NOT MANY OF you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. 2We all stumble in many ways. If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to keep his whole body in check.
3When we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we can turn the whole animal. 4Or take ships as an example. Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go. 5Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. 6The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.
7All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and creatures of the sea are being tamed and have been tamed by man, 8but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.
9With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness. 10Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. 11Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? 12My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.
Original Meaning
IN THIS SECTION James makes three basic points. (1) Small items, such as the tongue, a rudder, or even one teacher, can and often do control a larger whole, such as the body, a ship, or an entire congregation. (2) One source of evil is hell, the stronghold of Satan. (3) When the tongue is influenced by the forces of hell, the result is severe double-mindedness. This irrationality is seen in that the same tongue may praise God but curse people, who have been made in God’s likeness.
The connection between this section and those that have gone before is not immediately obvious,1 yet it is there. While it is true that James introduces a new notion by discussing teachers, the heart of this section, like that found in 1:19–21, has to do with proper speech. James launches this discussion because verbal attack, in the same manner as the favoritism he has just discussed, has a particularly corrosive and lethal effect on the life of a community, especially a community of faith. Indeed, either of the two discloses that for the false teachers, the targets of James’s ire, the community is no distinct community at all, but merely another avenue to personal power. The presence of both verbal attack and favoritism James regards as nothing short of critical—dangerous in the extreme.
Another sinew that binds this section to what has gone before is the frequent use of the word “body” (soma). It first appears in reference to the tongue as a part of the human body, but James quickly uses it to refer to the Christian community. Earlier we noted that the opening of the letter is concerned with personal morality, but that with chapter 2 James turns to corporate morality; that continues to be the case here.
A fascinating feature of this passage is that the discussion proceeds on two levels. At first blush the text can be read (and rightly so) in a straightforward fashion—it is about the danger of the tongue, a small part of the body that can do great damage. But we soon realize that we are in the presence of a writer of great facility, for James deftly points to a second level of meaning via his double use of the word “body,” referring to both individuals and the Christian church. On this level we see that teachers (and leaders), although a small percentage of the entire body of a Christian community, are able to guide the whole church, just as a rudder guides a ship; with the tongue, leaders can poison the whole community. In 3:4 James notes that the crucial issue with the rudder is the nature of the pilot and his will. The question, then, is whether the teachers are shaped and controlled by the will of God, or by Gehenna.
It should not be overlooked that with chapter 3 James inaugurates a lengthy discussion composed of three blocks of material dealing with pure speech. The first (3:1–12) has to do with his claim that pure speech does not arise from anger or duplicity; in the second (3:13–18) the case is made that pure speech has its origin in wisdom; and in the final section (4:1–10) James argues that pure prayer does not arise from anger, but rather has its home in trust.2 Here we see many of the themes James has already brought into play writ large.
James’s thought in the present section has three layers. The first (3:1–2) is a proverb concerning teachers, which serves to introduce the heart of the section. The second layer (3:3–5) builds on this proverb by discussing the practical difficulty of controlling speech by focusing on the tongue, as if it had a mind of its own. The final layer (3:6–12) also furthers the thought in 3:1–2 by outlining the power of the tongue and its propensity for impropriety. In all of these our author draws on a wealth of images, from animal husbandry to navigation to fire to horticulture, in order to illustrate the power of the tongue for evil or for good.
Teachers and Pure Speech (3:1–2)
VERSE 1 BEGINS with the negative “not” (me), in order to emphasize the danger associated with the office of teacher. The responsibilities of teaching in the context of the church are serious, so serious that great deliberation ought to accompany the aspiration. It is also possible, given what James is about to say, that some who exercised that function in the early church should lay it aside. James takes pains to show that he is aware of these demands, for he is a teacher, as the second clause (“we who teach”) demonstrates. The use of the first person plural here indicates that the context James has in view is teaching within the Christian community. It should be noted that the New Testament church had a dire need for teachers, but little recourse when it came to examining the qualifications and testing the orthodoxy of these teachers.
The reason for James’s warning here is that teachers will receive a more strict judgment if they fail. It is not unlikely that the writer has in mind the teaching of Jesus: “But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea” (Matt. 18:6; cf. Mark 9:42; Luke 17:2). James does not specifically identify this judgment, but given the teaching just cited, it is logical to assume that James has in mind the eschatological judgment. The fact that James has this judgment in view at other points also leads to this conclusion.
By nature of their position teachers have an inordinately great opportunity to influence others within the congregation. It seems unavoidable that James is blaming certain teachers in the community for teaching false practice, such as favoritism and an erroneously antinomian attitude. Having dealt with each error, he now focuses on the source of those errors, the false teachers themselves. James probably has in mind another of Jesus’ teachings: “But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken” (Matt. 12:36). The false teachers’ words are idle not simply because they are spoken in a thoughtless moment, but because unlike the word of God, they are not able to accomplish their purpose. The doctrine and practice advocated by these teachers do not contribute to the edification of the community, but instead are detrimental.3
Within the early church the position of teacher was one of high status. As noted earlier, the human desire for status was endemic to the Roman world, and while many sought to meet this need by joining the collegia, some sought illegitimately to meet the need by joining the church. The respect granted to teachers within Judaism ought not to be ignored either.4 There was evidently a serious problem in this regard in the early church. Without any clear standards, anyone could be put forward as an authority, and even Paul was challenged on this matter on occasion. James, like Paul, issues a plea to accept his authority as paramount over his opponents. But he does so in a fashion not reminiscent of Paul.
In verse 2 James admits a very human truth—none of us is perfect, we all stumble frequently. The word “many” here might refer to either the number or the variety of sins, but most likely refers to both. But there is at least one sin that is common to everyone, the sin of the tongue. At this point James has in mind not only teachers, but all Christians, although, of course, the effects of stumbling in the case of teachers can have far wider effects. But if, James imagines, there were someone who never sinned in speech, then that person would be perfect, for it is much easier to control the body than to control the tongue. The notion of a perfect man (teleos aner) must be that of completeness and maturity, just as in 1:4. This is completeness in Christian virtue, not perfect sinlessness.
To “keep [the] whole body in check” implies control of the passions. This, in turn, serves as a link to the yeṣer idea discussed earlier and forms another link to 3:6. Speech, and especially the tongue as emblematic of speech, is often the tool of the yeṣer ha-ra.5
The wisdom tradition had much to say concerning the untamed tongue.6 But more is at work here, for James has in mind teachings that lead people astray, that teach theological untruth as if it were truth. James insists that someone who is faultless in what he says is able to bridle (chalinago; the same word is used in 1:26) his body. His point, made a number of times in this section, is that a small item (a bit, a rudder, a tongue) can guide and control the larger whole. It should not be lost on us that teachers (and other leaders) in the church fit this image nicely. The same small member can either guide the larger whole to safety or condemn it to the ravages of rancor and falsehood.7 When the tongue is out of control, it can destroy much good that has already been done; a leader whose teaching is errant can in short order devastate years of careful and healthy growth in the life of a congregation. Such sullied theology was threatening the community to which James wrote, resulting in imperfect practice. He had to put a stop to it and steer the community in the right direction.
The Tongue Can Control Us (3:3–5)
IN VERSES 3–4 James begins a series of illustrations from everyday life meant, in part, to bring home to his readers with especially keen vividness the power of the tongue either to corrode or to nurture. The first two analogies are not quite precise (the tongue does not control the body in the fashion that a bit controls a horse or a rudder a ship), but the meaning is plain enough. The church is controlled by those in leadership roles. Thus, just as the rider directs the horse8 and the pilot the rudder, so the Christian teacher must be under the direction of the proper authority.9
Dibelius argued10 that 3:3–5 is derived from Hellenistic literature, and this shifting accounts for some of the grammatical difficulty present. While the vocabulary is certainly odd (many of the terms are found only here in Scripture), the vast number of parallels suggest that these images were common in the Hellenistic world. Therefore, no specific parallel is in view. James simply appropriated what he knew to be stock phrases and crafted them to his own ends.
In verse 5 James displays some of his literary skill, particularly alliteration: The tongue is a small (mikron) member (melos) but boasts of great things (megala). James signals his intention by claiming that the tongue makes boasts, and boasting in the New Testament is generally considered a sin, as it indicates a desire to place oneself in the role of God. Davids11 points out how James here executes a shift in tone: Both the bit and the rudder were discussed in positive terms, but here the tongue is discussed in terms that are essentially negative. This is because the potential of the tongue is so much greater than that of the bit or the rudder; it is capable of sublime heights, but also of sinking to the most pernicious depths of evil. James’s point is that we should not underestimate the powerful potential of leadership positions nor undervalue the damage that can be done through careless or mean-spirited speech.
James then turns to a new image, that of a fire set by a small spark. Here the image is clearly negative. Although there are parallels in Greek literature,12 the background for this saying is found in Jewish literature. The wisdom tradition especially has much to say about the destructive power of the tongue, at times associating the tongue with images of fire.13 Few disasters in the ancient world were more feared than fire, as the ancients possessed precious few resources to battle them,14 even in urban centers.15 The point of the image is to emphasize the great destructive power of the tongue.
The Power of the Tongue (3:6–12)
IN BLUNT FASHION, having pressed into service some of the strongest terms he has at his command, James makes clear in verse 6 the effects and source of an errant tongue. At this point both levels of meaning are in play: The uncontrolled tongue can cause great harm, and Christian teachers whose teaching in the church is errant cause great harm.
But beneath the apparently obvious meaning is great complexity. Many of the phrases are enigmatic at best. Furthermore, the first portion of verse 6 contains five terms in the nominative case but only one verb in the indicative (kathistatai), here rendered as “(present) among the parts of the body.” The difficulty is to know how best to assign the verb. In addition, the text is marked by a number of variant readings, which has led some commentators to surmise that the text as we have it is corrupt.16 There is no gainsaying the fact that this passage is difficult to interpret, but we must follow it. To pursue “reconstructed” versions, as some have suggested, is to engage in fancy and to abandon the integrity of the exegetical task.
As we saw above, the statement that the tongue is a fire clearly echoes Old Testament imagery concerning the tongue and inopportune speech. But in choosing to use kosmos (“world”) James has left us, perhaps intentionally, with a term rich in various meanings. The linkage of this word with “evil” suggests that of the many nuances assigned to kosmos in the New Testament, here it must mean the world and its forces opposed to God. A variety of characters inhabit this world, and James clearly believes that the false teachers are citizens of that world, or are at least under the influence of that world, even if they lack this self-awareness.
The point James is making is that the great “world of evil” is seen in smaller, specific examples. On one level the uncontrolled tongue is an example of this world-evil that is opposed to God. On another level, the teachers opposed to James are an example of this same world. Neither the tongue nor the teachers are guided by the Spirit of God, but just as a rudder is controlled by the pilot, the uncontrolled tongue and the false teachers are guided by the forces of Gehenna.
There are other grammatical difficulties with this verse. The NIV has chosen to understand “a world of evil” as grammatically connected to the opening phrase “the tongue is a fire.” Most commentators disagree, claiming that the verb “to be” should be understood in the opening phrase, which then becomes a complete sentence. This has the advantage of allowing both occurrences of glossa (“tongue”) to register in translation: “And the tongue is a fire. The tongue is a wicked world present among our members.” But, as Martin points out,17 there is really little difference between the two translations. The point is that the tongue is often guilty of realizing its potential for evil, and in so doing infects the rest of the body.
This, in fact, is what James says at the end of verse 6, that the tongue can corrupt or stain the entire person (soma, lit., “body”). Here is another way of making the point that he has already registered: Although small, the tongue controls the larger whole (3:2, 3, 4). James continues his series of negative comments about the tongue in stating that it “sets the whole course of his life on fire.” That is, the tongue can corrupt all of life, whether that of an individual or that of a community. Given the double narrative of the passage, James most likely intends this ambiguity.
In his phrase “is itself set on fire by hell,” James traces the root of evil, the mouthpiece of which are the teachers and the expressions of which are (particularly) favoritism and antinomianism. The Greek word translated as “hell” is geenna (usually transliterated as “Gehenna”), which referred to Ge Hinnom, the valley south of Jerusalem that had become a symbol of the locus of evil and the stronghold of Satan (see Bridging Contexts section). It seems clear that James is arguing that Satan is the ultimate source of the corrosive false teachings offered by the leaders in the church.18 He had previously identified the yeṣer ha-ra (the evil impulse) as a source for evil within a person. Here he identifies a source contributing to the yeṣer ha-ra, which is Satan.19
In short, James 3:6 captures and intensifies the thrust of 3:3–5, that the tongue is capable of great harm. James achieves this effect through a pastiche of images of great evocative force that, as both Martin and Davids point out,20 are marked more for their strong impression than for their great grammatical clarity.
In juxtaposition to the inability of human beings to control the tongue, James offers the idea that human beings can train, and have trained, members of the animal kingdom (v. 7). The ancients generally viewed the animal kingdom as symbolic of disorder, but also prided themselves on their ability to tame nature. Perhaps it would be better to say that the ancients believed that reason governed both nature and human convention, and that when human beings were able to harness nature, it was evidence of the potency of the rational spirit in the universe.21
But James also clearly has in mind the biblical account of creation, especially God’s granting to humankind the right to rule over “the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground” (Gen. 1:26). James even employs the typical biblical division of the animal world in four classes (cf. also Gen. 9:2). This oblique reference to creation calls to mind the recurrent Leitmotiv of “mature and complete,”22 which carries the nuance of “proper end.” God created human beings for a purpose, and this purpose will not be met by following the false teachers.
James continues his thought: “But no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.” The inability of the human race to tame the tongue is evidence of the irrational nature of its orientation and effort. The emphasis seems to have shifted from the tongue as a cipher for the church leader to the individual reference. The tongue is described as “restless” or “disorderly” (akatastaton),23 which only serves to heighten the contrast with order and reason, which, by implication, are connected to the teaching of James in contrast to his opponents.
The image James uses here is of a barely and inadequately caged beast, which breaks forth with irrational destructive power. This restless irrationality is akin to the double-mindedness of the tongue, a theme with which we are by now familiar. This destructive power is further colored by the description of the tongue as replete with deadly poison; its arsenal is enhanced by a stock of deadly vitriol.24
Having made the claim that the tongue is untrustworthy and duplicitous, James goes on in verse 9 to provide an example. He eschews the use of metaphor to make this point, preferring instead an image drawn from a liturgical setting. This signals the reader that once again the tongue as a cipher for church leaders is at least one of the referents in view. The tongue as the emblem of double-mindedness was known in Judaism,25 as we have already seen.26
According to James, we use the tongue for expressions that are mutually incompatible. The reference to “blessing” is of pointed significance, for it refers to and calls to mind God himself, as well as the relationship between humans and God. As the awareness of the holiness of God developed within Judaism, the Jews devised elliptical ways of speaking of God, one of which was “the Holy One, blessed be He.”27 James hopes to provide with this particularly arresting and poignant example, a stern warning concerning the importance of careful supervision over the tongue.
To this example James adds another one, which immediately captures attention because of its keen gravity—“with it we curse [our fellow human beings], who have been made in God’s likeness.” The fact that the verb “curse” (kataraomai) occurs in the present tense cements the interpretation that James has in mind a concrete and not hypothetical situation in the church. The question of cursing is a minor but interesting one in the New Testament. Jesus cursed the fig tree (Matt. 21:19), and Paul seems to have been less than immune to cursing when the situation demanded strong talk.28 But these are the exceptions, as the New Testament generally is against cursing. The idea, obviously, was to limit displays of irrational anger. This fits nicely with the general thrust of James’s teaching.
It is also clear that the failure to perceive in one another God’s image is a part of the complex. By showing favoritism and by displaying an antinomian spirit that apparently treated the commandment to love one’s neighbor as a trifle, certain church leaders were actually encouraging a deviant teaching and practice. Failure to recognize that each of us is created in God’s image will eventually allow us to oppress and enslave one another. This is, in fact, a cardinal reason why the worship of foreign gods was outlawed by God, for worship of other gods meant not only the rejection of God, but also the repudiation of his social and ethical standards.
The liturgical setting further exacerbates the importance of the issue. How can worshipers consciously mistreat their fellows and then expect to worship God in purity? So this verse neatly combines the two deviant practices of the church to which James writes.
“Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be” (v. 10). Drawing perhaps on Psalm 62:4, James alters the image to be a falsehood issued by the mouth—a change that perhaps takes place in order to remind his readers of the words of Jesus in Matthew 15:11: “What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him ‘unclean,’ but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him ‘unclean.’ ” Jesus understood actions to be revelatory of character, as the saying “A good tree cannot bear bad fruit” (7:18) attests. He also believed our speech to be revelatory of character, which is the essential point being made here. Our speech comes from the heart.
In verse 11 James includes a phrase of stock Mediterranean wisdom, rendered in Latin as a fonte puro pura defluit aqua (“from a pure spring flows pure water”). He also returns to the world of metaphor. A spring from which issued forth both fresh and salt water was unnatural; in this way James continues to make the point that abusive speech is irrational. The triple image of the illogicality of expecting trees and vines to produce fruit not their own and of a salt spring to produce fresh water are all intended to round out the point he has made again and again. James’s use of the phrase “my brothers” (vv. 10–11) suggests an admission on his part that he has said some harsh words to his readers, and he is thus reiterating his affection for them, to recall to their minds the fact that he is one of them, that he has their best interests at heart.
Bridging Contexts
JAMES HAS SKETCHED for us a passage of extraordinary vividness, replete with memorable images (“the tongue is a fire, a world of evil”) and spiritual observations (“With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness”). James was writing to a church deeply divided because of variant teachings propounded by different teachers, though we do not know more than this bare outline. But there are two issues on which he touches that will help us to avoid misstep as we strive to bring this passage to life in our own world. The first concerns the word geenna (“hell”) in 3:6; the second involves the chief focus of the passage, the susceptibility of the tongue (whether as speech or as emblematic of leaders within the Christian community) to the influence of Satan.
In a passage marked by such rich imagery, these two themes may seem mundane. But they undergird and will in large part control how the issues in the text are applied to contemporary life. The central concern of this passage is power—of Satan, and of the tongue to twist and to corrupt. A proper understanding of the biblical view of power is therefore essential if we are successfully to bridge the gap between the message of James for the first century and for our own. It is for these reasons that these two terms have been selected.
Gehenna. In 3:1–12 James informs us that the evil inclination within us, which is variously in league with and a ready receptor for Satan, is the source of the desire to employ the tongue in hurtful ways. On one level James warns us against ignorance, that “slips” of the tongue may not in fact be innocent or harmless but may very well represent the initial stages of that biological growth of evil to which chapter 1 bears witness. On another level James is warning against leaders who foster not a spirit of cooperation and compassion, but rather envy and strife. These themes will be prominent features of the remainder of the letter.
The NIV uses the term “hell” in 3:6, but behind this English word is the Greek word geenna. It is imperative that we understand both the literal and figurative nuances of this term in order to apply its meaning to our own age. Without this understanding, the behavior of leaders and the impure speech of individuals might well be dismissed, in the same manner as a physician might err in dismissing the first signs of cancer in a patient. Such dismissal is not harmless, for the source of the trouble is not innocent, it is Gehenna.
In the Old Testament the Valley of Hinnom (Heb. gayʾ hinnon) formed part of the boundary between the tribes of Judah and Benjamin (Josh. 15:8).29 It was also the site of the worship of Canaanite gods such as Baal and Molech. In association with these rites child sacrifices were offered there (2 Kings 23:10). Jeremiah said that this valley would be a place of judgment, calling it the “Valley of Slaughter,” because of the many Jews who were killed and thrown into the valley by the Babylonians (Jer. 7:29–34). During the second temple period this valley became linked with the idea of fiery judgment and with eschatological judgment (1 Enoch 26–27). This caused Gehenna to be associated with the fires of hell, and therefore with hell itself.
There are twelve references to Gehenna in the New Testament. With the exception of this one in James, all are found on the lips of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels. Here, then, is another link between James and the Jesus tradition. Following the final judgment, Gehenna is a place of punishment and the destruction of the wicked (Matt. 5:22), body and soul are judged in Gehenna (Matt. 10:28; Mark 9:43–47), and this punishment is eternal (Matt. 25:41, 46). Jesus warns against several sins that might cause one to be condemned to Gehenna, including calling a brother a fool (5:22) and giving in to sinful inclinations (5:29–30). These two themes are prominent in James—further evidence of the link between James and Jesus.
In this passage, then, Gehenna is symbolic of the force of Satan. In James 3:15 the false “wisdom” of this world, characterized by envy and bitterness, is attributed to the “demonic” (which the NIV renders “the devil”), and in 4:7 James tells us to “resist the devil.” A “whole world of evil” is waiting to ensnare us, and its source is Satan. These are among the most serious terms that James has at his command. He is warning the church: Ignore such speech and the actions of such leaders at your own grave peril!
Power from a biblical perspective. According to James, “The tongue also is a fire…. It corrupts the whole person … and is itself set on fire by hell” (3:6). The tongue bears influence far out of proportion to its size. It is also susceptible to the forces of evil. The tongue can be twisted to go about the work of hell. This is stark, uncompromising language, which introduces us again to Satan’s power. When our speech demonstrates the capacity to devastate others and even ourselves, our tongues have been bent by the forces of evil. When those in positions of leadership within the church abuse that trust, they are under the influence of the forces of evil. James does not want us to be ignorant of this, for ignorance renders us even more vulnerable to the corrosive ravages of hell. Both the tongue and positions of leadership exercise power, and both easily are compromised. It is critical, therefore, that we understand the biblical view of power.
Lord Acton said, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”30 Acton here has given a secular echo to a theological truth. Daniel told Belshazzar that God was the one who had given to Nebuchadnezzar, his father, “sovereignty and greatness and glory and splendor…. But when his heart became arrogant and hardened with pride, he was deposed from his royal throne and stripped of his glory” (Dan. 5:18, 20). According to Scripture, power has the capacity and the tendency to become twisted and perverted. This is significant because in James 3:6, the author links positions of authority (the tongue) and abuse of power (the false teachers, with whom he is at odds) with the font of this calumny, hell. In making this argument James is tapping into a rich biblical tradition that sought to explain the presence and power of evil. It is an understanding shared by James, Paul, and John among the writers of the New Testament.
The first step to understanding how the tongue or people in leadership positions can be “set on fire by hell” and therefore abuse their power is to recognize that the Old Testament affirms that God entrusted humankind with delegated authority. In Genesis 1:26 we read, “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’ ” Humankind, made in the image of God, has been entrusted with delegated authority over all the earth. The Psalms affirm that “the earth is the LORD’s” (Ps. 24:1) and that the “highest heavens belong to the LORD, but the earth he has given to man” (115:16). James makes a conscious link to this idea of delegated authority when in James 3:7–8 he refers to the fourfold order of creation.
This combination of delegated authority with creation in God’s image is celebrated in Psalm 8, a commentary of sorts on Genesis 1:26–27, which speaks of humankind before the Fall:
When I consider your heavens,
the moon and the stars,
which you have set in place,
what is man that you are mindful of him,
the son of man that you care for him?
You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings
and crowned him with glory and honor.
You made him ruler over the works of your hands;
you put everything under his feet:
all flocks and herds,
and the beasts of the field,
the birds of the air,
and the fish of the sea,
all that swim the paths of the seas.
O LORD, our Lord,
how majestic is your name in all the earth! (8:3–9)
Here is affirmed the glory and dominion granted to humankind
The second step to understanding James’s idea of the abuse of power is to see that there is something inherent in power that inclines to evil. This is a subplot that finds expression in the apocalyptic sections of Daniel. In Daniel 7 the prophet receives a vision and then relates it:
Daniel said: “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me were the four winds of heaven churning up the great sea. Four great beasts, each different from the others, came up out of the sea.
“The first was like a lion, and it had the wings of an eagle. I watched until its wings were torn off and it was lifted from the ground so that it stood on two feet like a man, and the heart of a man was given to it.
“And there before me was a second beast, which looked like a bear. It was raised up on one of its sides, and it had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth. It was told, ‘Get up and eat your fill of flesh!’
“After that, I looked, and there before me was another beast, one that looked like a leopard. And on its back it had four wings like those of a bird. This beast had four heads, and it was given authority to rule.
“After that, in my vision at night I looked, and there before me was a fourth beast—terrifying and frightening and very powerful. It had large iron teeth; it crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. It was different from all the former beasts, and it had ten horns.” (Dan. 7:2–7)
The vision opens with a churning sea. The sea represents chaos, the locus of forces opposed to God.31 The sea is churning at night, both features meant to heighten the sense of danger and evil. Out of the sea come four beasts, representing political powers. They possess dominion, “authority to rule,” because God has entrusted humankind with this task. But like Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 5, the beasts abuse that power. They are told to “eat your fill of flesh” and to “trample underfoot whatever is left.”
Daniel, like James, gives voice to the truth that people in positions of power often abuse power, just as the tongue often causes hurt. But Daniel also speaks of the judgment of political power by God—how political powers are stripped of their power, and how “authority, glory and sovereign power” are given to “one like a son of man” (7:13–14). The point of this image is that human institutions possess “authority” because God has delegated that authority to us. However, in our stewardship that authority has been corrupted by evil, it cannot be trusted, and one day God will strip human institutions of the authority we now use inappropriately. Instead, he will give it to the “son of man,” God’s agent, who will establish God’s kingdom. Political power is morally neutral, but it is easily co-opted by the forces of evil.
The third step to perceiving James’s idea of power as influenced by hell is to understand these forces of evil. What are they? In the Septuagint rendering of Deuteronomy 32:8–9 we read that when “the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the angels of God. For the Lord’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance.” That is, God appointed heavenly beings to watch over the nations. In 4:19 Israel is warned not to worship these angels, for although they are heavenly beings, they are not God: “And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars—all the heavenly array—do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshiping things the LORD your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven.” However, human beings in their ignorance do worship these angels as if they were God, and some of them accept this worship. This accounts for the anger of God with angels.
This is the theme of many psalms. Psalm 82:1–2, for example, says that God sits in judgment of “the gods” (a word referring to angelic spirits): “How long will you defend the unjust and show partiality to the wicked?” His complaint is that these angels have supported the perversion of his standards on earth. Psalm 89:6–7 says that none of the gods can compare with God; 96:4 claims that God is to be feared above the gods; and 97:7 says that the gods should worship God.
Isaiah likewise echoes this idea and adds the theme of judgment. Isaiah 24:21–22 says:
In that day the LORD will punish
the powers in the heavens above
and the kings on the earth below.
They will be herded together
like prisoners bound in a dungeon;
they will be shut up in prison
and be punished after many days.
Similarly, Isaiah 34:2–4 says:
The LORD is angry with all nations;
his wrath is upon all their armies.
He will totally destroy them,
he will give them over to slaughter.
Their slain will be thrown out,
their dead bodies will send up a stench;
the mountains will be soaked with their blood.
All the stars of the heavens will be dissolved
and the sky rolled up like a scroll;
all the starry host will fall
like withered leaves from the vine,
like shriveled figs from the fig tree.
Note here the close association of the angels with the human political forces they represent. Standing behind many human institutions are the supernatural forces of evil. This is particularly true of the political order, whether manifested in governments, in the bureaucratic culture of corporations, or in university politics.
This is essentially the view of John and of Paul. In John’s Gospel it is the Romans who execute false judgment against Jesus, having had their hand forced by the Jewish authorities (John 19:12–16). But behind both stands Satan. The Jewish authorities do not realize it, but they are, says Jesus, the children of Satan (John 8:44). Speaking of his death at the hands of the Romans Jesus says, “I will not speak with you much longer, for the prince of this world is coming” (14:30). Satan stands behind the political forces that, ignorant of his presence, are bent to his will.
Paul presents us with a slightly more enlarged canvas. He claims that these angels are the rulers of this age and that they are in league with Satan, “the god of this age” (2 Cor. 4:4), “the ruler of the kingdom of the air” (Eph. 2:2). Paul claims that these rulers stand behind the forces of political power, specifically the political forces that executed Jesus: “None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor. 2:8). In Colossians 2:15 the apostle writes that these rulers, along with their earthly minions, have been defeated in the Cross: “And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.” Christ’s victory is so complete that, like the victims of Roman might, the principalities and powers are made to parade in shame before the conqueror. Yet, Paul affirms, the defeated powers are still dangerous: “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms” (Eph. 6:12).
The Bible, therefore, argues that the political order is morally neutral but inherently weak and easily corrupted by Satan. Examples are not hard to come by. Serbian soldiers defend their complicity in acts of murder and torture with the claim that they were merely following orders. Supervisors pass over deserving employees to grant a promotion to a relative. Governments conduct nuclear tests in order to determine the effects of radiation by exposing soldiers to nuclear fallout, but do not inform them of the danger.
Political power is dangerous, precisely because it is power. Without political power, Adolf Hitler would have remained nothing more than a petty, malevolent malcontent carrying on a lecherous, incestuous affair with his niece.32 But because he came to control a modern nation-state, he could wreck untold carnage. Stalin might have spent his life as nothing more than a moody family tyrant, privately gnawing on his ambitions and reading his favorite novel, a Russian translation of Edgar Rice Burroughs’ Tarzan of the Apes.33 Yet because of the power of the state, he has excelled all others who reside in the long corridor of human depravity in the grisly business of murder.
Parents can cripple the spirit of their children through withering critical speech. The tongue has the power to devastate a small child. Power even in the church is open to abuse. To the explication of this theme we now turn.
Contemporary Significance
THE CENTRAL THRUST of this passage has to do with power, and specifically with its wrong application. Persons in position of leadership fall prey to its allure, even leadership within the church. Each of us has the power to inflict pain on others through our speech. Finally, the world in which we live is awash in the abuse of power, which makes it all the more difficult and necessary to remain unattracted to the abuse of power.
The text offers us three significant issues for application. Towering over the others is the question of teachers and the power that is theirs by virtue of position. Because James offers us warnings concerning teachers and leadership, the discussion will focus on some of the perils teachers face. The second major issue has to do with the power of the tongue to inflict damage and pain. But the idea that allows these other two to achieve clarity is expressed in James’s phrase “a world of evil.” He wishes to remind his readers that Satan is capable of great evil, and he employs this phrase to create a terrible vision of warning. Without diligence, the church can become too much like this world of evil, even though those within the church are blissfully ignorant of the slide toward depravity. Certainly this was the case in the congregation to which James has directed his letter.
The world of evil. The tongue can inaugurate a “world of evil” (3:6), just as a tiny spark can cause a huge fire. Human experience confirms this. Augustine said that all of us, as a result of the Fall, have a bent toward perversity.34 The tongue is a restless evil, whose source is hell; we allow Satan to twist and pervert us. Because of this creeping malevolence, we fail to recognize the image of God in others (see 3:9). There is no shortage of evidence in our culture for this irrational, malignant character of evil.
A high school yearbook editor in Indiana takes vengeance on her rivals by defacing their yearbook photographs. The books appear with teeth blacked out and underarm hair penciled in.
The mother of an aspiring thirteen-year-old cheerleader in Texas contracts with a hit man to murder the mother of her daughter’s rival. Her hope is that the grieving girl will not try out for the cheerleading squad.
In 1993 the town of Lakewood, California made the national news as a result of a scandal involving teenagers, peer pressure, and irrational evil. A number of the members of a high school football team had formed a club called the “Spur Posse,” in which the members competed with each other to see how many times they could have sexual relations with different women. They impudently kept score, and some had scores in the fifties and sixties. It was shocking enough that many members of this gang were proud of their behavior, but more shocking that the parents of some defended their sons. “Nothing my boy did was anything any red-blooded American boy wouldn’t do at his age,” said one father. Others blamed the girls, referring to them as “trash.”35
The movie “Trainspotting,” which became a minor classic in the mid-1990s, also illustrates this “world of evil.”36 The movie opens as Mark Renton, the unofficial ringleader of a group of heroin addicts in Edinburgh, is shooting up in the flat of his supplier. As we watch this scene, we hear Renton’s voice offering commentary: “Who needs reasons when you’ve got heroin?” In their irrational relentless pursuit of the drug, the young men will steal from their families and each other. Even the death of an infant as a result of neglect does not deter them—Renton and the mother of the dead baby promptly cook up another batch of poison. At the conclusion of the film Renton, having stolen from his friends and leaving them in the lurch, says, “So why did I do it? I could give a million reasons, all false. The truth is, I’m a bad person.”
Renton, like Augustine, understood that sin is more than being misled, or a casual error, or “worst of all, a ‘life-style choice.’ It is a full-speed plunge into the hissing cauldron of lust followed by a soothing pickling in the juices of self-love.”37 Humans want to know the experience of sin, the self-indulgence. But Augustine knows what Renton does not know: Sin is its own penalty—it becomes tiresome, and it eventually kills.
In her award winning novel A Map of the World, Jane Hamilton introduces us to Alice, a woman whose innocent negligence led to the tragic drowning death of the daughter of her best friend and neighbor. Reflecting on this event and its aftermath, Alice says:
I used to think that if you fell from grace it was more likely than not the result of one stupendous error, or else some unfortunate accident. I hadn’t learned that it can happen so gradually that you don’t lose your stomach or hurt yourself in the landing. You don’t necessarily lose the motion, I’ve found it takes at least two and generally three things to alter the course of a life: You slip around once, and then again, and one more time, and there you are, feeling, for a moment, that it was sudden, your arrival at the bottom of the heap.38
As James said, when desire is conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death (1:15). The process is not always obvious, but its effect is sudden, and with shock we realize that we are at the bottom of the heap.
Sin, according to Plantinga, is like cancer—it kills because it reproduces.39 Sin echoes down the generations. Family systems marked by incest and abuse perpetuate themselves. Violence between ethnic groups or between families continues long after the original reasons have been lost in the haze of time. In Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, the Montagues and the Capulets continued to kill each other because … that was what Montagues and Capulets were supposed to do. One lie leads to another. The tongue is emblematic of this evil. It is a “world of evil” (3:6), a restless, irrational wickedness full of poison (3:9), a malicious spark that causes conflagration (3:6).
The temptations of leadership. The creeping malevolence of sin manifests itself in the allure and pitfall of political power. “The body,” said Soranus, “is sick with desire.”40 One of the most potent of these desires is that of political power. Daniel made this point concerning Nebuchadnezzar. James deals with it here in the guise of teachers who abused their position by teaching and practicing false doctrine. In recent years it has surfaced in national politics with the ascendancy of the politics of Dick Morris, which may be called the politics of style over substance. Morris, President Clinton’s now disgraced political advisor, helped to usher in the era of constant testing of public opinion. The result has been the disquieting sensation that the President of the United States does not stand for anything except the currently popular.41
In his recent book, Behind the Oval Office: Winning the Presidency in the Nineties,42 Dick Morris happily claims that he was one of the first to engage in negative advertising. Gary Wills says that Morris, and others like him, are “willing to do whatever it takes, and they subordinate other considerations to the electoral appeal of their client.”43 Morris explains his motivation in stark terms: “I needed the [power] fix too badly.”44 He claims that the success of the Clinton campaign was its ability to know the current mood of the country and to shape the President’s message to fit that mood. In order to do this, Wills points out, constant polling was required, which costs a great deal of money. The “real scandal,” in Wills’ view, was not Morris’s long-running affair with a prostitute, but that the Clinton White House was in such dire need of funds to support this election apparatus that it engaged in measures of questionable ethics. “The money raised from foreign sources was a measure of the desperate search for all possible sources of income.”45 This all-consuming need for reelection to political power left the President badly out of focus. Reflecting on conversations with the President, Morris says,
Clinton complained bitterly at having to raise this much money…. “I can’t think. I can’t act. I can’t do anything except go to fund raisers and shake hands. You want me to issue executive orders; I can’t focus on a thing but the next fundraiser. Hillary can’t, Al can’t—we’re all getting sick and crazy because of it.”46
The same disease readily can infect teachers and leaders within the Christian church. The teachers in James’s congregation were advocating practices that mirrored the standards of the Roman empire. In our day, some Christians advocate a domination of the political process by Christian and even evangelical values. In a democracy each citizen has a right to have his or her views aired, as Stephen Carter has been wise to point out.47 However, Christians should not forget that the state is not to be trusted; it is no substitute for the church.
Some evangelical churches dangerously confuse “American” values with those of the New Testament. One church recently emerged from a long battle concerning the placement of the flag of the United States on the platform. Many in the congregation felt the suggestion that the flag be removed was an attack on patriotism. They pointed out that their fathers and brothers had died for freedom, including religious freedom, while fighting under the flag of the United States. Whether they realized it or not, such placement sends a powerful, if at times subtle, message: The United States is God’s agent, and therefore whatever the United States chooses to do is somehow sanctioned by God.
There is no gainsaying that this country has often stood against oppression and the forces of evil, and in such cases the United States should be lauded. But our history is a spotted history, and to confuse the state with the church of Jesus Christ is a danger every bit as deadly as that which confronted James in his church. The annals of history demonstrate that governments tend toward power at the expense of the interests of the many. Solomon traded away entire villages, inhabitants and all, to pay debts. The British government reneged on promises to France and Czechoslovakia in an attempt to buy peace with Hitler. The United States government has broken innumerable promises to Native Americans. The state simply is not overly interested in the cause of Christ, and we confuse the two at our great peril.
Some evangelical churches choose to avoid the problem by remaining silent on the issues of the day. This naive refusal to address critical issues is neither biblical nor safe. The “Christian response” to welfare reform, abortion, gay rights, intervention in Bosnia, homelessness in America, and other issues are not easily discerned, for they are enormously complicated. But their complexity is no excuse to forego honest biblical dialogue in search of a response informed by faith and the Spirit of God. To do otherwise is to baptize secular ideology of whatever stripe and call it Christian.
The lives and decisions of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Alexandr Menn provide marvelous examples. Both men lived under regimes hostile to the faith, and both refused to follow the lead of church leaders who accommodated to these regimes. Bonhoeffer was a Lutheran pastor in Nazi Germany and reached the amazing conclusion that morality demanded of him participation in a plot to kill Hitler. Such decisions are not reached lightly, but come only after careful prayer, study, and reflection.
Alexandr Menn was murdered on September 9, 1990. Menn was an orthodox priest, the spiritual advisor to Alexandr Solzhenitsyn and Andrei Sakharov. He was an outspoken critic of the Soviet system. Two months before he was struck from behind with an ax, he was interviewed on radio, and the broadcast was heard across Russia. He was asked the question, “Does one need to be a Christian, and if one does, then why?” Menn began by saying:
Man always seeks God. The normal state of man is, to some extent, to be connected with a higher power, even when the higher power in the human mind is distorted, and turned into something secular. Eras of Stalinism … and all other isms seek some false god even if God is taken away. This turns to idol worship, but still the inner instinct of seeking God is there…. I believe that everything that is of value in Christianity is valuable only because it belongs to Christ. If it doesn’t belong to Christ, it belongs to the same degree to Islam or Buddhism. So every religion is an attempt to reach God. But Jesus Christ is the answer.48
It was precisely this type of boldness in the face of government opposition that signaled his death warrant. The night before he was murdered, Menn said these words in a lecture in Moscow: “No living creature, except for man, is able to take a risk, and even the risk of death, for the sake of truth.” Menn was able to identify the politically acceptable Christianity of some of his Orthodox superiors and to live instead for the truth. The political order has its own agenda, and that agenda is often injurious to the cause of Christ.
This desire for power among Christians manifests itself in other ways too, as people often use the local congregation as an opportunity for wielding power. This is sometimes true of pastors who arrogate to themselves the power to make every decision in the life of the church. A close friend of mine in Chicago is about to leave his church. He is happy with the congregation and is confident of the preaching of the pastor. But the inability of that pastor to allow anyone else, even the boards, to make decisions has left my friend feeling weary beyond description. The pastor’s nearly pathological need to control leaves him open to the blindness and arrogance of self-delusion. This self-delusion has already given rise to destructive behavior, as some who have been critical of his need for power have found themselves the target of verbal slander. Desire for power and the evil of the tongue often walk hand in hand.
Sometimes it is laypersons who are guilty. My pastor recalls a man during his intern days who was upsetting many in the congregation. This man claimed that God had called him to exercise the spiritual gift of rebuke. The fact that this particular spiritual gift is not mentioned in the New Testament did not faze him. Apparently believing that he was acting as God’s agent, this man had begun to terrorize the congregation with his frequent and insensitive accusations of imperfection. I am not a psychologist, but it seems to me that here was a case of a person wrapping himself in the mantle of spirituality in order to exercise a human and petty need to improve his self-image by decimating the self-image of others.
Another classic case involves a trustee board at a church where a friend of mine is pastor. Apparently one member would spend a half hour arguing against the purchase of a $45 coffee maker in favor of one costing $35. A number of people in the church refused to serve on the board while this man was serving. A few years later, however, this gentleman became involved in a program dedicated to working with new Christians in the church. “This,” he said later, “revolutionized my life.” He began to see that his earlier efforts at serving God were actually functions of his own need to be in control. The tongue does indeed have the power to inflict deep wounds. He apologized to the congregation, recognizing the times he had said hurtful things, all in the pursuit of petty goals.
Finally, the desire for power can make itself felt in doctrinal issues. James wrote against teachers who had altered the gospel. In our day there are similar teachings and practices within the Christian community. Some expressions of the faith, or perversions of it, advocate an overly rigorous doctrine. One example is the growing Church of Christ (Boston). As a graduate student and university pastor I became acquainted with this group. The students I knew who were involved with this church told me that it teaches a harsh, selectively literalistic biblical ethic, and tells its members that they are the only “true” Christians. Recently a former student and good friend encountered this church here in Chicago. After attending one service, he was invited to a lunch with the pastor. At this meeting the pastor informed my friend that his spiritual life was seriously inadequate and that the teaching he had received in his home church was so lacking as to be substandard. My friend went home, found a web site devoted to persons who are “recovering” from this group, and discovered a long letter written by a woman whose experience paralleled his.49 This type of exclusivism has been a hallmark of heresy since Paul battled the “super-apostles.”
But we need venture no further than the broad mix of evangelicalism to discern vestiges of this overly strong attitude. Philip Yancey has worked as a Christian journalist for twenty-five years. During President Bill Clinton’s first term in office, Yancey and other journalists were invited to a breakfast with the President at the White House. Clinton told them, “Sometimes I feel like a spiritual orphan,” because he had seen the bumper stickers that proclaimed, “A vote for Bill Clinton is a sin against God.” In the article he wrote following that breakfast, Yancey noted that Clinton’s faith “was not a posturing for political expediency, but an integral part of who he was.”50 In the aftermath of that article Yancey received a barrage of letters, most attacking him for portraying the President in a somewhat favorable light. “In my 25 years of journalism, I have received my share of mixed reviews. Even so, as I read through stacks of vituperative letters, I got a strong sense for why the world at large does not automatically associate the word ‘grace’ with evangelical Christians.”51 In our desire to be “right,” we may well alienate the very people Christ came to save.
But the church can also be too soft. The spectacle of John Spong, the Episcopal bishop for the Diocese of New Jersey, is a case in point. He has argued for the permissibility of sexual relations outside of marriage for both heterosexuals and homosexuals, claiming that “sex outside of marriage can be holy and life-giving in some circumstances.”52 He denies the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection of Jesus. In these and other ways his teachings are far removed from scriptural warrant. Another example involves the Interfaith Alliance, which has recently begun to surface in the American public consciousness. This self-described “moderate” group, started with funds from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, aims to counter the “extremism” of the right-wing Christian Coalition. Its executive director is Jill Hannauer, who as a student at the University of Colorado tried to stop Bill McCartney from leading his players in a moment of silence before football games. This seems a curious pedigree.53
Christian teachers and leaders can also stray when there is an overemphasis on one truth or on one doctrine. The “Signs and Wonders” movement made startling claims about God’s desire to heal all Christians in the 1980s. Wimber claimed that sickness was caused by Satan and that the performance of “signs and wonders” by Christians was God’s plan for world evangelization. Recently John Wimber’s own experience of cancer has led to a more balanced biblical view.54 Two generations ago the dispensational movement was marked by a denial of the contemporary application of spiritual gifts. Today this hard edge is being dulled on the whetstone of biblical teaching and experience.
Among the many temptations that involve teaching and leadership positions within the church is that we are not careful enough in the evaluative process. Count Axel Gustafsson Oxenstierna, the Chancellor of Sweden in the seventeenth century, once said, “Behold, my son, with what little wisdom the world is ruled.”55 That this is true takes little perspicacity to see. But part of the blame lies with ourselves, for we routinely take far too little time in evaluating those we choose for leadership, and we too easily allow ourselves to be duped. Thucydides said, “So little trouble do men take in the search for truth, they readily accept whatever comes first hand.”56 The ancient Athenians, having expelled the tyrant Pisistratos, allowed him back in the city under the guise of an amateurish ruse. Pisistratos found a striking peasant girl, dressed her as Athena, and placed her standing before him in a chariot. He then sent heralds into the city of Athens, proclaiming that Athena herself was reinstating Pisistratos as tyrant. The Athenians, legendary for their wisdom, nonetheless acquiesced.57
This same tendency to be too trusting can be seen in this century. In the chaos of Germany between the wars, the church in large measure failed to discern in Adolf Hitler a man and a mission that deserved not trust but careful scrutiny, even condemnation. In this context a number of issues came to confluence, not the least of which was the paucity of any tradition of opposition to the state within the German church. As is often true of American Christians, many German believers saw the interests of the state as commensurate with the interests of their faith. Some adopted the motto, “The Swastika on our breasts, the Cross in our hearts.” Their pastors donned Nazi uniforms as they sang Nazi hymns. Philip Yancey comments, “Too late did they learn that once again the church had been seduced by the power of the state.”58
But it was not only the German Protestants who failed to see the imminent danger. In September of 1938 there was a well-organized plot to oust Hitler, composed of high-ranking elements of the German military. It may have succeeded if British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain had not caved in to Hitler on the question of Czechoslovakia. The German conspirators believed that all the British had to do to bully Hitler into submission was to send “an energetic military man who, if necessary, can shout and hit the table with a riding crop.”59 Instead Chamberlain went to Munich and capitulated. It was a monumental failure to read the signs.
We as Christians often fail to read the signs as well. At times churches choose pastors who, although godly, are poor fits for the congregation that calls them. More significantly and at times tragically, we are often too trusting in an era of sexual abuse perpetrated by clergy. Our pastors deserve and need our support, our forgiveness, and our mercy, but they also need our honest care. James says that we all stumble in many ways. Clergy stumble too. Some are driven by a desire for power or money, as the not-too-distant cases of Jim Bakker and Oral Roberts illustrate. Jim Bakker and his organizations bilked trusting souls out of millions of dollars, and he spent time in prison as a result of this debacle. Great damage has been suffered by the cause of Christ in the wake of this scandal. Other clergy simply crave authority. These are very human faults. But congregations owe it to themselves and to their leaders to provide adequate systems of support and care for those in positions of authority, to ensure that the teaching and practice remains biblical. This provides insurance against theological error on one side, and the devastation of the pastor, teacher, or leader by the congregation on the other.
The power of the tongue. According to James, the tongue has great potential, but it is unstable. With it we both praise God and vilify our neighbor (3:9–10). This is irrational, he says—and rightly so. It is also an accurate depiction of our lives as Christians. It is this irrational power of the tongue to cause evil that led Henri Frederick Amiel to write, “In order to see Christianity, one must forget almost all the Christians.”60
Human beings have the propensity to utter words that are ill-considered, and these sometimes do damage to others or to ourselves. Early in World War I Winston Churchill served the British nation as First Lord of the Admiralty. He had coaxed into service a retired British naval hero, John “Jacky” Fisher, to serve as First Sea Lord, the equivalent of the Chief of Naval Operations in the United States. They worked well together for some time, but as the plans for the Dardanelles strategy progressed, it became obvious to many people that the elderly Fisher was becoming unstable. In fact, the blame for the failed Dardenelles strategy and the disaster of Gallipolli lies not with Churchill, but was principally due to the procrastination of both Prime Minister Asquith and secretary of state for war Kitchener, and secondarily with Fisher, who seemed unable to give consistent advice. Fisher also maneuvered to have Churchill removed from his duties as First Lord of the Admiralty, a plan in which he was successful, but which involved his own removal from office.
No longer a member of the cabinet, but still a member of the House of Commons, Churchill chose to serve in the infantry and was involved in trench warfare in Flanders. Several months later, he returned to the House of Commons, and on March 7, 1916, delivered what William Manchester has called “one of the most unfortunate speeches of his life.” After offering an insightful critique of certain features of the government’s prosecution of the war, he then uttered a fateful sentence, one that sent him again into political exile: “I urge the First Lord of the Admiralty without delay to fortify himself, to vitalise and animate his Board of Admiralty by recalling Lord Fisher to his post as First Sea Lord.”61
The House of Commons, says Manchester, was stunned. Former Prime Minster Balfour, at this point a political enemy of Churchill, saw his opportunity. Balfour pointed out that in Churchill’s farewell speech the previous autumn he “told us that the First Sea Lord, Lord Fisher, did not give him, when he was serving in the same Admiralty with him, either the clear guidance before the event or the firm support after it which he was entitled to expect….” Further, said Balfour, Churchill now claims that Fisher is “nevertheless the man who ought to be given as a supporter and a guide to anybody who happens to hold at this moment the responsible position of First Lord of the Admiralty. It is a paradox of the wildest and most extravagant kind.” Balfour concluded with a remark calculated to condemn Churchill to oblivion: “I should regard myself as contemptible beyond the power of expression if I were to yield an inch to a demand of such a kind, made in such a way.”62
Such cases are not limited to the arena of politics. Before joining the academic world full-time, I spent ten years in parish ministry, where I encountered legions of examples that verify James’s statement. Some were unintentional, such as the time during a low-key social gathering that a pastor, in an off-hand remark, offered his opinion concerning a social issue of the day. His innocent remark, reported to others, led to division within the church and the departure of several families with children whose lives had been touched by this particular social issue. But the families did not approach the pastor to ask for his version of the remark. They denied the pastor the chance to provide theological context for his remarks. Neither did the pastor pursue the families; instead, he began to talk about what he supposed was their motivation in leaving. The result was a healthy store of mutual bad feelings, all created by ill-considered speech run rampant.
The misuse of tongue by leaders within the church contributes to a wide swath of discontent concerning the church. Dennis Ngien tells a story that is emblematic of this discontent, but also of its transformation.
My neighbor, an arrogant and wealthy businessman, scorned the church for many years. Whenever church members phoned him, he would criticize them: “You church people are only interested in my money. You don’t care for me; you only care about my pocketbook.” But then he became ill and was paralyzed. When I went to visit him, to my utter surprise his entire room looked like a flower shop, and cards were posted everywhere on the wall. The flowers and cards came from church members whom he so disdained for many years. Posted on the wall, facing his bed, was a big sheet of paper with these words on it: “I was wrong. The church does care.” Later he became a Christian, all because of the church’s willingness to risk loving vulnerability.63
In this case, the same “tongue,” the voice of the church, which first had been experienced without the grace and compassion of Jesus, had made its true nature known. With the tongue we can unwittingly drive people away or draw them near. The difference is the wisdom of God and sensitivity to his Spirit.
There are also times in which we use speech with the deliberate intent to hurt. The world of the academy is something of a mystery to most of us, but even here common human foibles and failings are evident. I once heard a disturbing story that bears this out—a story that involves tenure. Within the politics of the university this is among the most sacrosanct of issues. Normally the case of a professor eligible for tenure is debated first at the departmental level, with the recommendation of the department then forwarded to a variety of committees. For obvious reasons, the comments made during such discussions must be held in strictest confidence. In this case a senior professor abused this privilege. For reasons known only to him, he told a junior professor that a second senior professor had spoken against the junior professor during his tenure review. This left the junior professor bitter and angry, and for more than a decade he nursed a grudge. Unfortunately, it was all a lie. For more than a decade what had been a burgeoning friendship lay abused and dormant, strangled by a malicious lie.
Sometimes the greatest hurt is meted out by family members. Winston Churchill was ignored by both his parents. His father, Lord Randolph Churchill, detested Winston; his mother merely paid him no attention. That Winston was a disappointment as a student (he scored 53 percent in English composition on his entrance exam to Sandhurst, the British military academy) seemed to confirm their parental opinion and, in their minds, justified parental neglect. Upon graduation from Sandhurst young Winston imagined that his father would be proud. Instead Randolf was furious that he had not scored high enough to make it into the 60th rifles, a “crack regiment.” Randolf wrote a letter to his son containing these venomous words:
Do not think I am going to take the trouble of writing to you long letters after every failure you commit and undergo…. I no longer attach the slightest weight to anything you may say about your own acquirements & exploits…. If you cannot prevent yourself from leading the idle useless unprofitable life you have had during your schooldays & later months, you will become a mere social wastrel one of the hundreds of the public school failures, and you will degenerate into a shabby unhappy & futile existence. If that is so you have to bear all the blame for such misfortunes yourself.64
Randolf ended the letter brutally: “Your mother sends her love.”
Even in church such intentional barbs are let loose. Recently I was on the phone with an old friend who lives thousands of miles away. When I inquired about church life, he became quiet and sad. There had been some rough times in their church, and several prominent members of the church had let loose with some poison-tipped barbs directed at my friend and his wife. Following this the two of them felt that others within the church had become purposeful in avoiding them. My friend continues to attend the church regularly, but his wife has experienced deep hurt and attends only rarely. How petty we are, and how hurtful!
Sometimes we tell lies to hide culpability. In the early months of 1997 the American public became increasingly interested in the campaign fundraising efforts of the Clinton administration and the Democratic National Committee, in particular the propriety of appearing to “sell” access to the President. The New York Times reported that in 1995 President Clinton “personally approved a plan under which the Democratic Party rewarded some top donors with meals, coffees, golf outings and morning jogs with him and with overnight stays in the Lincoln bedroom….”65 Amid the growing furor, President Clinton, on February 25, 1997, said, “The Lincoln Bedroom was never sold.”66
Yet, according to the Times report, some “Democratic fund-raisers explicitly sold invitations to White House coffees with President Clinton and offered to arrange invitations for a price, usually $50,000 but as much as $100,000.” The Times also published a copy of a memo in the President’s handwriting dated to 1995: “Yes, pursue all three and promptly. And get other names at 100,000 and 50,000 or more…. Ready to start overnights right away. Give me the top 10 list back, along w/ the 100, 50,000.”67 The Times also reported that while officials of the Clinton administration claimed that invitations to White House events were never sold, “several contributors and fund-raisers … said that was not true. ‘I don’t understand why they continue to deny the obvious,’ said a fund-raiser….”68
The church is not immune from this phenomenon either. I have a friend who is a clinical psychologist. Some years ago a young woman, the daughter of a prominent pastor, came under her care. It soon became evident that her father was guilty of physically abusing his daughter. This was not a case of creative memory, for there was incontrovertible proof in the form of witnesses and hospital records. Her father denied the charges. The members of the church board, trusting their friend and pastor, defended him energetically. Over the course of several months the matter was played out in a highly public fashion. Finally, the pastor admitted culpability. He had lied, he said, to save the church from scandal and to save himself. The result was catastrophic for the church. The elders who had trusted the pastor were duped by him and fell into disgrace in the eyes of both church and community. In this case the tongue perpetuated an evil and spread the venom of the original evil, infecting all who came into contact with it. How many lies were told to cover the original lie, which covered the sin of abuse? How much faithfulness and integrity were besmirched because of that first lie? Our words, when sinful, grow in malevolent effect far more quickly than we imagine. This is a case in which the tongue of a pastor, in telling a selfish lie, infected and destroyed an entire congregation.
In the chapter entitled “Queen Alice” of his Through the Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll has the Red Queen say, “When once you’ve said a thing, that fixes it, and you must take the consequences.” Our tongues may be small, but like a tiny spark that sets a blaze, our tongues can do untold damage to others.
Several years ago I was backpacking with some friends in northern California. On the morning of the last day, during a thunderstorm, we realized that a forest fire was not far away. As the day wore on, the air became increasingly thick with smoke. All day long we could hear and sometimes see the planes as they prepared to drop fire-arresting chemicals on the blaze. When we reached our car and turned on the radio, we learned that the fire had burned to the area where we had camped just the night before. After burning several hundred acres, the fire was arrested by a combination of the storm and the efforts of fire fighters. It had started as the result of one careless match. There is great potential stored up in the tongue, just as there is great potential in the position of teacher. Both must be exercised with the wisdom of God.