The Heavenly Wisdom of a Soft Answer
James chapter 3 contains two pieces of advice. The first is for governing the tongue (verses 1–13), and the second is to do with the meek wisdom which assuages the evils of the tongue, and avoids strifes and contentions (verses 14–18).
Control Your Tongue and You Control Your Whole Self
James tells us to bridle the tongue, that is, to hold back from invective, and rigid rehearsals of other people’s vices or infirmities. “Be not many masters,” he says (verse 1), i.e., do not arrogate to yourselves the authority of a master over others, and too much liberty to carp at things (as many do), but instead bridle your tongues.
One reason for this is because those who unjustly censure others will suffer heavier judgement from the God who avenges injuries (verse 1). Also, seeing we all have many failings (“in many things we offend all,” verse 2), it is better for us to deal more diligently with the infirmities of others, not to arrogate the authority of judging without a calling, or to be unjust in judging.
Anyone who knows how to govern their tongue shows the sign of being “perfect,” someone who can moderate all their actions (verse 2). Anyone who cannot moderately rule their tongue, but in all things carps at other people’s behaviour, has the sign of being a hypocrite.
If you are guiding the horse’s bridle, you have control of the horse; and if you have your hand on the rudder, you are steering the ship. Even so, if you have your tongue under control, you rein in your whole body, and keep your outward actions in check (verse 3–5).
Great care is needed in governing the tongue, because of how gloriously it can boast. It can on both sides perform much good – in speaking the truth, in constancy, in letting things slide, in courtesy, and so on.
You Might also like
-
Immutability
With God, there is no room for improvement. He has always been, and always will be, utterly and delightfully perfect in every way.
I recently watched a short film that still haunts me. It was actually from a comedy show, but it had such a sense of sadness to it.
A man goes into a train station. At the counter, he holds up a photo for the ticket agent and says, “This is a bit of a strange question, but can you tell me how to get there?”
The ticket agent looks at the photo and she says: “Oh yes, that’s Millport. What you’ve got to do is get the train to a place called Largs, then you get the ferry . . .” And the man says: “No, I know how to get to Millport. But can you tell me how to get to there?” And he points to the photo again.
He says: “I took that photo when I was about 16; that’s me there. That summer was amazing. Hanging out with friends all day, not worrying about tomorrow, just laughing, having a great time, jumping off the pier, swimming around, and it was like summer seemed to go on forever.” And after he reminisces about it for a while, he goes quiet. And then he says: “I don’t want to be here anymore. I want to be there. So can you tell me . . . how do I get there?”
And she looks at him and says, “You can’t do that; I’m sorry.”
So he says, “Ah, just give me a return to Largs then.”
Places never stop changing. People too. They can’t stay the same, and neither can we. Often, that simple fact is enough to break our heart.
But there is One who is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
When we talk about God like this, we’re talking about His immutability. Immutability is the biblical idea that God is unchanging in His character, will, and His promises.
James chapter 1, verse 17 puts it like this: “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.”
Numbers chapter 2 says, “God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind.” In Malachi chapter 3, God says, “I the Lord do not change.” Hebrews talks about “the unchangeable character of his purpose,” and in 2 Timothy we read that “if we are faithless, he remains faithful—for [God] cannot deny himself.” (In other words, God cannot deny His own immutability. His unchangeability is unchangeable.)
Read More -
Overture 15 Has Failed. It’s Time to Reconsider the Nature of the Debate
Under both the old and new covenants God has denied people office (and sometimes more) on account of things that are outside of their conscious control. Why? Because the offices in question belong to God and he may give them or forbid them to whomever he pleases for whatever reasons he pleases. That is inherent in his sovereignty…No one has any right or claim to any office or its honors, power, or remuneration in and of himself. Only if God has called him to it does he begin to have a claim, and he has it not for his own glory or temporal advantage but so that he might serve the church and benefit its other members.
Overture 15 (O15) has not received enough support from the presbyteries of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) to approve its intended change to the denomination’s Book of Church Order (BCO). With its failure the time is ripe to reconsider our conception of the nature of fitness for office, along with what terms have been used in the discussion and what internal constitutional arrangements should be pursued to prevent unfit men from holding office.
Prudence ought to govern all of our affairs, and Scripture testifies that prudence means that certain men are not candidates for the office of elder because they are new converts and are as such more likely to succumb to pride and fall away because of the office’s difficulties (1 Tim. 3:6). The temptation to pride is simply too likely and too destructive if it overcomes them to allow such men the office. Now sexual sin is conspicuous for its tendencies to wage war upon the soul (1 Pet. 2:11) and to undermine one’s sanctification (1 Thess. 4:3). It is an especially destructive sin (Prov. 5:1-13), and often in cases of apostasy it has a prominent part (Num. 25:1-2). Of sexual sins, that one with which O15 had to do (albeit in the stage of temptation, not active commission) is especially heinous in the sight of God (Lev. 18:22; 20:13), and destructive even of all civil decency and morality (Gen. 19:1-29; Jdgs. 19:22-30).
So far this accords with what O15 said in its ‘whereas’ statements. Where it went wrong was in its suggestion that self-description was the basis on which to disqualify men from office. The above facts about temptation and sexual sin being the case, prudence would seem to commend that men who experience the temptation to commit the sin in question ought to be deemed unfit for office so long as the temptation endures. At the least, such a thing ought to be deemed an open question. For if being a new convert (which is neither a sin nor a temptation) nonetheless unfits one for office because its circumstances will possibly lead to heavy temptation, then it is eminently conceivable that experiencing especially dangerous lusts – which unlike mere adverse circumstances is actually on the ‘temptations lead to actual transgressions lead to death’ sequence of Jas. 1:14-15 – ought to be similarly disqualifying, not least since it suggests the presence of very strong and well-developed original sin in one’s person, and tends to be accompanied by other grievous transgressions and internal desires.[1]
If it be objected that this is unfair to the men who experience the temptation in question because it would permanently bar them from office, and this in spite of otherwise showing personal gifts and godliness, then consider the following. It is not a sin to be devoid of a call to the ministry or to be providentially called to some other vocation (comp. 1 Cor. 7:17-24). It is not a sin to be a woman; indeed, it is a remarkably glorious thing. It was not a sin to accidentally acquire leprosy (Lev. 13:46) or have one’s private organs crushed (Deut. 23:1), or to be a Gentile or a member of one of the Israelite tribes that was not entrusted with the priestly office (Num. 16-17).
And yet under both the old and new covenants God has denied people office (and sometimes more) on account of things that are outside of their conscious control. Why? Because the offices in question belong to God and he may give them or forbid them to whomever he pleases for whatever reasons he pleases. That is inherent in his sovereignty (1 Sam. 2:7-8; Ps. 75:7; 115:3; 135:6; Dan. 2:21; 4:35). No one has any right or claim to any office or its honors, power, or remuneration in and of himself. Only if God has called him to it does he begin to have a claim (Heb. 5:4), and he has it not for his own glory or temporal advantage but so that he might serve the church and benefit its other members (Mk. 10:43-44; Eph. 4:11-13). And as God has seen fit, in his mysterious wisdom, to deny office to whole classes of people for things outside of their own doing (sex, familial descent, tribe, ethnicity, personal tragedy or physical ailments), it ought not to be thought a priori incredible that his church, acting under the guidance of his Spirit and in light of his word, may see fit to do likewise.
If it be rejoined that this is granted, but that the men in question show their fitness for office by being otherwise conspicuous for their piety, godliness, and spiritual gifts (what David Cassidy likes to call the “Sam Allberry Test”), then let it be rejoined that the church does not regard personal godliness, piety, or talent to be sufficient grounds for extending office to someone. All believers have spiritual gifts from God (Rom. 12:6-8; 1 Cor. 12:4-11; 1 Pet. 4:10-11),[2] as they are a household of priests (1 Pet. 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:6). If it be said that nonetheless not all have the teaching gift, then let it be remembered that false teachers also have that ability and are often skillful in exercising it (Matt. 24:11); i.e., that possession of the aptness to teach is not a certain mark of fitness for office.
In addition, all believers without exception are to be characterized by personal piety and godliness and moral excellence (Rom. 12:9-21; Gal. 5:22-23; 2 Pet. 1:5-10). Such things are necessary in officeholders, but they are not sufficient, even when combined with a subjective, personal sense of call to office and with an external sense of call on the part of other believers – for experience shows that the internal and external calls are often mistaken. And let it not be forgotten that the PCA routinely denies office to men who are godly and gifted, and does so for a variety of reasons, from differing from our standards to not having the formal education that the PCA believes is necessary to discharge the office of teaching elder. All of which is to say that the suggestion that the church would be engaged in some sort of senseless cruelty[3] if she were to deny or remove from office men who experience certain temptations is not well-founded either in Scripture or Presbyterian polity.
You will notice that I do not directly mention the sin and temptation in view by name. This is because the clear testimony of Scripture commends us not naming it except sparingly and in absolute need. “Sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place” (Eph 5:3-4, emphases mine). “To others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh” (Jude 23). “Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire” (Col. 3:5). “Flee from sexual immorality” (1 Cor. 6:18). “It is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret” (Eph. 5:12). “God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness” (1 Thess. 4:7). It needs but little comment that the sin in view is something that Scripture regards as filthy, impure, unholy, earthly, immoral, shameful, and prone to corrupt all that it touches, such that it is dangerous to our souls and displeasing to God to even talk or think about it. Rather, we are to flee from such things and instead set our minds on “whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable” (Phil. 4:8).
One will notice further that my position here puts me to the right of many of the prominent opponents of the temptation in view. That is intentional. In many cases even the opponents of this thing have erred by allowing the debate to occur along the wrong lines and by too much using the concepts and terms of its proponents and normalizers. It should be deemed sheer lunacy to give office to people who are so grievously tempted by a desire to do what is heinous. Instead, even many of the opponents have gone out of their way to say that it is only the self-description to which they object, not the temptation.
Lastly, if it be doubted that my position that such temptations disqualify one for office is correct, answer this question: if temptations do not qualify in such a case, when would they do so? Never? But if one says that then it would follow that it would be reasonable and safe to ordain youth pastors who are tempted to pedophilia. And if one says on the other hand that temptations are indeed sometimes disqualifying one admits my position is correct (in principle) and raises some rather difficult follow-up questions. Who decides what temptations are disqualifying, and on what grounds? I have an answer to that: temptations to do what is contrary to nature and to do what is so displeasing to God that he names the sin in question by euphemisms (Lev. 20:13), uses it as a temporal judgment (Rom. 1:24, 26), and only lists historical examples of it while also describing how he punished those that committed it (Gen. 19:5-13, 24; Jdgs. 19-20; 2 Pet. 2:6; Jude 7), ought to be deemed disqualifying. But I am interested to see if anyone will dare attempt to make the case that a) some temptations disqualify; but b) the temptation to break Lev. 18:22 is not one of them – for I do not think that such a thing can be done absent violating the scriptural witness as to the utter depravity of the thing in view.
Tom Hervey is a member, Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church, Simpsonville, SC. The statements made in this article are the personal opinions of the author alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views of his church or its leadership or other members.[1] The sin in question does not occur in isolation, and is frequently mentioned in combination with other sins (Rom. 1:29-32; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; 1 Tim. 1:9-10).
[2] Even granting that some of the particular gifts listed in such passages (e.g. gifts of healing, 1 Cor. 12:9) have ceased, the point remains that God’s empowering grace is not limited to only a few, but is diffused throughout the church body.
[3]As was intimated by a ruling elder, Kyle Keating, in a speech at the 2021 General Assembly: https://byfaithonline.com/against-overtures-23-and-37/
Related Posts: -
Protecting the Victims of Bad Ideas
Over the last few years, following a strategy that proved effective for advancing pro-life protections, states like Texas have been laying creative groundwork to hold adults accountable for experimenting on young people struggling with gender identity. Having these laws in place is incredibly important, given the astronomical rise in the number of young people identifying as transgender and how quickly transgender ideology went from being unthinkable to unquestionable in so many aspects of society.
In Tuesday night’s State of the Union address, President Joe Biden told young people with gender dysphoria that he will “always have (their) back.” Though he didn’t specify what exactly that means, presumably it had something to do with extending Title IX protections to include allowing men full access to women’s facilities and sports; extending mandatory insurance coverage for “gender reassignment” surgeries; and restricting any counseling, treatments, or public advocacy that does anything less than fully affirm one’s gender dysphoria.
Immediately following the President’s late-speech shoutout was a call to pass the Equality Act, something that remains (at least for now) dead in the Senate. The Equality Act would be a kind of legislative nuclear option, rendering the approximately 250 so-called “anti-LGBTQ” bills under consideration across America pointless, and leading to serious restrictions on religious liberty, especially for religious schools.
Over the last few years, following a strategy that proved effective for advancing pro-life protections, states like Texas have been laying creative groundwork to hold adults accountable for experimenting on young people struggling with gender identity. Having these laws in place is incredibly important, given the astronomical rise in the number of young people identifying as transgender and how quickly transgender ideology went from being unthinkable to unquestionable in so many aspects of society.
For instance, the field of so-called gender-affirming “medicine” is the only example of medical treatment that attempts to alter the body to accord with the mind, as opposed to helping the mind align with biological reality. That was a $316 million industry in 2018. By 2026, it is projected to be a $1.5 billion industry.
Children, in particular, are the subjects of these social experiments, which are only one example of how reality is being reimagined along the lines of sexual autonomy.
Read More