sermonboy.com

Proper 19

James 3
Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers and sisters, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. 2For all of us make many mistakes. Anyone who makes no mistakes in speaking is perfect, able to keep the whole body in check with a bridle. 3If we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we guide their whole bodies. 4Or look at ships: though they are so large that it takes strong winds to drive them, yet they are guided by a very small rudder wherever the will of the pilot directs. 5So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great exploits. How great a forest is set ablaze by a small fire! 6And the tongue is a fire. The tongue is placed among our members as a world of iniquity; it stains the whole body, sets on fire the cycle of nature, and is itself set on fire by hell. 7For every species of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by the human species, 8but no one can tame the tongue—a restless evil, full of deadly poison. 9With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse those who are made in the likeness of God. 10From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this ought not to be so. 11Does a spring pour forth from the same opening both fresh and brackish water? 12Can a fig tree, my brothers and sisters, yield olives, or a grapevine figs? No more can salt water yield fresh.


To preach means never wanting to be tongue-tied, or commit a slip-of-the-tongue. Nor search for something on the tip-of-the-tongue. Better to be silver-tongued, but not a silver-tongued devil, as some are known. Tongue-in-cheek is acceptable, in moderation, but to speak with a forked-tongue is not (and it may be politically incorrect even to mention it).

The proverbs seem to have a lot to say about the tongue:

A lying tongue hates those it hurts, and a flattering mouth works ruin. (26.28)
Reckless words pierce like a sword, but the tongue of the wise brings healing. (12.18)
The tongue of the wise commends knowledge, but the mouth of the fool gushes folly. (15.2)
The tongue of the righteous is choice silver, but the heart of the wicked is of little value. (10.20)
Even fools are thought wise if they keep silent, and discerning if they hold their tongues. (17.28)
Like a north wind that brings unexpected rain is a sly tongue—which provokes a horrified look. (25.23)

I would say the overall picture of the tongue is not good. The best advice seems to not use it, which considering the din that surrounds humanity, is a tall order. But that would be jumping ahead. Proverbs has high praise for the wise tongue, but the wise tongue seems in short supply if we”re counting references.

And then there is James. Officially the Epistle of James, it is one of those little books at the back that are hard to find in a hurry. And it doesn’t get a lot of respect either. From the beginning some of the church fathers doubted that it belonged in the Bible (“the canon”) and the great Martin Luther called it an “epistle of straw.” The fact that the central idea of the book is in direct contradiction to Luther’s most cherished idea (salvation by faith alone) may have had something to do with it.

Our reading from James 3 seems to be an updating of Proverbs, with some simile and metaphor thrown in for good measure. Teachers will be judged strictly, and the perfect ones are like a horse with a bridle. The tongue is like a rudder guiding a ship; a small fire that consumes the forest; a stain on the whole body.

Then there is a shift. While every creature can be tamed by humans, we cannot tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With the same mouth we can bless some and curse others, and this ought not be so. The spring that delivers both fresh and brackish water has no value, and is not really a spring at all.

Following the verdict then of both Proverbs and the Epistle of James, the tongue is of limited value to the body. Several psalms agree, as does our old friend Job, tormented as he was by the tongues of his so-called comforters.

But as an interesting counter-point, St. Paul doesn’t describe the tongue as a danger. Famously, he said “if I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.” But he doesn’t specifically condemn the tongue. Nor does Jesus. When Jesus constructs his “hard sayings” about the body he says ‘cut off the hand that causes you to sin’ and the same for the eye, but says nothing about the tongue. Tongues are loosed, as we learned last week, but are not condemned.

There are moments, of course, when Jesus listens in on what the disciples are saying and tells them how foolish they are, so perhaps he too would agree with Proverbs and James.

It is rare that the lesson of the day and the events of the week speak to each other so directly. The crisis in the Middle East, and death of American diplomatic staff, seems to be a perfect example of what a reckless tongue can cause. The debate over free speech will rage on in the western world, but the tangible results of such speech are only beginning to be known.

Free speech, for us, is an inalienable right. From the first Bill of Rights presented to William and Mary, to the French Revolution, to the First Amendment to the US Constitution, to our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms, free speech is either first on the list or very near the top.

So, to place limits on free speech, such as banning a book or censoring a film has come to seem contrary to our way of life. We practice a form of avoidance instead, choosing to ignore what we find repugnant or inflammatory rather than insisting somehow it be banned.

The right to free speech, however, does have limits. In perhaps the most famous case on the topic, the US Supreme Court ruled that free speech can be limited when it presents a “clear and present danger” to the function of the state (and you thought it was just a cool name for a film).

The author of the ruling, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., went one better in the memorable phrase department when he said that the right to free speech “would not protect a man from shouting fire in a crowded theatre.” In other words, if free speech needlessly causes grave harm, the state can place limits on it.

And all of this might be part of a society-wide consensus, were not our neighbours to the south in the midst of an election. In an election, it seems, consensus disappears, and the politicians enter a mode whereby they look for the slightest indication that founding principles are being violated or human rights are being breached.

So we are near the end of the first week of a spreading crisis and the video that provoked all this violence remains in place on Youtube. The very large corporation (US based) that runs the site may well be debating the question of removing the video, but it remains in place: owing, I assume, to the principle of free speech.

And this issue is hardly distant from us, and I can give you a personal example. In the weeks before I departed Scarborough for the heavenly reward of serving in Weston, I received an email from a local minister of another denomination. In his email, he expressed delight that a very inflammatory Dutch video was still available online. The video, he said, showed the “truth” about Islam and could prove an excellent tool to convert Muslims in Scarborough.

I wrote back. I didn’t use ALL CAPS as angry people do, but I was tempted. I expressed shock that such and email would arrive in this day and age. I told him that the only route to peace in this world is learning to respect each other, and that Muslims worship the same God and have the same ancestor in Abraham. I told him that my little theological college (Queen’s) was the first theological college to appoint a Muslim board member, and that Dr. Bayoumi is one of the finest people I know.

The first principle in preaching is never make yourself the hero of the sermon, and while I may have said all the right things, I’m sure it had little effect. Like the idiot in Florida who threatened and then finally burned the Koran, all the arguments will not persuade, any more that promoting a hateful film or putting the Prophet on trial will deter me from offering Islam the respect it deserves.

So it seems James was right, the tongue is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. He concludes that the tongue, unbridled, cannot product anything of value.

The alternative, then, is silence. And that may prove the most faithful way forward. Think of all the great troubles in the world, think of all the mistakes and all the foolishness, and think of everything we have done and have come to regret later. Then imagine if we had opted for silence instead. It is not just the old adage that if everyone is speaking then no one is listening. It is a call for silence, and reflection, and intentional pause, things that are in short supply in the world and even in the church.

Remember Psalm 17.28? “Even fools are thought wise if they keep silent, and discerning if they hold their tongues.” (17.28) I’ll stop talking now.

posted by michael jacob kooiman @ 7:30 AM