Loin Girders

Monday, June 20, 2005

James and Jude, evidence for Jesus' manner and strength?

Angevoix posted this recently:

Dear Brother Morpheus...I'm rethinking your blog on Jesus clearing the temple. This morning I was thinking about the book of Jude. And then it just dawned on me...Jude and James were both brothers of Christ, correct? And in the epistles written by these two brothes, they don't pull any punches. Nothing is sugar coated...in fact, they could be described as down right rough sometimes.This being the case, what conclusions could we draw about the personality/character of Christ from reading the epistles written by His two brothers?

So, let's have a little interaction on the gentle girly-boy Jesus versus his rough and tumble brothers, please. I'm re-reading both James and Jude. Hope you do the same.

12 Comments:

At 7:02 AM, June 21, 2005, Dan Trabue said…

And in re-reading James, you'll see more clearly than perhaps in any other passages, the economic nature of and the peaceable nature of God's kingdom.

It is what it is.
At 8:38 AM, June 21, 2005, Anonymous said…

That is, of course, the exercise. I re-read both James and Jude this AM. They are sold out to Christ, but I'm not sure they are the squishy kind of men that you might want them to be, Danny. As you may know, an early church historian called James "camel knees". James' prayers were so unceasing that they caused his knees to callous up and look like camel knees. I will have to deal with all your issues on peace and justice and love...once again. Since God seems to lead me back to these questions again and again, I'm trying to pay more and more attention. Pray that the Holy Spirit guides me away from easy acquiesence to worldly interpretations, but that I stay open to what He is trying to tell me...even if it is to become, forgive me, "squishy".
At 8:56 AM, June 21, 2005, Unknown said…

I sit here reading your post and looking at your photo and thinking "squishy" may be the wrong word. This post was stimulated by my diatribe on Christ's manliness and the righteousness of God. It has been well documented that men have left the church in droves. I think it has a lot to do with issues of courage and valor and masculine virtue. Included in these is the hard edge of accountability. If we are not accountable, we are weak. James wants us to be strong in works, as a demonstration of the real fruit of our faith. I don't see many Marxist influences in James, I have to admit. Marx thought it was all about economic forces. I think James figured out that it was all about Christocentric living, resulting in us doing the good deeds for which God created us.

But look a minute at accountability. The cconomic forces arguments are an out. They let us off the hook. When the folks are victims of titanic struggles between capitalists and the proels, there is nothing but condemnation of the rich and pity for the poor. Men run away from this, ultimately. If you want men in the church, we need to regularly raise, not lower, the bar. The rich should be generous with what God has given them and should be held accountable for what they are doing that shows the hope of glory. The poor, and homeless, should be held accountable in the same way. Bad behavior will not be forgiven because it is done in the name of "the man is holdin' me down".

So, I guess the reason "squishy" came to mind is my vision of the church weeping for the poor instead of really helping them. As Bill Cote would say, letting the men slip the chains of accountability by allowing them excuses that they have been victimized by anyone but their own sin is a trap. It teaches them to resent others, not love others, so they leave the church when the free stuff dries up. And, the resented leave the church, too. Demonized for their wealth, rather than encouraged to do good works, they become pagans. In both cases the church is weakened. It becomes,...well squishy.

I like "squishy". It communicates.
At 10:53 AM, June 21, 2005, Dan Trabue said…

I, like you, am distressed by squishy Christianity. But it seems for different reasons. I find Jesus' meekness anything but squishy or soft.

Facing down those in power with love and fierce humility is no wimpy thing. Calling on our brothers and sisters to abandon everything and follow Jesus is no slight wisp of the wind.

I'm not advocating marxism. I am saying that the Bible talks endlessly about where our treasure lies. Follow the money and you will find the evil, seems to be a constant call, a constant warning.

Jesus loved the rich young ruler but did not make it easy for him to follow Jesus. He told him to give it all up. No wishy washy Jesus, there.

As to your concerns about men leaving the church because of your idea of squishy-ness, that may be true. But is it not possible that we've been sold a false ideal of manhood. Doesn't Jesus represent the ultimate in humanity? Should we not follow in his steps even when that leads to persecution, jail, death? That's no squishy road, it seems to me.
At 9:37 AM, June 22, 2005, Anonymous said…

I think there was not much meekness in Jesus interactions with the Sanhedrin, unless you can call people "hypocrites", a "brood of vipers" and "blind guides" with humility. His assertion that "before Abraham was I am" wasn't too meek either. His accusation that Satan was their father was also a little testy. Am I misreading Him?

I looked at Jude and James. Both encourage us to take someone out of sin. Jude:
22Be merciful to those who doubt; 23snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.

I'll deal with James in another post, but Jude is making a point I have been alluding to. Men can delude themselves into thinking that they are not in sin, not off the true path, not lost, not deluded, not morally corrupt, not disgusting to God. Jesus said to Peter, "get behind me, Satan". His intention was to shock Peter into seeing his error. When we snatch someone from the fire, the first problem we are faced with is that they may not even know they are standing in the fire or getting burned. So, the "tough love" of jarring them out of their tolerance for sin is a good starting place. We have to deliver this swift kick with love, not from superiority. In fact, we can see it because we were there ourselves. If there believe that there is no sin from which we need to rescue each other, then we will all burn together. Is sin something that only the rich do? Is it restricted to class?
At 12:34 PM, June 22, 2005, Dan Trabue said…

Brother Kevin,

I don't know that we're disagreeing all that much.

If I'm not mistaken, you're saying that Jesus is not this milquetoast God that he's often been made out to be, so am I.

You're saying that Jesus' call to righteousness could be defined as tough love, so am I.

We both know that sin is common to us all, rich and poor. We're not disagreeing on any of that, I believe.

Where I think we're bristling is that I keep pointing out all the scriptures where Jesus and God reserve their strongest blasts of condemnation for the religious, the wealthy and the powerful.

I think this common thread found throughout the Bible is significant and indicates a special warning for those who fall in those categories (religious, wealthy, powerful). It's not an abrogation of the sin of those not in these categories - just a more powerful warning because "to those who have received much, much will be expected."

So, I don't know that we disagree at all. It may be more a matter of my wording and/or emphases. Or perhaps you don't find this repeated pattern in the Bible as I do, or you just don't find it significant. In which case we do disagree on that point.
At 5:36 PM, June 23, 2005, voixd'ange said…

I'm still mulling this one over. I know that I believe what Jesus was feeling at the Clearing of the temple is what I would classify as righteous indignation. I guess what makes me hesitate is that it is such a fine line between firmness and harshness, and honestly, throughout my years in church I've met very few people who had the wisdom and maturity to understand the difference. There is a big difference between righteous indignation that rises out of the Spirit and soulish anger.
At 6:50 AM, June 24, 2005, Dan Trabue said…

Are comments on the book of James forthcoming from any?
At 5:43 PM, June 24, 2005, voixd'ange said…

I tried to post earlier but it didn't take for some reason. My prior post actually was in reference to James and Jude and their no nonsense approach to delivering correction. But James also tells us to be pure, peace loving, gentle and easy to be entreated...So it seems to be a very tenuous balance to me...one very few of us seem to get right.
At 7:37 AM, June 25, 2005, Anonymous said…

There are two things we should discuss with James. The first is who he is talking to and the second is what he is saying. Angevoix is correct in seeing a non-compromising James and a sweet James in the scripture. Let's look.

My first insight is that nearly everyone I know talks to themselves through others, at least partly, but often entirely. James is doing some of this. How could he be so certain of his statements if they were not based on experience. We are told that James came late to understand that his step Brother was God. Places in the scripture indicate filial disagreement and disapproval of Jesus' ministry in his family. James just might be alluding to this dynamic when he talks of being slow to anger, when he mentions the power of the tongue to do evil, when he cautions us to act rather than mouth off. The physician is healing himself, me thinks. Elsewise, what's the deal with the callouses on the knees. James is fighting an old enemy, the one that lashed out at Jesus, his own tongue. In doing so he reminds us mightily of our own responsibility to "hold" our tongue so that we don't injure our brother.

James' criticism of the wealthy is not criticism of wealth, and neither was Jesus'. When Jesus asked the young man to walk away from his wealth, he was testing him...and the young man failed. Jesus' point is spot on, and so is James. Wealth blinds. Without proper understanding that it is from God to do his work, it takes the "owner" to hell, fully sold out to the world and its ruler.

I believe James and Jesus are being critical of the powerful and their corruption. Wealth is usually accompanied by power, and is substituted for God. I think so because James gives lots of credit to Abraham, by all accounts a man of great wealth. He also lauds the wealthy, reminding them that their wealth gives them the opportunity to express humility, just as a poor man can express the richness of his position with respect to honoring and valuing things of the spirit. He is turning things upside down for a purpose. The wealthy at the time, had received their wealth from their actions to establish and maintain the status quo, guarding the power of the Scribes and the Pharisees, whose power sheltered their own and maintained their wealth.

It is the same in our time. More should be made of the net worths of members of the Senate, whose real residence is Washington, far far away from the lives and the concerns of their constituents. The issues that move them are those that protect their power and their wealth.

James shows us that you can see their hypocrisy by looking at their actions, not their claims of righteousness. He is correct. If they were really doing the work of God, why would their actions not express it fully. Is James speaking about wealth, or is he indicting the selection of worldliness over the concerns of God for his children and the true kingdom of righteousness.

James and Jesus indicted the people for living life upside down, honoring the wealthy, the world, and the sources of worldly power.

Now, James is using his tongue (the pen) to attack the injustice of the status quo and its spiritual bankruptcy? And, I'm sure he was there when his brother, Our Lord, was making the same charges with anger and acrimony. But is James criticising Jesus? No. His words resonate(?if that is a word?) with those of his brother. He is attacking the same injustice. If he were talking to the Sanhedrin, I have no doubt that he would be shaking his finger.

So, who is James talking to when he tells us to be slow to anger? He is talking in camera. He wants us to talk to other believers with sensitivity, Angevoix. But, he would not tolerate us to lessen our opposition to evil or to pull punches when talking of the wealthy and powerful establishment's callous disregard for the poor.
Friendship with the world is hatred toward God...and vice versa?

Jesus said we should "hate" our mother, sisters and brothers, as I remember. His comment was that to love God we must put "not-God" in its proper perspective, hating its ability to be substituted for God, as is so common among many in our generation. To many today, true religion is about family, community, and unconditional love for our brothers and sisters ...and thus not really about God, his kingdom, and especially any of his laws and expectations of us that might damage or diminish one of our loved and preferred ones. So Our Father, as understood through the centuries by the church fathers and mothers must be shaped, His expectations blunted, to be more tolerant of them.

I'll do James 5 in another post, Dan.
At 8:40 AM, June 25, 2005, Unknown said…

We have been talking about plain speaking, which James, Jude and Jesus had all mastered. It was obviously a family trait. One shared with their mother, no doubt. This discussion arose from a screed I did on kicking someone's butt in love. I apologize for the coarse language. The word was chosen deliberately.

This morning I was watching the Three Stooges with my grandson, Anthony. I was made aware, once again, of the differences between men and women as my wife lectured Anthony on the fact that what these men were saying and doing was absolutely wrong, unacceptable to her and to society. He was listening respectfully, but is in conflict. He knows his Grampy and other men like them. What is he to think?

I think that men like "the boys", and women don't, because of innate differences between the sexes. (Stay with me, Angievoix, I'll get back to you. And, all, I haven't forgotten James.) Mo, Larry and Curly are simple men. They cuff each other about unmercifully because they are men, they are showing affection, of a sort. No woman ever greets another with a pet name even close to "moron", or "chicken brain". Yet, if the truth be known, the closer men are to each other, the more likely they are to Three Stooges-style interaction, at least in our dear country...and France. They are worse there. They like Jerry Lewis.

So, what does this have to do with James? Jesus? Angevoix? Dan? Me? I think we have been talking about communication, and its potential for simplicity and complexity. When James says let your Yes be Yes and your No No, he is suggesting that we be simple and straight in what we say. This can be perceived as rough, though, if we really speak our hearts. We need to careful not to hurt, and at the same time we need to make sure we don't allow evil by making room for it in our sloppy use of language. We shouldn't hurt each other, but neither should our desire to hurt each other allow truth to be obscure, out of political correctness. When Jesus dressed down the Sanhedrin, he was unequivocally damning them. James appears to be saying he should not have done this, but he wasn't. He was encouraging us to use our "sword" appropriately, to avert evil. Used inappropriately, we might wound a brother or sister with our words. Used appropriately, we may properly skewer another brother...in love. Jesus was ready to forgive and reconcile, right to the end. His slaps, with words or with a whip in the temple, were to shock, awaken, scare and stop his brothers from the sin in which they were mired. Jesus would like "the boys", I think. He would see their affection for each other and understand their "violent interaction" as men correcting each other, coarsely but with love.

It is said that James was thrown from the Temple Mount by the worldly, then beaten to death with a bat, no doubt to shut him up. How could he get that reaction through "gentle" speech. So, why did he do it? He loved. And, in so doing, he needed to shock, scare, awaken, just like his brother, and with the same result.

In his own words,
"My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins."

In other words, follow me here, "if you smack your brother around in love to keep him from walking off a cliff, you will be forgiven." That's why men like the Three Stooges, love James, go to war and follow Jesus. If they are Christians, it is out of love for their brother. If they are worldly, it is from a different place.
At 12:02 PM, June 25, 2005, Dan Trabue said…

I think I was mostly in agreement with you (especially your first post on James) until you got to your conclusion:

"That's why men like the Three Stooges, love James, go to war and follow Jesus. If they are Christians, it is out of love for their brother."

They go to war out of love for their brother?

I guess inasmuch as you're suggesting that soldiers come to love and depend upon one another and therefore are willing to kill others to protect their fellow soldiers, that is a truth. Not necessarily a good thing, but a truth.

And I know this whole macho men are different than women thing is important to you and many folk, it doesn't mean that much to me. Not saying you're necessarily wrong in it or anything, it just doesn't mean that much to me.

But then, I was always more of a Marx Bros than a Three Stooges kind of guy.

But where you're agreeing with the Bible that criticizes the love of money as being the root of all evil, I agree with you there.

I especially agree (notice I have avoided resonating?) with your take that we're "living life upside down" in our culture and maybe most cultures. I can hardly listen to most sermons, most speeches, nearly all TV, without thinking that I'm living in an upside down world, where wrong is praised as right and backwards is considered forwards.

Let us let our yes be yes. Our love be love. Our justice be God's justice.

Loin Girders

Monday, June 20, 2005

12 Comments:

Previous Posts