Bible reading: James 3:3-4:3, 7-10.

Message.

The Christian Church has an amazing ability to tear itself apart! Even in the New Testament we read of an almighty row over whether new Gentile believers had to follow the Jewish food laws: some established Christians saw this as vitally important while others said, “No, of course they don’t have to do it”. In, I think, the third century there were debates about Christians who had denied their faith during a period of persecution while others had remained firm: should they be allowed back into the Church or not? A bit later on questions were raised about a tiny clause in the Creed: the decision to include it or not irrevocably split the churches of the western Roman Empire from those in the east, a division which still exists today.

Jumping ahead several centuries, the Middle Ages saw disputes about possessions, with some Christians amassing great wealth while others argued that we should only own the necessities of daily living. More recently there have been differences over the relationship between churches and the secular state, over race and slavery, over alcoholic drink and public entertainments, over warfare and pacifism, and over female ministers – among many other issues, great and small. Today’s debates which seem to be causing the most strife and pain seem to be on gender and sexuality; lines are being drawn in the sand.

I’m not saying that some, at least, of these issues aren’t important: Christians need to face the challenges thrown up in every generation. But, all too often, these discussions open up an ugly side of our faith, with insults and harsh words, name-calling and caricatures of what others are saying, angry attacks and self-defence in the media or from the pulpit, with people taking sides, refusing to share fellowship and even accusing their alleged enemies of “not being proper Christians”. Yes, we’ve all been shaped by our backgrounds and we may hold different understandings of Scripture: but instead of humbly listening to each others’ insights we often want to shout over everyone else to ensure that our view gets heard. Such behaviour, especially if it becomes public knowledge, discredits our churches, our faith and Jesus himself.

And, as we all know, local churches can also become the place for horrible arguments. Often these are about the most trivial of matters: in the three churches I served before coming here, the biggest rows we had weren’t about theology but over an old Communion table, two Boys’ Brigade flags, and a Christmas tree. I think you’ll agree that these matters are hardly central to our faith – but I suspect that our disputes were really about much deeper things, such as history or tradition. People defended what they saw as “a matter of principle” because they felt threatened and insecure, while others feared that we were in danger of being trapped in the past instead of using it as a springboard for the future. Change can be hard to accept!

Although the church that James was writing to doesn’t seem to have been as fractious or immature as the one in Corinth, roundly scolded by Paul, it had its problems. Last week we thought about everyone wanting to be a teacher, presumably because they thought that would give them status or kudos; James tells them to be careful of what they seek, as Christian teachers bear great responsibility before God. It’s not a task which should be sought lightly as a teacher’s words can have a huge effect, both for good and for ill. James’ inference is not just that most of his readers would be better off learning than trying to teach, but that each one of us needs to watch what we say.

This week we move on, and it’s clear that this was a church in which disputes and wrangling had become a way of life. And James, whose letter would probably have been read out loud to the congregation, doesn’t mince his words. He jumps straight in by asking, “Where do all the fights and quarrels among you come from?” – that’s a question to which he already has the answer. For, as he looks at the church, he sees it riven by people who are ambitious and envious, people who want to be “top dog” or (to change the metaphor) “big fishes in a small pond”. This political powerplay which brings, as James says, “disorder and wickedness” into a church isn’t just unpleasant but is profoundly unChristian. James is determined to show these folk the error of their ways: they probably thought they were being clever and intelligent but they actually needed to take a good dose of godly wisdom.

We’ll look at what that is in a moment; but first I’d like to ask more generally what wisdom is. I’m sure we’d agree that it is more than pure knowledge: we’ve all known people who knew a huge amount about every subject under the sun yet were singularly lacking in commonsense! In other words they were knowledgeable but not wise. We shouldn’t either confuse wisdom and experience: there are older people who’ve had many experiences in life yet who don’t seem to have learned a great deal from them. I’d suggest that wisdom does include an element of knowledge, but also intelligence combined with values such as justice, equity and compassion. And, although people without faith would dispute it, I’d also say that wisdom is a gift from God: after all, we have that famous text which says, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” – not abject terror or anything like that, but a humble respect which seeks God’s guidance and help.

That verse brings me back to James and his argumentative church! He is very clear that the envy, ambition and self-righteous boasting which were so evident had nothing to do with God. He calls such attitudes “earthly, unspiritual and devilish”; while they may be quite common in secular politics, they have no place in a church. James gives a prescription for what his readers should do: primarily they must draw closer to God, humbly submitting themselves to him; they need to recognise their selfish, unholy and double-minded attitudes, first lamenting and then binning them; they need to resist any hint of the devil getting a toehold in their discussions and so wreaking havoc; they must make sure that they’re asking God for the right things in their prayers. Above all, they must actively cultivate an atmosphere of peace: when differences of opinion do arise (and they will), Christians must learn how to “disagree nicely” instead of trying to win the debate.

This Bible passage seems remarkably relevant for a service which will be followed by a Church Meeting! Although I don’t anticipate any rows or arguments today, I’m sure that many of us have been at meetings which have been conducted in exactly the way James describes; indeed, I once seriously considered resigning on the spot after a particularly stormy meeting in a church where I was minister. One of the “jewels in the crown” of our way of doing church is that it’s the members, rather than the Minister or the Archbishop, who decide how things are to be done. But this only works well if everyone respects and listens to everyone else, and if everyone asks themself, “Might I be bringing God’s voice to the meeting, or am I just expressing my own opinion?” – and carefully decides whether it’s better to speak or to stay silent. Contrary to popular opinion, Church Meetings are not a form of democracy, where the group who gets the most votes wins. They are in fact a place for theocracy, where we humbly try to find out God’s will, together. That’s a totally different ball-game!

I’ve said that Church Meetings aren’t political – and that should (vain hope!) apply to Synods, Assemblies and Convocations as well. But what if Church Meetings, well-run and harmoniously conducted, could serve as a model for local, national and even international government? I think it was David Cameron, when he became leader of the Conservative party, who said that he would end to “Punch-and-Judy politics” in the House of Commons. We were all hoping that he would succeed, but sadly he didn’t; indeed, some of his successors seem to have actively encouraged knockabout questioning and debate: highly entertaining for those involved but the despair of everyone else! Fortunately much of Parliament’s business is conducted in All-party Select Committees where a much more sensible attitude usually prevails. Obviously most of our MPs (and local Council and Senedd members) aren’t professing Christians, although a surprising number are; so could we pray that they won’t get dragged into the farce we so often see on television but may stay above it and seek the “wisdom from above” as they carry out their duties? That would certainly be a refreshing change!

I’ll close by returning to the Church, and reading you something by Dr Preston Sprinkle, an American author and Christian commentator who has studied at Aberdeen University and taught at the University of Nottingham. After first noting that “The first-century church wasn’t an apolitical spiritual gathering where individual Christians left their Roman politics at the door and picked them back up on their way out”, he says this: “Church was the foretaste of God’s kingdom, a colony of heaven on earth. It was a place, a family, a gathering where God’s plan for governing the world was being revealed and practiced, where participants submitted themselves to God’s rule in realms like economics, immigration, war, violence, power, justice, and sexuality”. We here may not discuss such huge and difficult matters: perhaps we should. But perhaps we can, in our debates and even disagreements, show the world how Christ wants us to behave; perhaps our church can indeed be that foretaste of heaven on earth. What do you think?