By Benedicta Cipolla
c. 2008 Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly
(UNDATED) When Sen. Barack Obama turns to talking about faith on the campaign trail, he sometimes invokes the New Testament book of James and its admonition that “faith without works is dead.”
As she competed for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Hillary Clinton frequently did the same — often more regularly than Obama — though what she called her “personal theology” sometimes took a different tack, saying that “works without faith is too hard.”
Sen. John Kerry also called upon James in the 2004 election, saying that “There’s a great passage in the Bible that says, `What does it mean, my brother, to say you have faith if there are no deeds?’”
Even back in 2000, in trying to characterize George Bush’s outreach to African-Americans as shallow, Al Gore invoked James in a speech to the NAACP: “Show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works.”
The repeated references to James highlight an often overlooked and sometimes controversial book of the Bible. For centuries, its supposed conflict with St. Paul and the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone relegated it to the sidelines of biblical scholarship.
Yet the book is finding new life in American politics, with James emerging as the Democrats’ go-to theologian, and his epistle as their favorite passage of Scripture.
“‘Faith without works is dead’ translates politically into ‘rhetoric without action is dead,’” said Kevin Coe, co-author of “The God Strategy: How Religion Became a Political Weapon in America.”
James stresses the theme of faith in action perhaps more than any other book of the New Testament. Unlike other New Testament letters — many of them attributed to Paul — James plays down dogma in favor of practical ethical guidelines that center on loving one’s neighbor and, in particular, serving the poor.
Over the past several years, Democrats have succeeded in marshaling the religious left and have built a bigger audience attuned to biblical language. With its calls to serve society’s marginalized and its critique of wealth, James represents a good fit for the party’s perspective.
“It’s a book that the left is likely to have a better chance of using effectively,” said Coe.
Which isn’t to say Republicans never cite James. Asked in a 2006 profile for Rolling Stone what drove his work to combat malaria, poverty and hunger in Africa, Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., responded, “Widows and orphans.”
It was an oblique reference to James 1:27: “Religion that God our father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”
James is one of seven so-called “Catholic Epistles,” so named because they address the general faithful rather than a particular community or individual, and offers instructions on how to live a moral life.
Some attribute its authorship to James, the brother of Jesus, a prominent leader of the early church in Jerusalem. Even though there was debate about the letter’s authority, it nonetheless became part of the New Testament canon by the end of the third century.
The book’s emphasis on demonstrable works — at the expense, some have argued, of belief — has plagued the letter throughout history. In the preface to his 1522 New Testament, Martin Luther famously dubbed it an “epistle of straw” for seeming to contradict his teaching of salvation through grace alone.
“It’s not the case that Paul is arguing for faith versus works, as he is sometimes portrayed,” said Thomas C. Oden, professor emeritus of theology and ethics at Drew University, “and James is not arguing for works as if they were opposed to faith, but rather a complement to faith.”
In his speeches and writings, 19th-century abolitionist Frederick Douglass used James in his calls for justice for emancipated slaves. “I love that religion that makes it the duty of its disciples to visit the fatherless and the widow in their affliction,” he said, like Brownback invoking the spirit of James 1:27.
As the Social Gospel movement spread among Protestant churches in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, James’ “faith without works is dead” theme dovetailed with the movement’s emphasis on community betterment and improvements in education, health care and labor conditions. It’s the same environment in which Clinton’s Methodist background, with its tradition of social outreach, took hold in America.
One of Clinton’s criticisms of Obama was that he’s all talk and no action — a barb that sounds a lot like another line from her favorite epistle: “But be doers of the word, and not merely hearers who deceive themselves” (James 1:22).
In response, Obama’s campaign mailed fliers to Kentucky voters that said, “My faith teaches me that I can sit in church and pray all I want, but I won’t be fulfilling God’s will unless I go out and do the Lord’s work.” It wasn’t an explicit tie to James, but the sentiment perfectly matched the epistle’s thrust.
Citing James and its “faith in action” catch phrase may also signal an attempt to reach non-Christian voters who can nonetheless appreciate the idea of living life according to a set of deeply held values.
“I think people from the Jewish faith could read the book without any difficulties, and the same with Islam. It offers a theological perspective rather than christological,” said the Rev. Patrick Hartin, professor of religious studies at Gonzaga University and the author of “A Spirituality of Perfection: Faith in Action in the Letter of James.”
Yet at the same time, James has a clear two-pronged message for Christians, said Karen Jobes, professor of New Testament Greek and exegesis at Wheaton College: “It’s not enough to say I believe in Christ but do nothing to help my neighbor” but at the same time, “living ethically, apart from Jesus Christ, is never enough.”
In that sense, James is a perfect book for politicians to use: Its scriptural authority speaks to Christians, but its emphasis on ethical action speaks to everyone.
“In some ways Christianity can be domesticated too much, in the sense that it becomes a very private, individual religion,” Hartin said. “One tends to forget its community aspect, and James is vital for that.”
Copyright 2008 Religion News Service. All rights reserved. No part of this transmission may be distributed or reproduced without written permission.
Beliefnet
Advertisement
posted June 20, 2008 at 2:19 pm
I didn’t now there was a survey! I’d vote for Micah, “What does God require of you, Mortal, but to love justice, do kindness, and walk humbly with your God.” James is great and all, but there are some Gospel things that are fairly useful as well. The Sermon on the Mount is great, but in the same vein as James there is MT 25 – “I was hungry and you gave me food, etc…”
I still recall my Mom teaching our Sunday School class about Hosea, taking the prophetic pose and proclaiming, ” ‘Take away all guilt; accept that which is good, and we will offer the bull of our lips.” Another favorite was from Psalm 50, “I will not accept a bull from your house…” These cracked us up, they are still among my favorites. Perhaps they might get resuscitated for the campaign debates?!
posted June 20, 2008 at 4:22 pm
This verse might backfire, if people remember that conservatives give more to charity than liberals.
God bless.
posted June 20, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Joey,
I all depends on how the donations are counted and who is counting them!
posted June 20, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Here’s one of my favorite bits of advice from James 1:5
“If any of you lack wisdom, ask God who gives to all liberally and it will be given to you.”
another James 1-4
“Let patience have its perfect work that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing.”
posted June 20, 2008 at 8:13 pm
“conservatives give more to charity than liberals”
Oh, I think that needs some documentation. And does charity include money given to try to buy one’s way into heaven? It shouldn’t; that would count as a very foolish investment.
posted June 22, 2008 at 3:35 pm
This is all silly. The favorite Bible verse for all Church School students everywhere is “Jesus wept.” (Extra credit – for whom did Jesus weep?)
posted June 22, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Actually I believe the fav for Dems is “Judge not…” so they can work out their “personal theology” Hilary’s personal theology says it all; it’s no longer about God, because she is her god.
posted June 22, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Actually conservatives do give more to charities and work more on the front lines for the poor and disadvantage than liberals it a documented fact.
posted June 22, 2008 at 4:52 pm
It was an oblique reference to James 1:27: “Religion that God our father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”
Yet one more example of Christianity showing how it it based on Torah, as G-d’s commandment to take care of widows and orpans is found in Torah.
You would think we’d find ourselves a little more compatible considering the similarities we seem to have.
posted June 22, 2008 at 4:59 pm
In some ways Christianity can be domesticated too much, in the sense that it becomes a very private, individual religion,” Hartin said. “One tends to forget its community aspect, and James is vital for that.”
If James was the brother of Jesus and was brought up with essentially the same Jewish values, background, and education, then the community-minded aspect of religion should not be at all surprising, since this is a basic tenet of Judaism. In fact, some prayers can only be said in the presence of a minyan (essentially, a community of group of 10 or more worhsippers), and it’s one’s obligation and duty to form a minyan to help say certain prayers – for example, the Kaddish, or mourner’s prayer.
posted June 22, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Actually conservatives do give more to charities and work more on the front lines for the poor and disadvantage than liberals it a documented fact.
cough, cough, bulls*@t!, ahem, cough.
uh-huh.
Sorry, some junky stuff got caught it my throat momemtarily.
posted June 22, 2008 at 5:07 pm
and regarding the slap at Hillary about “being her own god”; well you can easily say the same about “W”, Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson, Sean Hannity, James Dobson, Ann Coulter, etc, etc, etc conservative, conceited, self-absorbed, greedy scum. Certainly the list is not complete.
Not all conservatives are scum, naturally, but the particular individuals named above fall into that category.
posted June 22, 2008 at 8:20 pm
eastcoast–lady? “cough, cough, bulls*@t!, ahem, cough.
uh-huh.
Sorry, some junky stuff got caught it my throat momemtarily”
wonderful contribution, about what I expected; still charities don’t run on that nor are the hungry fed by such comments.
posted June 22, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Joey wrote, “conservatives give more to charity than liberals.”
That is not actually certifiable. The group that did the survey included on a very specific types of agencies that were unlikely to get support from liberal contributors. You have to be very careful about dropping survey based facts like potato chip crumbs. They are often little more than messy and leave stubborn stains.
posted June 22, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Actually Joey is correct and his statement is backed by many more than just one survey. Goggle it and you get 248,000 hits. I personally know because my life’s work is world wide charity. Regardless to how one might personally feel it is the truth; here’s the good news, if you are a liberal there is one way to change it
posted June 22, 2008 at 10:01 pm
If we’re going to talk “truth” here, then the real “truth” is that figures lie and liars figure, and you can find any survey or statistic you want anywhere to back up any statement you make, which is what often happens.
Too bad the real “truth” is lost by people who feel they have to constantly trumpet what they proclaim is their work without knowing of or caring about the contributions of others.
But once again, for the ten-thousandth time, if one needs to tear down others in order to make themselves feel better, than that is certainly to be expected as it happens all the time.
You can “goggle”(sic) (I prefer to Google) anything, and find as much garbage and lies as you do truth. I prefer to check certifiable, non-biased, non-partisan websites to get my info, even if I do get that info from google.
The haughtiness of people who find themselves superior to others, and who know nothing of the the good deeds of others, never ceases to amaze me, nor does it cease to make me sad, because it only points to an endless chasm and lack of desire to respect the lives of and appreciate the views of others.
I feel many people reaching out for ideas, understand, common ground, like jest, pagansis, henrietta, sinsote, and others whom I’m sure I’m missing, regrettably, not intentionally.
Conversely, with viewpoints like those of certain others, we will never get there from here. Just a bunch of finger pointing and statements to the effect of, “I’m better than you.”
posted June 22, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Just a few words I’ve been pondering as I read through what has been posted. People that donated lots of money from either side do good in their own way but people such as myself and my husband are retired. We don’t have that much to give. We do however help people in need with food, transportation, phone calls to check on them, hospice helpers, teaching children to read and my favorite letting the young people know they are someone. I talk to allot of girls about being strong and the do’s and don’t of letting people touch them. My husband heads the guys to website that show them if college is not an option were they will get a chance to develop a good trade to make a good living and never to feel bad about your blue collar as it is an honest sign of your life. Above all we tell everyone not to lose their faith as the Lord is always with them. We are becoming so divided in this country and that is what makes me so sad. United we stand, divided we fall. God Bless
posted June 23, 2008 at 1:45 am
ck,
The number of Google hits does not make something factual – at best it simply means people are asking similar questions. Nothing you said refutes my point, that the survey from which this information comes was biased and therefore not reputable. Being conservative does not make a person better – simply different – any more than being liberal makes a person better. The number of sexual offenders, financial crooks, and basic bad guys is about equally distributed between conservative and liberal. Wanting it to be otherwise does not make it so. The need for better/worse, winner/loser, right/wrong is all divisive and accomplishes little but some ego stroking. Different opinions and perspectives makes all this fun – simple agreement or disagreement is less enjoyable (for an example, see Monty Python, “I’m here for an argument”)
posted June 23, 2008 at 8:29 am
Justagrandmother – GREAT
posted June 23, 2008 at 8:30 am
justagrandmother – LOVE your post.
nnmns – Monty Python, “I’m here for an argument
- No, you’re not!
posted June 23, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Great post, justagrandmother.
Maybe if more people gave of their time then some of the money that goes to charities would not be needed.
Here’s a personal sidelight:
My spouse and I volunteer (in the US) with a group that works to help older adults stay in their own homes by doing housecleaning, laundry, meal preparation, yard work, etc. Depending on the individual, volunteers will also read mail, take them shopping, etc, out to lunch and just spend time visiting.
In my husband’s country (Norway), older folks, even those with families nearby, are shepherded into old folks homes when they need these tasks taken care of– not when they need medical care. The government pays people (and/or contracts out the work) to basically do things that here families or volunteers do. Materially, these old people are well taken care of. Emotionally they have been sidelined and placed out of the way by people who think that because they are paying for this “benefit’ that they don’t need to take too much thought otherwise about their elders.
This is full of generalizations, but is just one of my personal observations about the diffrence between giving time and giving money.
posted June 23, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Justagrandmother
It’s sad that most people think that giving money is all that is required to love your neighbor. You and your husband are a perfect example of really loving your neighbor. Thank you for the uplifting post and I hope I will be able to emulate you from now on.
posted June 23, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Interesting story on US religious beliefs in the NYT.
posted June 23, 2008 at 3:03 pm
It’s not about ego stroking it’s about helping others and because most folk who are in a position to help don’t. Many sit around and talk about and call people who do help names but that doesn’t help at all.
Calling names is no more than that conservative Christians are busy helping others they spend time, talent and money. You can call us every name in the book when we try to convince others to do the same is just calling names, trying to deny the fact that Christian love is an active love is just just that, trying to deny it. Instead of getting angry join us and try it help somebody. If everyone joined in the world would not look the same as it does now.
posted June 23, 2008 at 3:28 pm
ck,
right on!
posted June 23, 2008 at 3:39 pm
nnmns, you’re right, very interesting article.
CK – I’ll just say this. you’re right that people should not call names, nor should they point fingers, nor should they act superior. They should not generalize nor classify groups of people without knowing them as individuals.
We should all just do what we call G-d’s work and make lives better. That’s “tikkun olam” – repair of the world.
posted June 23, 2008 at 3:55 pm
See you all understand what I was saying. I thank you all for your kind words as these days they seem sadly missed. Just go out there in the world and in anyway way and make a differnce, help to change a life. God Bless