In a recent post by John Piper, which can be found here, he writes:
"Jesus did not say, 'True religion is converting orphans.' He did not say, 'True religion is making orphans mature and successful adults.' He said, 'True religion is visiting orphans.' Results are God’s business. Obedience is ours."
I wrote on this in a previous blog, but thought I'd resurface it since this is a very Gospel-packed passage. This surely sparked some thoughts in my chasm, or should I say, my mind.
It seems as though Piper interprets this passage to say that Christ is commanding that we visit orphans (and widows, if you read the passage). I think that taking this merely at face value will leave someone with a very dangerous outlook on religion that could lead one to forsake the Gospel altogether, though unknowingly.
The question comes down to this in my mind: Is James suggesting that true religion is performance-driven? Or is true religion performance that is Gospel-driven?
Just before this James charges the 12 tribes with the following: "for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing."
How do we reveal a perfect and complete faith through trials? By being steadfast. What does steadfastness look like? Look at Daniel. He knew there was a command to cease praying to any god besides the King. He knew there was a penalty for not ceasing. He didn't care. His faith in God gave him steadfastness in his LIFE. He continued praying. We see steadfastness worked out for Daniel in how he lived. And how we live is seen by what we do. So perfect steadfastness, which is a product of true faith in Christ, reveals itself in works. What is James' famous saying? "Faith without works is dead." Not that works are faith, but that faith produces works.
Just after our subject passage, James says "show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ." This is a command based on faith in Jesus Christ. It is no mistake that this issue of partiality comes directly after a charge to visit widows and orphans! Just after this he says, "If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself,' you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors." What is the law? To love ones neighbor. Contrary to popular opinion, love is not essentially an action. God is love. God is not an action. But God ACTS. So love, when it is true, acts.
So back to the original question: "Is James suggesting that true religion is performance-driven? Or is true religion performance that is Gospel-driven?"
Do we have true religion when we visit orphans? Or does visitin orphans REVEAL that one has true religion? I believe it is the latter. We do not control our religion through works! Rather, we reveal our faith in Christ through our works. True religion is not essentially works. True religion is a life so consumed with the Gospel that it cannot help but to work itself out. And that, for the most needy of people - a people that can in no way recompense the service given to them. True religion is revealed when we work with no thought of self in mind. When we forsake our fleshly impulse to only do those things that we will in some way be rewarded for. We can be rewarded for our service to a church, well-off family, institution, community, and wife or husband. Not to say that true faith doesn't work for them as well. But those who are unwilling to visit orphans and widows no nothing about the Gospel. Their life is consumed by EARNING. Their life is consumed by give-and-take. Work-and-wage. This is not Gospel. Gospel living is love-and-give. It does more than just attempt to meet needs that can be preached. It cannot help but to LIVE for others. That is giving of LIFE, not just conversation. That, not as a command so as the earn grace. But as a result of realizing God's grace given abundantly to you.
Countless people sit back and read about the people in need in the newspaper or hear about them from some other source. We say "Wow, I really hope someone comes to their aid. I really hope and pray that God blesses them." But feeling this is pointless unless you live a life wherein those feelings act themselves out. Sometimes that means going to a dirty part of town, sitting on a dirty curb in front of a smoke-house, and giving a dirty, smelly guy a hug and a meal offering your aid and your Christ. Does this seem outrageous or unnecessary? Does this seem revolutionary, enlightening, or inspirting? Then you have not been consumed by the Gospel. If you had been, you'd already be doing such things. So this is the test. If this is truly more than just an elightening tale, you will go out and act. If it's nothing more than amusement, you will return to your life of anti-religion and excuses. For people wanting to go into ministry, if you're waiting until you start up your urban dream-church before you do these things, you have not yet been consumed. Being consumed affects today, not just tomorrow. I say these things partially because I'm trying to make these things real to myself. I'm not a risky guy. I'm not one to do things out-of-the-ordinary. So how about we all make a new definition for ordinary?