing around Christ, but whether you think we should do it.
Wouldn’t you agree that we have to do all sorts of “izing” of New Testament writings simply because the writers assume a lot of things that we don’t see/assume/know about? In your discussion about Christology isn’t there some “Jewish background-izing” that goes on to understand what Mark (or Paul or John) is saying about Jesus? And this is perfectly legitimate (I think) because we are explaining what the writers assume in their claims or exhortations. So, yes, I think we should do it if it is necessary to understand a writer/writing. Is there any reason to assume that Jesus lies behind what James says?
The important question in my mind is what sort of understanding of Jesus James assumes.
What?! You think James’ understanding of Jesus is more important than mine?!
Sorry, I missed the part where you made a case that James needs “Christianizing.”
I have a general case against supposing that texts have meaning as an intrinsic property, but let’s set that topic aside for a moment. If I wrote a letter urging that my sisters and brothers not (let’s say) pledge allegiance to the flag of the USA because they owe their allegiance to a different, heavenly Lord; if I urge them not to succumb to temptations to acts of violence and loaning money at interest; and if I do all that without saying “Jesus” or “Christ” very often — does that mean my letter isn’t Christian enough?
I’m not worried about how often you say Jesus but rather what the basis for the argument is. In general, I prefer exhortation that urges people to faithfully participate in and continue the narrative of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. It’s perfectly possible to give generic advice about not lending at interest, such an exhortation that is distinctly Jewish, one that is distinctly Muslim, one that is distinctly Christian. In general, I find it best to consciously encourage people to act Christianly and for Christian reasons.
E.g.: Love? Yes. But what is love? John seems to think it is revealed in the self-giving love of Jesus. The gospel story gives love a specific definition, origination, shape, quality, etc.
While I was in seminary I undertook attempting to defend James as something other than a collection of New Testament “Proverbs.” If they are NT proverbs these aren’t moral imperatives but more applicable in certain situations but not all (like we do with OT Proverbs). Being an anabaptist I wanted them to less proverb-ish and more commands (similar to the sermon on the mount). I don’t I think i convinced anyone of my position.
But if I were to preach James I would always pair James with reflection from the life of Christ. So for preaching I would use James to show how any section of it was disclosing of the nature of Jesus. So as Jesus perfectly models the psalms for us (or proverbs) he also perfectly models James. I am guessing the the problem here is that James is written after the life of Christ so it becomes a chicken before the egg thing, but oh well.
I’m not convinced that this “problem” with James is all that different than other NT texts. If someone for some reason decided to be only interested in chapters 12 and 13 of Romans (interesting chapters, to be sure), said person would encounter no direct reference to Jesus among the various ethical teachings. Of course this would be immediately remedied simply by extending the reading to chapter 14, but who wants to read THAT much at once
I think you’ve hit on something I’ve found to be a consistent issue in speaking about the NT: how much time is appropriate to spend on contextual issues. I suppose that really has to depend on one’s own context. How much time do you have to teach on the text? What do your companions already understand? What sorts of points within the text do you wish to highlight and how important is it to discuss context for each of them? etc.
In our home Bible study I suppose it is appropriate to mention that we often found ourselves referring to James as we worked through Matthew and Luke in the past year. We used James, in some ways, as part of the context for discussing how the church understood Jesus’ teachings.
I think, if I may respectfully challenge you, that your premise might be flawed JRDK — Does James not say in the beginning of his epistle that he is a servant of God and Lord Jesus Christ?! In this way, his confession is set and secure. Now, the following body of the epistle may not be like that of Paul, but that is because James has a different audience in mind, therefore his style or rhetoric needs to adapt. Christ used parabolic meaning when he utilized kingdom language, and James is putting himself in this same vein.
I think AKMA got at the real problem; James really needs to be contextually read; not relying on a consistently internal logic of meaning. James’ audience was largely bent around Jewish culture and belief, therefore, his rhetoric isn’t going to be overtly majestic or proclamatory like that of Paul’s to the Gentile.
I think James is a profound testament of how Christians can, indeed should, interact with people of other belief-systems. There is a reason Jesus’ style of speech used parables so much, that is, because they are parabolic and slant to their surface meaning.
He wasn’t trying to confuse people with parabolic speech [cue the cricket's and dumbfounded looks]. Only, we are humans that like indirection and slant meaning; that is why we like story and poetry; that is why the biblical sweep is largely narrative-based.
I’m not accusing James of not being a Christian, but wondering aloud if it’s sufficiently Christian in its thought processes / theological reasoning.
I’m not asking that James’ rhetoric be “majestic or proclamatory” (where did I say that?) but that the reasons for obedience be tied to the narrative of Christ, not merely “God” or “good ideas”.
I don’t know exactly what you mean about how Christians interact with people of other belief systems? Who would that be?
In all, I’m really not sure how your comment addresses what I’m asking or suggesting. Perhaps some clarification for me?
I don’t really have much to add at this point. but just wanted to say I love this discussion. thanks.
I am sorry if I did not clarify well enough! — Let me put it like this..
I guess, primarily, I take issue with your claim about James’ coverage of the sermon on the mount; that being, in this account Christ’s authority is “nowhere to be found.” (And starting with the whole Luther bit got me going too! — Luther, as I am sure you know, wanted to disband James from the canon.)
Now, I think I know what you are saying: if somebody that is not completely familiar with the New Testament account were to pick up and read James, then they would be at a loss concerning the narrative and theology behind Christianity. However, the content of James — and the sermon on the mount especially — is a kind of poetical, wisdom-like reflection which emphatically upholds Christ’s authority (and would have appealed to a Christian Jewish community that is already steeped in the story of Christ)
To say that Christ’s authority is not found anywhere in this section misses the echo or resonating effect of James’ depiction, which was the purpose.
I understand, though, that you are interested in trying to bracket this account for teaching purposes, that is just fine. But James’ reflections are an account that is, if not theologically bent, consonant with that greatest commandment of all, which was testified by Christ…right? And that is a good filler for theology, I think. In this way, I radically disagree with Luther, as I do not see the epistle at all harmful to the defense of the faith.
Does that make sense?
P.S. the bit about inter-religious dialogue I think works because James uses Christlike wisdom that resonates with other religions, like that of Judaism or Islam or whatever, without busting out the proselytizing stick and bashing them over the head with it. The trope of indirection works well.
I think I’m tracking with you a bit more, Dm. I suppose that in response I’m thinking something like, “We should articulate that resonance because most of our people won’t hear it.” Specifically, that James is saying what he’s saying not because he’s a wise Jew but because he agrees with the point of the Sermon that we have to listen to, and follow, Jesus.