In like fashion Biblical narratives function as vehicles of divine revelation that helps us makes sense (or better yet find) our place and meaning in this sizeable and ever changing storyline that we call life. That perhaps explains why we often find ourselves identifying with the characters in Bible stories because in a way they lay bare a part of ourselves that we exhibit we whenever we cope with the harsh realities of life as well as when we feel like we are brought face to face to the actuality of the divine in our midst.

In this reflection for this class on Christian anthropology I would like to turn our attention on the primordial creation narrative of The Fall, looked at from the vantage point of a graphic novel: Alan Moore and Brian Bolland’s Batman: The Killing Joke, where I will attempt to find parallels between the two comic book storylines in relation to the fall of man and the predicament of human existence that follows it.

Mythological language of Genesis

The primordial stories found in Genesis 1-9 is an area of contention among Christians as it has long been debated as to whether or its content are to be looked at as actual historical account of events that explains our questions of origins to the point that churches have split over whether one group accepts Genesis as literally factual or mythologically true.

I believe that all monotheistic religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam set some store of factual veracity in the tales contained in their holy books. However, it must be noted that it is pointless to dispute the scientific compatibility of the creation account, since the literary genre of almost all of these narratives is myth.

Myths are not non-scientific tales conjured up by primitive minds, but are instead a legitimate and significant literary vehicle for unfolding the meaning of human existence, the universe as well as the deities. Mythology is not a history book as much as a way to explain an often incomprehensible world. Therefore, it cannot be judged verifiably true or false; rather it represents a people’s fundamental understanding of themselves, to which there exists a unique correlation between the claims of myths and history whereas myths provide us with an interpretation of history that would answer the question of ‘why’ in regards to our existence and present state of being.

Thru the language of mythology we can look at Genesis as the story of ourselves as we journey from innocence to experience. The narrative of the Fall can be traced to humanity’s audacious claim and exercise of autonomy over and against the sovereign God of creation.

This can be done without actually adhering to the traditional concept of Adam and Eve as literal persons since the original language of Genesis describes humanity as having material reality: ‘the LORD God formed man [ʼĀḏām] from the dust of the ground [adamah] –’earthlings’ from the ‘earth,’ so to speak (Gn. 2:7) Our nature is firmly ‘earthed’ or ‘grounded; in the world of nature, yet we owe our organic life (Gn. 2:7b) as ‘living beings’ to God’s active giving of life (Gn. 2:7b)^[3].

We can bridge ourselves to the story of the Fall by situating ourselves as people who inhabit this planet to which the characters of Adam and Eve are our representatives in this state of broken equilibrium because they are people like us. While the serpent functions as the principle of probation or the embodiment of what we desire most. The story of Adam and Eve represents the choice which confronts all human beings and the disobedience to God into which all of us fall^[4].

Batman: The Killing Joke

In the mid-1980s long-time Batman, writer, Dennis O’Neil^[5] took over as editor of the Batman titles and set the template for the portrayal of Batman following DC’s status quo-altering miniseries Crisis on Infinite Earths^[6]. O’Neil operated under the assumption that he was hired to revamp the character and as a result tried to introduce a different tone in the books than had gone before. Among the stories that were produced that period was Alan Moore^[7] and artist Brian Bolland’s^[8] 1988′s Batman: The Killing Joke, which is widely considered to be the be-all-end-all of Joker stories, as it stirred a bit of controversy because the story involves the Joker brutally, pointlessly shooting Commissioner Gordon’s daughter in the spine in an attempt to drive Commissioner Gordon insane, to prove that any man can be pushed past his breaking point and go mad.

The Killing Joke: The Fall as ‘one really bad day’

“Any man can have one really bad day and end up just like me.” – The Joker

A former clerical staff a at a chemical processing plant  resigns from his job to become a stand-up comedian, with has a pregnant wife, a backlog of bills, and not to mention the fact that the whole career move that he made is seen perceived as a stupid move by everyone around him.

But his fate seems to change as he is given a break by thieves who asked the clerk-turned-comedian to help them break into the chemical plant that he used to work in. However, a few hours before the heist the man comedian who would in time become The Joker got a call from a doctor telling him that his wife died from a freak accident in an electronics store while testing a water heater, realizing that he has nothing left to live for he tried to walk off from the heist, but the crooks told him that he can’t back-off, so reluctantly he guides them through the chemical plant. During the heist they ran into plant security and eventually Batman who out of fear caused him to jump into a pool of chemicals causing him to disfigure his face and eventually lose his sanity transforming him to the homicidal Joker.

Looking to prove that any man can be pushed past his breaking point and go mad, The Joker attempts to drive Commissioner Gordon insane, after shooting and permanently paralyzing his daughter Barbara (aka Batgirl), The Joker, kidnaps the commissioner and attacks his mind in hopes of breaking the man. But refusing to give up, Gordon maintains his sanity with the help of Batman in an effort to best the madman.

A bad day can make or break a man is a unique insight that The Killing Joke, can contribute in enriching our understanding The Fall, that doesn’t recognize narrative as an actual historical event but rather to comprehend it in existential terms since we are beings of history and experience –our lives testify to that single point in time (or better yet single day) when we cross the line from innocence to experience or that point in time when we likewise make an audacious claim of autonomy over and against structures of boundaries and morality that govern us to which we come out of the ordeal forever changed.

For Batman, this ‘one really bad day’ came in the death of his parents at the hands of a mugger which he witnessed during his youth, a traumatic event that forever transformed the young Bruce Wayne into the vigilante Batman who administers justice to the superstitious, cowardly lot of the Gotham underworld.

In relation to our story of the Fall, we can see that like Adam and Eve; Batman and The Joker were both beset with that choice of how they can move on after that one bad day, a choice that constantly confronts us even now. Because it is given that tragedy strikes, however responding to it hands over to us a responsibility to make a good choice whether or not we would persevere in pursuing that which is good; or concede to the hopelessness that comes with catastrophe; or tread the third path of escapism that was exhibited by the Joker when he embraced his insanity. Both Batman and the Joker are creations of a random and tragic ‘one bad day.’ Batman spends his life forging meaning from the random tragedy, whereas the Joker reflects the absurdity of ‘life, and all its random injustice^[9].’”

Interestingly The Killing Joke ends with Batman and Joker sharing a laugh right before a desperate and cornered Joker wilfully surrenders himself to Batman’s custody. The laughter can be looked at as a realistic response to their perpetual predicament of living in the tension of their lives after their ‘one really bad day’ as well affirmation of the shared humanity between Batman and Joker; a humanity that we likewise share with one another in community with our fellow men.

Conclusion: Orienting ‘one really bad day’ to our understanding of ‘conversion’

Evangelicals have the tendency to think of theology along soteriological^[10] lines. Single life transforming events like those explored by The Killing Joke can have parallels to our understanding of the concept of conversion, which we Evangelicals hold at such a high esteem because we tend to use those events as a litmus test to any Christian’s profession of their faith in Christ.

Perhaps the story of The Killing Joke can function as a resource in enriching our understanding of these ‘single really bad days’ as external catalysts that orchestrates an individual’s conversion for or against something. I believe that it is quite possible that such stories would inform us of how we can draw on such days so as to enrich one’s understanding of their own conversion to Christ, which would help in deepening their empathy with others who are yet to respond to the Gospel message or to their own self-awareness of how they were come into contact with the divine.

Lastly, it helps in a sense as a reminder for us to see ourselves simply as human beings, no longer as gods, that they are in a position to perceive the wholly other nature of God. It is only when we cease to be unhappy supermen and pathetic mini-gods and permit ourselves to become human beings through and through again that we let God be God^.[11]

The Reformation is a religious movement that began in 1517 as a reaction to medieval Catholic doctrines and practices, which broke up the institutional unity of the church in Western Europe and established the third great branch of Christianity, called Protestantism, which can be distinguished for its emphasis on the absolute and sufficient authority of the Bible and on justification by faith alone.

Many factors such as feudalism, social, political, economic as well as religious life of several countries paved the way for the conditions that resulted in the Reformation. Furthermore, nationalistic fervour, rise of lay piety, theological awareness and humanism also contributed to the development of the Reformation which led to the renewal of morals, worship, liturgy, spirituality as well as study of Christian doctrines.

Several fundamental doctrines can be found in the four Solas that are stated in the Augsburg Confession of 1530 that was edited by Philipp Melanchthon, a professor at the University of Wittenberg and close friend of Martin Luther sums up the theological thrust of the Reformation movement.

1. Scripture Alone (Sola Scriptura) – This speaks of the place of Scripture as the sole authority with regard to Christian doctrine and practice. Therefore, the studying and understanding the Scriptures plays an important role in the life of all believers. Moreover, this also highlights the need for the Bible to be translated into the vernacular language that common people will understand.
2. In Christ Alone (Solus Christus) – This asserts the rightful place of Jesus Christ as the sole conciliator between God and man. It also articulates that a person is made right with God by the merits of Christ alone Christ’s sacrificial death and resurrection is a once-and-for-all event that reconciles the world with God. Furthermore, this also entails that Christ is the sole mediator between God and man.
3. By Grace Alone (Sola Gratia) – This relates to the nature of God’s loving initiative to make people right with Him, not through any merit on the part of the person. But rather out of God’s own accord salvation is given as an unearned gift.
4. By Faith Alone (Sola Fide) – This accounts for the personal response of the individual to God as the ultimate cause of salvation that was enacted through Christ and is made available by as a gift by grace. It speaks of the individual’s appropriation of this gift of salvation that comes through faith alone in Christ.

The call for reform within the Catholic Church started early on with people like Peter Waldo began to preach and teach publicly, based on his ideas of simplicity and poverty, notably that “No man can serve two masters, God and mammon” accompanied by strong condemnations of Papal excesses and Catholic dogmas, including purgatory and transubstantiation; the French abbot Bernard of Clairvoux; John Huss a Czech priest, who was burned at the stake for heresy against the doctrines of the Catholic Church, in consequence for his attacks against the excess of the Pope; and John Wycliffe of Oxford, England who had been labelled as “the Morning Star of the Reformation”, for the reason that he translated the New Testament of Jerome’s Vulgate into vernacular English in 1382, as well as for being one of the earliest opponents of papal authority influencing secular power.

But it wasn’t until 1517 when Martin Luther, an Augustinian monk from Germany nailed his “95 Theses” on the church door at the Castle Church in Wittenberg in protest against the selling of indulgences, that the call for reform became widespread throughout Western Europe.

While in 1519 Huldreich Zwingli became the People’s Priest at The Great Minster Church in Zurich. He abandoned the liturgical calendar and started preaching through the Bible book by book. He began to challenge unscriptural practices in the Catholic Church. Like so, he became the leader of the Swiss Reformation, which rose independent from Martin Luther, as Zwingli also arrived at similar conclusions in his own personal study of the Scriptures. Zwingli was later killed in 1531 at Kappel am Albis, while serving as a military chaplain in a battle against the Catholic cantons.

In April 17, 1521, Luther stands before the Diet of Worms which addressed the effects of the Protestant Reformation. His refusal to retract all of his writings at the demand of Pope Leo X in 1520 and the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V resulted in his excommunication by the pope and his condemnation as an outlaw by the emperor.

Conrad Grebel, the son of a prominent Swiss merchant and councilman, who studied under Zwingli the Greek classics, the Latin Bible, the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament splits with Zwingli’s group over disagreement on infant baptism in 1525. Later he forms Swiss Brethren movement which was influential in the formation of the radical wing of the Reformation which became known as the Anabaptists (re-baptizers), whose direct descendants, are the Amish which came from a group in 1693 led by Jakob Ammann; the Hutterites a communal branch of Anabaptists founded by Jakob Hutter which emphasized on living in a community of goods and absolute pacifism; and Menno Simons’ followers who called themselves Mennonites which founded their belief in both the mission and ministry of Jesus Christ, which they held to with great conviction despite persecution by the various Roman Catholic and Protestant states.

In the meantime Henry VIII dismisses Lord Chancellor Thomas Wolsey for failing to obtain the Pope’s consent to his divorce from Catherine of Aragon; Henry VIII summons the “Reformation Parliament” and begins to cut the ties with the Church of Rome in 1529.

Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury during the reigns of the English kings Henry VIII and Edward VI gains his first contact with a Continental reformer was with Simon Grynaeus, a follower of the Swiss reformers Basel. In the summer of 1531, Grynaeus took an extended visit to England to offer himself as an intermediary between the king and the Continental reformers. He struck up a friendship with Cranmer and after his return to Basel, he wrote about Cranmer to the German reformer Martin Bucer in Strasbourg. Grynaeus’ early contacts initiated Cranmer’s eventual relationship with the Strasbourg and Swiss reformers. Cranmer later led the Church of England to a more Protestant direction the Thirty-Nine Articles, an Anglican statement of faith which was derived from his work as well as through the Book of Common Prayer.

During his 18-month stay in Bourges, the Frenchman, John Calvin learned Greek, and experienced a sudden religious conversion. Later we will publish seminal work the Institutes of the Christian Religion in Latin in 1536.

The Catholic Church convenes the Council of Trent to counter the Protestant Reformers in 1545, which resulted with the condemnation of the dissenting Protestant views with the concluding “anathema sit” (“let him be anathema”) which literally means ‘to be accursed’.

England returns to Roman Catholicism: Protestants are persecuted and about 300, including Cranmer, were convicted of treason and heresy was burned at the stake. While in Germany the Peace of Augsburg was signed giving each German prince the right to determine the religious affiliation of the territory he rules in 1555.

Lastly, John Knox a Scottish clergyman who came under the influence of John Calvin returns to Scotland after several years in Geneva, and led the Scottish Reformation and began to preaching against the Papal Church. Later he was arrested under Queen Mary Stuart of Scotland in 1560 and tried for treason, but was acquitted. He spent his remaining years preaching and lecturing in Edinburgh and St. Andrews. He is considered the founder of the Presbyterian denomination in Scotland.

On hindsight, the Protestant Reformation was instrumental in instituting a reorganizing of Christianity that resulted in the restoration of the place of Scripture as the sole authority in the rule of faith and life, which puts forward the necessity for churches to consult the Bible in formulating doctrines and practices as well as for the laity to include the daily reading of Scripture part of their piety, and situating the preaching of the Word central in congregational worship. This restoration moreover, necessitates the translation of the Scriptures into the common lingua franca of the people.

It is also noteworthy that prior to the Reformation John Huss and John Wyclife, have laid the groundwork for this when they stressed the need to have the Bible available in vernacular language. This bore fruit with Luther’s translation of Erasmus’ Greek translation Bible into German, as well as in the work of William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale and John Rogers in translating the Bible into the English language.

It also paved the re-discovery of the liberating message of being made right with God by grace which an individual can receive by faith in Christ alone.  This is important because this got to the bottom of Luther’s argument in his 99 Thesis against indulgences which he believed makes forgiveness of sins burdensome for people (especially the underprivileged). More importantly the re-discovery reinstates God’s proper place in His role in the salvation of people because it reveals Him as the initiator and finisher of man’s reconciliation with Him and that man can only respond to that salvific work in faith so as to receive that gift of salvation from God.

The recovery of the individual person’s access to God through Christ . While at the same time God is equally accessible to all the faithful, and every Christian has equal potential to minister for God.  This prompted greater participation from the part of the laity in ministerial functions in the church, thus renewing the communal life of the church where parishioners are transformed from mere spectators into co-ministers of the clergy in administering functions in the church.

From the Roman Catholic perspective the Reformation destroyed the unity of faith and ecclesiastical organization of the Christian peoples of Europe which was also partly because of the Catholic Church’s condemnation of the Protestants in Trent, which in their perspective diminished a unified witness to the Body of Christ.

Via the Reformation what resulted is a fragmented Christian movement with the tendency to split over issues of dispute within their respective traditions and interpretations of Scripture. It is not totally wrong to say that this is the Protestantism’s weakness as this transition from a monolithic Christian expression of Western Christianity to a diverse group of faith communities unified by agreement on principal doctrines was able to renew Christianity and not to mention reach out to more people and re-establish the place of evangelization in both Protestant and Catholic Churches and not to mention was also influential in the later rise of free enterprise and the Enlightenment.

However, looking at it from today’s perspective this fragmented Body of Christ also shows a Christianity that tends to look more after its denomination’s distinctive rather than what unifies them, thus I believe on a personal note that there is much to be learned from Philip Schaff, who stated on numerous occasions his ecumenical hope that: “In Christ all contradictions are reconciled.” Thus I believe this aftermath of  the Reformation presently challenges us Christians to pursue a greater understanding of all expressions of the Christian faith, as well as gives us the hope to pray and work harder for a reconciliatory reunion of, all those who profess faith in Jesus Christ.

While it is also tragic to note that no research of the Reformation would be complete without stating that the Reformation was also tainted with violent conflicts between Catholics and Protestants, as well as the persecution from the Magisterial Reformers of the Radical Reformers. Not to mention that the dreadful combination of religious fervour with politics of patronage also led to the Thirty Years’ War that was fought largely as a religious conflict between Protestants and Catholics in the Holy Roman Empire, although disputes over the internal politics and balance of power within the Empire played a significant part. The Peace of Westphalia denotes a series of peace treaties signed between May and October of 1648 which eventually ended the Thirty Year’s War, but not without the loss of precious life and damaged witness to the cause of Christ.

In spite, of its failings we also need to keep reminding ourselves to look for the big picture. We cannot help but see flaws, disgraceful aspects, even scandals. But as we look deeper you will find that it is a marvel that through it the Biblical foundations of the Church was reclaimed and Christianity was able persist even though it’s very essence and existence has been threatened in many ways at different times. Somehow it coped. Still it survives. Its doors are always open. And never forget that this is the institution that at is best seeks out the worst, welcoming in and caring for those who no one else wants.

The Reformation also highlighted the fact that in spite of widespread abuse and scandal within the Church, the Holy Spirit worked in the lives of its outstanding members that are in the person of the Protestant Reformers who made great impacts that would forever transform the character of Christianity forever, by teaching us that we can reclaim our idealism and our belief and our confidence in God and His written Word who calls us to always reform and keep on reforming for God’s Glory.

Further reading

1. Le Poulet Gauche: The Reformation
2. The Story of the Church Part 4: The Protestant Reformation
3. Catholic Encyclopedia: The Reformation
4. Diercke International Atlas: The Reformation in Europe circa 1570
5. A Puritan’s Mind: The Reformation, the greatest revival of the church and its aftermath
6. The Story of the Church: Progress of the Reformation 1517-1688
7. Hanover College History Department: Internet Archive of Texts and Documents for the Protestant Reformation
8. Fordham University: Modern History Sourcebook entry on the Reformation

Bibles

• Authorized King James Version (KJV)
• Christian Community Bible (CCB) 1971 Claretian Communications
• English Standard Version (ESV) 2007 Crossway Bibles
• New American Standard Bible (NASB) 1995 Lockman Foundation
• New International Version (NIV) 1984 International Bible Society
• New Living Translation (NLT) 2007 Tyndale House Foundation

Commentaries

• Adamson, James. James: The Man and His Message (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1989)
• Davids, Peter. The Epistle of James: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982)
• Dibelius, Martin. James: A Commentary on the Epistle of James, Hermenia trans. Williams, Michael. (Minneapolis: MN, Fortress Press, 1975)
• Dooriani, Daniel. James, Reformed Expository Commentary (Philipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2007)
• Easton, Burton Scott and Poteat, Gordon . “James”. The Interpreter’s Bible Volume XII. (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1955)
• Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Letter of James, Anchor Bible (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1995)
• Laws, Sophie. The Epistle of James (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1993)
• Martin, Ralph. Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 48, James (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1988)
• Moo, Douglas James: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007)
• Perkins, Pheme. First and Second Peter, James, and Jude, Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville, KT: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995)
• Strauss, Lehman. James Your Brother: Studies in the Epistle of James (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1956)
• Stulac, George. James – The IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 1993)
• Tamez, Elsa. The Scandalous Message of James: Faith Without Works Is Dead (New York, NY: Crossroad Publishing Company, 2002)

References

• Achtemeier, Paul, Green, Joel Thompson, Marianne Meye. Introducing the New Testament: Its Literature and Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001)
• Barton, John & Muddiman, John, Oxford Bible Commentary (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2001)
• Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, trans. Smith, Neville Horton. Ethics (New York, NY: Touchstone, 1995)
• Chester, Andrew and Martin, Ralph New Testament Theology: The Theology of the Letters of James, Peter and Jude (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1994)
• Christian Conference of Asia – Theological Concerns. God, Christ and God’s People in Asia (Shatin, HK: Clear-Cut Publishing & Printing, 1995)
• Fee, Gordon, Stuart, Douglas. How to Read the Bible for all its Worth 3rd Ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003)
• Fitzmyer, Joseph. Scripture, the Soul of Theology (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1994)
• Fujita, Neil. Introducing the Bible (Ramsey, NJ: Paulist Press, 1981)
• Gutierrez, Gustavo. The God of Life (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1994)
• Greenlee, J. Harold. Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eedermans Publishing, 1964)
• Harrington, Wilfrid. Key to the Bible Vol. 3 (Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1990)
• Harris, Maria. Proclaim Jubilee!: Spirituality for the Twenty-First Century (Louisville, KT: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996)
• Kennedy, Emma. Justice and the Heart of God (Oxford, UK: Monarch/Christian Aid, 2008)
• Laarman, Peter editor. Getting on Message: Challenging the Christian Right from the Heart of the Gospel (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 2006)
• Luther, Martin. Selected Writings of Martin Luther, ed. Theodore G. Tappert, (Minneapolis: MN, Fortress Press, 2007)
• Marion Soards, Thomas Dozeman, Kendall Mccabe. Preaching The Revised Common Lectionary Year A Advent/Christmas/Epiphany (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1992)
• Matheny, Paul. On the Genealogies and Geographies of Philosophical and Theological Thinking: An Introductory Text (Quezon City, Philippines: New Day Publishers, 2006)
• Miguez Bonino, Jose. Towards a Christian Political Ethics (Minneapolis: MN, Fortress Press, 1983)
• Sherlock, Charles. The Doctrine of Humanity, Contours of Christian Theology series (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1996)
• Starr, James and Engberg-Pedersen, Troels. Early Christian Paraenesis in Context (New York, NY: Walter de Gruyter Publishing, 2005) p.1
• Wallis, Jim. God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets it Wrong and why the Left Doesn’t Get it (New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, 2005)
• Watley, William. Singing the Lord’s Song in a Strange Land (Geneva, Switzerland: WCC Publications, 1993)

The most striking theme in the whole letter is the denunciation of the rich and the powerful, and the corresponding concern for the poor and the oppressed. Which is evident in the vehement denunciation of social injustice, oppression and exploitation, above all in the direct attack on the rich traders and merchants (4:13-17) is integrally connected (cf. also 4:1-12), and the same point is sharply evident also in 2:6-7, even though this section is dealing mainly with the issue of favouritism within the community, and is not addressed directly to the poor. James in this section exposes ruthlessly the sources of power relationships and the causes of conflict, oppression and social unjustice. To live for personal gain and to exploit the poor and defenceless is the epitome of evil; above all it is in direct contradiction to what God requires (2:5). Yet at the same time James insists that it is not simply the direct exploitation and oppression of the poor by the rich that constitutes the problem. It is also the obsequious favouring of the rich and powerful, for the favour it is hoped they will bestow, and the contemptuous treatment of the poor, because they can offer nothing, that serves to reinforce the injustice, suffering and imbalance of power (2:1-7). James sets these issues in eschatological perspective, above all that of final judgement[1].

Thus James puts forward an obvious call to action for equality that is manifested in acts of love mercy and in the communal life of the church, which he demonstrated in the manner upon which he presented his diatribe –he exercised equality as he spared no one in his audience he addressed them as they are: Jew and Gentile, rich and poor, male and female (evident in his latter usage of Abraham and Rahab in the epistle) –thus his words are made true by his exercise of indiscriminate dealing with their sin of partiality. Furthermore, by stating his affinity with his audience at the beginning of his epistle James, shows that he does not nullify the implication of guilt upon himself as well because since his audience were his brothers/sisters and co-workers he in a way implicates himself of the guilt as well because of his identification with his audience –thus a collective admittance of guilt that fosters the cause for pursuing equality within the community of faith.

And in relating to the problem of partiality James is saying that a church that does not practice equality and fairness in their life as a community is a church that does not bear witness to life, a church that only believes but does not follow –thus lacking as it fails to synthesize the inseparable relationship of knowledge and ethics –the synergy of faith and works.

Part 11: Mercy should have the final say

Therefore, being guilty as charged James in verse 12 calls upon his audience to be responsible and own up to their guilt as they are accountable by they have done to judgement while verse 13 speaks of mercy being rendered only unto those who renders mercy (reminiscent of the Mosaic antecedent ‘eye for an eye’ in Leviticus 24:19–21, Exodus 21:22–25, and Deuteronomy 19:21) while at the same time reminding his audience of the paradoxical statement where mercy triumphs over judgement. In a way this shows that as far as dealing with sin (partiality) is concerned justice must have the first word, however it cannot have the last as mercy is important because James in writing this epistle reproofs his audience so that they would repent and in so doing have their fellowship restored regardless of their economic standing, thus putting into effect the royal law according to the Scripture, that is to: love our neighbour as ourselves!

In verses 8-11 James’ brothers, his co-servants in Christ those who belong to the twelve tribes scattered among nations (1:1), are now reminded of their identity which finds itself in their history as the people upon whom God disclosed His divine will according to the law.

Verse 8 echoes what was spoken of the Lord in Leviticus 19:18 which find its place within what scholars call as ‘the Holiness Code[1]’ of Israel. The code calls on the people of Israel to separated from the rest of the world because God has chosen them in doing so they are to demonstrate their unique relationship with God by disassociating themselves from profane worldliness and by their rituals and by obeying the commands in the Law which includes exercising equality as a demonstration of justice and righteousness with injunction to “love one’s neighbour as oneself” (Lev. 19:15). While, Jesus emphasized that the moral requirements of the law –justice, mercy and faith –were the heart of God’s will for Israel and were to be the norms governing its life as a people of God. Jesus spoke of the entire law as summarized in two commands: love of God and neighbour[2] (Mat. 22:37-39).

Hence, the law finds its full significance in love. Thus implying that to do that sincerely is to really put ourselves in a position where we must love our neighbour in the same effectual terms that we love ourselves. In consequence circumscribing that laws are in effect admissions of human weakness. But at the same time are also expressions of collective strength –of our ability to bear one another’s burdens, including the burden of our sins[3].

By their act of showing partiality James in verse 9 implicates them of guilt in accordance to the law that they recognize as their arbiter of divine judgement. He goes on further in verses 10-11 by pronouncing them as guilty of all counts in accordance to the law again echoing what has been stated that status and accomplishments in this world will not change the individual’s standing before God. [4]

Part 9: The implication of guilt

Notice James implicates his brothers’ of their fault by posting a rhetorical question: “has God not chosen the poor…?” This question indicates the expectation of an affirmative answer, because the church knew well that God had chosen the poor, since this concept of God’s preferential option for the poor is already deeply rooted in both Jewish and Christian thought[1].

Notice also how James clearly distinguishes the type of rich person about whom he is speaking. Instead of merely referring to him as “the rich,” he writes “a man in gold rings in fine clothing” –characteristic adornment of a wealthy person[2]. Furthermore, James emphasized that the God whom they serve as co-servants, the God who has implanted his word upon them has: “chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom,” on the other hand James also highlights that this divine option for the poor is a promise that can only be claimed by the poor who loves God –thus the poor who are part of their faith community, and it is here where the irony of the situation lies.

As the Christians do not simply discriminate against the poor, but they do so in favour of the rich. This means that they are siding with the very class which both historical and at present persecutes the impoverished believer. They have made the church into a tool of persecution[3]. The legal overtones function as an example, which asserts that Christians run the risk of becoming like those who persecute them (2:6-7). That persecution takes the form of court proceedings in which the superiority of the rich enables them to oppress the Christian. James suggests that this hostility stems from the fact that the weaker party is a Christian (2:7)[4].

All James’ sympathy goes to the afflicted and to the weak; he has written mainly for them: Like the Old Testament prophets, he takes issue with social injustice; at the same time, however, he considers poverty to have a religious value which makes of the unfortunate the privileged friends of God –the anawim[5].

Anawim is the plural form of an Old Testament Hebrew word which is variously translated as “poor”, “afflicted”, “humble”, or “meek”. These humble people became known as the anawim or the “faithful remnant.” It is often used in the Psalms, including Psalm 37:11, which reads, “Blessed are the anawim for they shall inherit the earth.” Furthermore the anawim, are “the lost and the forgotten ones”, that Jesus referred to in the beatitudes.

In verses 6-7 James now turns bluntly to his audience to implicate them of their guilt by using the pronoun ‘you’ he points the blame on his brothers who have dishonoured the poor person in their church. Aside from reprimanding his audience he reminds them of their identity that they are likewise poor as well thus reminding them that it is the rich among their midst that unexceptionally oppresses them by dragging them to courts. In response, James also calls upon the poor to exercise equality by showing no special favour for the rich and affluent among their assembly, because in showing partiality they themselves acknowledge inequality as germane to their community thus being unfair to themselves in favour of the rich. Here James puts forward a startling realization for his audience –equality works both ways: the rich should give special attention to the needs of the poor; the poor should likewise give no special treatment to the rich; while the church should show no distinction between both the rich and the poor – hence exhibiting levelling effect of the Christian gospel!

Having set the stage in his introduction, James now turns to discuss one of the major themes he has introduced, that of wealth and charity. A discussion that expands on the previous statements in 1:9-11 and 1:22-27[1]. Following James’ theme of responding to God’s implanted word in action in the previous chapter (1:22-25), the author now starts situate the behavioural patterns that ought to be manifested by his brothers and co-servants who have received the word. He does so with the emphasis of practicing equality within the church, as James clearly believes that the poor have a very important place in the church because of the levelling effect of the Christian gospel, to which he argues that true faith has no place for the social distinction of the world.[2]

In Verse 1 James again uses the word ‘brothers’ (the same word that he used to address his audience in 1:2), for early Christians went beyond the language of benefaction and friendship to speak of one another as “brothers” and “sisters,” in a way implying that: Christians are to treat each other as siblings, thus a staggering call for his audience to remember that charity has no strings attached.[3] Moreover, James used the term in order to lovingly reaffirm his affinity and common identity with his audience who he calls to: “show no partiality,” because they are all part of this common household of faith in: “our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory.”

To speak of Christ as glorious is to speak of his reputation, fame and honour. It is a term of exaltation, revelation and eschatological salvation. This idea is probably related to this area of the term’s meaning for, James clearly thinks about the exalted Christ and his return to judge. Thus for James, those who hold the “faith in our glorious Lord” with partiality are not debasing just any belief, but rather a faith-commitment in the one exalted Lord Jesus whose glory will be fully revealed in eschatological judgement[4].

The statement of principle (1:1) that the example will illustrate (1:2-7) suddenly refers to the Lord Jesus as the basis for the faith that readers are to put into practice. Then the term prosōpolēmpsia (“partiality”) is rare in non-Christian writings. It may have been formulated in early Christian circles. It commonly refers to God’s evaluation of human beings. Status and accomplishments in this world will not change the individual’s standing before God. [5] The terms also functions as a Christian neologism, based on the Hebrew naśapanîm, which can be translated literally as: “to lift up the face/appearance” and similarly in the sense of “respecting persons” or showing favouritism[6].

This idiomatic expression in the Old Testament had the sense of “respect of persons,” with the connotation of improper partiality. We note for example Leviticus 19:15: “you shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great.” Interestingly, all these passages deal with partiality to the poor in the context of a judicial setting,[7] putting forward an axiom: God shows no partiality (Dt. 10:17), so neither should human judges[8].

James employs two stylistic devices to emphasize his argument. The first is a syntactical device: “in partiality” stands empathically after the negative me. The second is that he employs the plural, thus giving the impression that there have been several manifestations or varied forms of partiality practiced in the community[9]. The passage presents two persons entering “your synagogue.” When the two people enter, one is seated well and the other relegated to standing or sitting on the floor or perhaps. Clearly the two people are strangers, at least to this type of meeting, otherwise they would not need to be directed to their place.[10] It would seem that the most ideal key toward an understanding of the situation of this illustration lies in the use of the word synagogue[11].  This perhaps points that the assembly is a judicial assembly of the church and both litigants are strangers to the process.[12]

The usage of the word synagogue and its attached identification to Jewish religious gatherings opens up possibilities that perhaps the story of the two men that James mentioned in the passage is not an actual event[13]. As there are those who contend that the case mentioned in 2:2-4 was one that James merely heard about –an incident in a Jewish synagogue that believers from Israel still visited. There seems to be a strong argument was hypothetical. Those who postulate this diatribe style theory like Dibelius argue that because the illustration is not based on an actual incident, consideration of the community or the social situation out of which it grew is irrelevant. This of course is a logical stance for those who see that they are working with the assumption that James “spiritualizes” the rich and poor. In other words, because it seems quite evident that the illustration here refers to literal economics and class distinction, it is necessary for scholars to suggest that the case is a “constructed” illustration.

However, if these verses were merely a paranaetic example without any concern for reality, a pertinent question would be: “How effective would this example be if it were completely unrelated to the experience of its readers?[14]” Moreover, if this is not an actual event –why is there a constant use of the word ‘brothers’ if not for the obvious reason that the author knows his audience and that this audience is faced with a particular problem?

But regardless, of which stance one takes verses 2-3 provide a clear example of partiality: the rich man is honoured, the poor dishonoured. Persons who are seated or shown special prominent seats are commonly superior to others in antiquity. Those told to stand or sit by someone’s feet are of lower status or even captives, while the word synagogue has usually been understood as a gathering of the community for worship[15]. Thus although the social setting may seem exotic, the dynamics of the scene are instantaneously recognizable: James sketches human behaviour that is virtually universal. The rich and powerful are the ones who can benefit us, and the favour shown them, it is assumed, will come back to us. No great grasp of cultural comparisons is required to make this example come alive: it is enacted daily in countless ways[16].

Reflecting on verses 2-4 reminded me of a conversation I once had with my mother while we were passing by a Catholic church and we saw a poster of the proper attire for people to wear at church, and my mother remarked that in spite of such signage people still whatever they feel like wearing to church, to which I remarked that in the same manner the church is bound by obligation as Christ’s visible presence as a community of faith to not refuse those people in spite of their attire. In the same manner the passage brings into mind familiar stories of people within a household who give special treatment to their rich relatives more than their poor relatives (reminiscent of the TV sitcom John en Marsha[17]). It is tragic to think that such partiality happens even in the household of God, the community of faith: the church. That perhaps is the reason why after his account of the two visitors in the assembly James places a reflexive question to his brothers consequently to remind them of their personal shortcomings to quality as ‘just’ judges who will be able to execute justice within the church.

A few weeks ago a friend introduced me to a British television sitcom entitled, Rev. Which follows the life of Anglican priest, Adam Smallbone, who is newly promoted from a sleepy rural parish to the busy, inner-city world of St Saviour’s, in East London[1]. The series revolves around Adam’s ordeal of running a modern inner-city church, with a reluctant wife and a depleted, motley congregation where every day throws up a moral conflict for Adam. His door must always be open – to urban sophisticates with ulterior motives, the chronically lonely, the lost, the homeless, the poor and the insane.

The first episode of the series puts Reverend Adam feeling the pressure of trying to fill a rundown London church – that is, until his congregation quadruples overnight. Overwhelmed after his church sermons in London hit a major population rise and deals with the sudden flood of patrons, but the sudden influx of worshippers isn’t down to word getting out about his sermons; there’s a rumour going round that the local church school is about to get a great Office for Standards in Education report. Faced with a bunch of hypocritical parents desperately vying for his attention in the hope he’ll recommend their child, Adam is tempted to trade a school place for the expensive restoration of a broken stained-glass window[2].

I believe this scene is not exclusive to British churches every now and then we find people in leadership positions at church, giving unchallenging lessons to the rich and their children, providing them with just enough of a distraction that they feel better about their lives.

It is to say, however, that far too often the voice which comes from the church, the dominant interpretive voice, is more informed by the concerns of the rich and the powerful than by the concerns of the poor, oppressed and marginalized. And when it is the voice of the rich and the powerful which is interpreting a challenging book like James, too often the message of James is either intercepted or sanitized.

James wrote his epistle not with the intention of telling his readers how to become a Christian but rather how to act like one, and he did so which echoes the bluntness of the Old Testament prophets.  In chapter 2 of his epistle message is simple: ‘faith’ and ‘works’ are integral to each other. The key for James is that faith needs movement and that engaging in works, or the working out of faith through actions, is that necessary dynamism – which is precisely the reason why it is also one of the hardest things that is demanded of James in the chapter[3].

Personally I’ve always found James 2 disturbing. Since for a long time in my walk of faith I’ve held such high esteem on faith (or what I’ve understood as faith at the time) that is based on intellectual adherence to doctrinal stipulations. However, that would be shaken with my exposure to ‘real life’ outside the church which has a lot to do with the ordeal of walking my talk as actions speak louder than words, and it is in this spirit that we will now be exploring the scandalous message of equality as the working out of one’s faith in James’ epistle.

X`

Audience: the twelve tribes in Dispersion

At first glance, it seems that James is writing to Jews. After all, to translate literally, James addresses his epistle “to the twelve tribes in the Dispersion.” The twelve tribes traditionally represent Israel, and the dispersion signifies the Jews scattered throughout the pagan world. But there are reasons to think James is writing for Jewish Christians, not Jews in general. As “dispersion” can serve as a metaphor to indicate that believers are never fully at home in this world. So there is reason to believe that James, like other New Testament writers, envisions a wide audience[1].

The addressee, “the twelve tribes in dispersion,” seems to indicate metaphorically to Christians that are scattered throughout the world.  Since the phrase “twelve tribes” was continued to be used as a metaphor for the Israel as the people of God, long after twelve distinctly identifiable tribes were more of a memory and ideal than a visible reality.

Although the letter’s address alone does not settle the question of its reader’s identity when taken with other evidence they were not all Jewish. To be sure, they are messianists, as the identification of Jesus as “”Lord and Christ” has already made clear and, so they are an “Israel” whose hopes have been fulfilled in the coming of the Messiah. The use of “twelve tribes” as a self-designation by an avowedly messianic sect would clearly indicate that the group believed that the restoration of Israel has already begun[2].

The place of composition eludes us but wherever his audience lives, James assumes they are familiar with life in Israel, for he often describes life from the perspective of a commoner in the towns of Judea and Galilee. For example, he mentions two rainy seasons, one early and late; two rainy seasons are a distinct trait of the weather in of Israel and the eastern Mediterranean. James also calls his meeting place a synagogue (2:2), he assumes that his audience takes pride in its monotheism, and he prods them to live their faith rather than resting in doctrinal servitude. [3]

I tend to align myself to the stance that designates James’ audience as a predominantly Jewish community of Christians that, is made up of a varied set of peoples that are made distinct by their racial and class status. As James writes to the “twelve tribes in dispersion,” that is either Jewish Christians “disperse” throughout the Greco-Roman world, or all Christians, the new people of God exiles from their own fatherland[4]. Thus the epistle is perhaps actually a homily to a community or to scattered communities of faith that are in the midst of trials of various kinds (1:2).

Occasion of writing: the hanging spectre of dissension

It has been said the as in all class uprisings it begins with the impending threat of polarization that are marred with what Jose Lacaba calls as “days of disquiet and nights of rage”[5].

Internal evidence in the epistle states that the addresses are undergoing trials which James makes no explicit mention of. However his wording seems to imply that trials does not come from outside the community but from within as he makes mention of things that ought to be present in the community of believers which are necessary for them to persevere in the midst of trials such as: joy (1:2), steadfastness (1:3), wisdom (1:5), faith (1:6) and humility (1:9-10).

With the epistle being addressed to a milieu in which social differences are marked[6]. As his audience is a mixture of both poor/lowly (1: 9) and rich (1:10-11) to which James seems to be speaking with a bit of reproach in their lifestyle as verse 11 closes with an emphasis on the rich person’s vain pursuits because among their assembly there are rich, who expect, and receive differential treatment even in the liturgical assemblies (2:1-3), men who are prodigal of generous words that cost them nothing (2:16). Entirely absorbed in their business affairs (4:13-17), they do not hesitate to cheat their workers and to squeeze the poor (5:1-6). These same poor receive scant attention even from those who are supposed to be their shepherds and ought to be their servants (2:2-6). Such conduct cannot but give rise to dissension: jealousy (3:14; 4:2); anger (1:19); murmuring (5:9); and cursing (4:11). The exasperated poor maybe driven to rebel against their lot (4:2), or they may enviously be seized by the desire for worldly possessions[7].