To the modern ear, the phrase “religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless” sounds almost oxymoronic, a self-contradictory idea. Many prefer spiritual to religious, religion having less than a stellar reputation in the public square. What is James up to?
On some level, we should not be surprised that James throws such an idea at his readers. Already, we have heard him (right off the bat, in the second verse of his letter) speak of the counter-intuitive notion of considering “it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds.” And later, he refers in verse 25 to “the perfect law that gives freedom.” Joy and trials? Law and freedom? These, at first glance, appear to be polar opposites.
Regarding religion, the problem is what James intends to convey is radically different from what is meant by religion by most people in the West today. In working through this issue, I have found two books to be helpful in this matter. One was written back in the 1960’s: The Meaning and End of Religion by Wilfred Cantwell Smith. The other came out last year (2009): The Myth of Religious Violence: Secular Ideology and the Roots of Modern Conflict by William T. Cavanaugh. (Cavanaugh was interviewed by Ken Myers on Volume 101 of the Mars Hill Audio Journal.) The second chapter of Cavanaugh’s work is entitled “The Invention of Religion.” It is both enlightening and helpful. He contends that outside of the modern West, there is no significant concept equivalent to what we think of as religion. (61) Smith points out that religion as a discrete category of human activity separable from culture, politics and other areas of life is an invention of the modern West. Cavanaugh adds that “religion is identified with an essentially interior, private impulse.” (69)
Yet, what does James say about “religion that the Father accepts as pure and faultless”? Or what indicates that one’s religion is worthless? James points to externals not interior or private impulses. He writes:
26If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. 27Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
The Sunday that I preached on this passage, there was an op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times by William Lobdell, who used to write for their religion section. He is the author of Losing My Religion: How I Lost My Faith Reporting on Religion in America — and Found Unexpected Peace.” The op-ed piece was entitled: The Anne Rice defection: It’s the tip of the religious iceberg. He wrote:
How to explain the Grand Canyon-sized gap between principles outlined in the Gospels and the behavior of believers? Christians typically, and rather lamely, respond that shortcomings of the followers of Jesus are simply evidence of man’s inherent sinfulness.
But if one adheres to the principle of Occam’s razor — that the simplest explanation is the most likely — there is another, more unsettling conclusion: that many people who call themselves Christian don’t really believe, deep down, in the tenets of their faith. In other words, their actions reveal their true beliefs
Sadly, I must say that he is right.
I do live by the church;
for I do live at my house,
and my house doth stand by the church.
Feste the Clown
Twelfth Night
Act III Scene 1