Bookshelf Una, Walk-in Library

Some of these things don't belong here.

Lunar New Year Lunacy with the Ox-y Morons, and Faith, Works and Justification in James 2:14-26

At dinner, there was an old Christmas tree resisting retirement to the storeroom. It attempted to stay relevant for the lunar new year of the ox by having a squeezy cow tied to it with red ribbon and garnished with a plastic gold ingot. Looking down from her tree perch, festive cow observed the conversation at the table deteriorating from serious talk on global currency, the situation in Gaza and Obama's promises, to walking one's wife at MacRitchie with a human harness and the savvy business idea behind youporn.com (accompanied by neighbour-to-call-999 crazy laughter).

The boca negra, one chocolatey chocolate cake that takes its major characteristic seriously, claims not to have contributed to the madness but it was completely consumed and is thus persona non grata for the purposes of claims of innocence. Perhaps the blame may also lie in the partial solar eclipse. Or the muddled drinks and the wine. Or the company.

On the day of the first somesortof solar eclipse of 2009, which was also the first day of the lunar/Chinese new year, we started as usual on a healthy note by frying up a batch of turnip and carrot cake. Very good with garlic chilli sauce. Chinese New Year isn't Chinese New Year if you don't end the festivities with a raging sore throat.

Like the Mosaic locusts, the relatives descended upon us, ate and laughed and were gone in 3 hours. They rather liked the curry chicken and the chocolate cake-pudding with raspberry yoghurt ice-cream - looks rather dodgy but the interplay of the bittersweet with the soursweet was interesting. And you could legitimately tell the rellies weren't just being polite because of the people queueing in the kitchen for seconds and thirds and eldest uncle, erm, insisting on having it right now right here in his white wine glass.

The chicken curry took the better part of the night before to prep. The recipe for the chocolate cake-pudding is as follows:

• attempt to make boca negra
  
• forget to switch portable oven from "Grill" to "Oven"
  
• wander off
  
• ignore smell of burning
  
• return to a smoke-filled kitchen and neighbours yelling "Fire! Fire!"
  
• calmly take smoking cake-like object out from oven
  
• equally calmly turn said object over onto huge plate
• contemplate pudding-like chocolate stuff glooped all over plate
• scoop unburnt bits into bowl and refrigerate
• serve with raspberry yoghurt gelato from Venezia Gelataria
  

On things half-baked, we come to James 2:14-26. Or perhaps it would be too grand to call the unreal faith of a professed Christian unaccompanied by works "half-baked".

To those who might have grumbled at James' emphasis on doing not just hearing (James 1:19-26), bridling the tongue (James 1:26), visiting orphans and widows, and keeping oneself unstained from the world (James 1:27): Ah James, stop being such a nag. After all, we're all justified by faith not works so spare us the yabber about all these chores!

(And indeed Paul said in Romans 3:28 "For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law." and again in Galatians 2:15-16 "we know that a person is not justified by works of the law(AE) but through faith in Jesus Christ".)

James isn't disputing sola fide ("by faith alone") in the Pauline sense - salvation through Christ alone, through his blood alone, through the grace of God alone, not by anything we can do. Rather he is emphasising one facet of that truth.

Somewhere along the supernova sugar-high that resulted from a compulsory family dessert buffet (and attendant anti-social bouncing off walls), the concept of "faith" got a good workthrough with some folk. Faith means, to a Christian, a fuller concept than the word might suggest in the minds of any other person. We know that true faith, saving faith, is that trust that lays hold of God through his promises and results in a new life (Romans 5:1). One dimension of this saving faith is an intellectual conviction, a certainty of truths, of things invisible and things future (Hebrews 11:1-2).

Another necessary component of this saving faith is "works" (James 2:14). James does not appear to be talking about the Pauline meaning of "works" by which the Gentiles thought they could be good enough to save themselves, but some outward demonstration that the person before him is a man of faith*. He is challenging the people who seem to have a sort of defective faith, a counterfeit copy of faith that has not resulted in any of the fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22) by giving the ironic illustration of a man of faith snug in furs and bursting from a warm dinner saying glibly to the poor shivering fellow with the grumbling belly next to him in church "Alright, toodle-doo and hope you find some clothing and a bit to eat soon!" without doing anything about it (James 2:16).

So you believe in the 5 solas and are proud that your theology is reformed and sound? You think you and your little friends alone know the full glory of the doctrines of prayer and predestination, and these have more completely informed your faith? Then how can you dismiss a brother in need with a careless "Ok, I'll pray for you"? This absurdity harks back to the forgetful man who stares himself in the mirror only to forget what he looks like immediately after (James 1:22-25). Hearing must lead to doing. Well, yes, it's important to have good theology. The great revelation that God is one is marvellous indeed. Every pious Jew recited this twice daily (Deuteronomy 6:4). This factoid does not escape the attention of Satan's cronies, those demons who caught on faster than any of the disciples that Jesus was part of the Godhead (see Mark 1:24, Mark 5:7). And this knowledge is enough to cause them to rightly fear God (which is more than can be said of an office worker in Raffles Place or the housewife in Ang Mo Kio). But fat lot of good their intellectual "faith" does them. So one might consider them spiritually superior to many but their mental assent and right theology "faith" isn't saving faith, the sort of faith that results in the "work" of repentance.**

Not convinced about this well-rounded concept of faith? Still clinging onto the wrong understanding of justification by faith? says James. Check out the Scriptural evidence. Exhibit One: Father Abraham, father of the faithful, the one through whom Israel's relationship with God began properly after the Fall. Sure, before Abraham had done any works to deserve it, God had already counted his belief to him as righteousness (Genesis 15:6). So in the Pauline sense, it is true that justification, being declared right with God, is not something do work for by perfect obedience to the law because our deeds can never live up to God's standard (Romans 4:3; Galatians 3:6).

But justification of faith is no cover for careless, bochap living. Genesis 22 tells us that what happened decades after Abe was credited righteousness by God was a test of his profession of faith. When he had offered Isaac up to be sacrified in obedience to God, the angel then said "now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me" (Genesis 22:12). Surely God knows everything so James says that this was in fact a fulfilment and completion of the earlier confession of faith and pronouncement of justification.***

And so Exhibit Two: Rahab the Gentile prostitute's faith in the God of the Jews was shown to be true when she acted on her belief by hiding the Israelite spies ("messengers" James calls them, how PC) and, erm, misdirecting their pursuers (Joshua 2).

So our confessed faith, our professed trust in Christ, is also completed when we live a changed life. We cannot claim to have any real saving faith if our lives have not changed.

There are those who were born into Christian families and greatly regret not experiencing a dramatic conversion. While it is great when a person turns from drugs or prostitution or gangsterism etc when they receive Christ, it is not the apparent conversion that matters so much as the God-centred life lived after that should cause us to rejoice marvellously with tears in the eyes etc. So perhaps, to be pedantic (but with pedantry sometimes comes great truth), we should not say so-and-so was converted today but that he made a confession of faith and we'll see if his works justify his profession later.

The faith that saves is not purely about holding the right convictions though it is essential to know the object of our faith. And though important, it is not just about being able to discern between faithful/unfaithful, expository/topical/just plain out of context, good/bad, deep/shallow preaching and teaching. The certainty of our faith does not come from our spiritual heritage: evangelical, reformed, Moore Theological College, Peter Jensen and Phillip Jensen, St. Helen's Bishopsgate and friends, Dick Lucas, David Jackman, Cornhill Training Course, Mars Hill, Don Carson, Mark Dever, C J Mahaney, Albert Mohler etc. It comes from the evidence of such faith in one's life: it must make a man a friend of God (James 2:23) and therefore no friend of the world (James 4:4). It is seen and completed in the man whose faith remains steadfast in trials of various kinds (James 1:2-15), who does not just hear the word of God but also does it (James 1:22-27), who loves his neighbour and does not show partiality (James 2:1-13)****, who controls his tongue (James 3:1-12).

It is pointless have an outward shell that is adorned with flamboyant conversion testimonies or intricate patterns of doctrine or reams of paper explaining Romans or James or Revelation, if it is not animated by obedience to the God it claims to love. Such faith is infact dead in the water.

* Works
Not sure that dichotomisation of the Pauline and Jamesian use of the word "works" into "pre-salvation" and "post-salvation" works helps clarify things. This seems merely to point to chronology rather than motivation behind the works.

** Faith and Works
So we tried out a few ways of expressing this:
Faith = Salvation = Faith + Works doesn't quite work unless Works = 0.

Of course, this could be refined to Faith (Paul) = Salvation = Faith + Works (James) but James doesn't seem to be adding works to saving faith as a separate entity but works as authenticating the confession of faith, so the Martin Lutheran "faith is never alone" doesn't quite work either.

Possibly Faith = Salvation = Confession of Faith + Works (wherein Works = Fruits of the Spirit) might work.

Visually, possibly, saving faith = salvation as a two-dimensional consequence. If you viewed it in three-dimensions, it would become evident that works is a component of saving faith.

Metaphorically, possibly, saving faith is a purple car, let us say the only car, that can get you into Sentosa. Works is the wheels on that car without which it cannot properly be called a car and without which it cannot get you to the island of fake sandy beaches and piped-in Caribbean music.

*** Justification
Some take the Jamesian concept of "justification" to mean the end-time judgements that consider a Christian's post-salvation good works as proof of his authenticity of faith. Am inclined to think that in the context of this passage, the emphasis is not so much on The Day (although that will always be in the picture) but on the confirmatory value of good works in reference back to the hour we first thought we believed.

***** Partiality
The only contemporary application I have heard concerning this is of ushers seating different groups of people during service. In what other situations would this apply? If eg. it's about spending time with groups of people, other considerations come into play. Maybe it's more to do with general attitude said the natter-y neighbour after last Saturday's service. Perhaps.

Dick Lucas, James 2:14-26

James

• Muaythai Aftermath and Two Cents on Sickness and Sin, and Prayer in James 5
• Baking Bread and James 4:13-17
• Beef Tournedos, Thaipusam and James 3:13 - 4:12
• Stories, the Tongues That Tell Them and James 3:1-12
• Lunar New Year Lunacy with the Ox-y Morons, and Faith, Works and Justification in James 2:14-26
• Braised Short-Ribs of Dead Cow, Creamless Strawberry Pav, 44th POTUS' Inauguration and James 2:1-13
• Mirror Masks and True Religion and Worship in James 1:19-27
  
• A Feather Duster, Discipline and Happiness, Righteousness and Trials in James 1:2-4

Braised Short-Ribs of Dead Cow, Creamless Strawberry Pav, 44th POTUS' Inauguration and James 2:1-13

Childhood fantasies are funny things, and in their own way, naive and selfishly insular.

For children barred from eating any sort of red meat, fascination with the smell and texture of the cooked flesh of dead cows.

For children for whom sugar (refined, or of the fresh cherry or strawberry sucrose variety) could only be obtained by sneaking sugar packets from restaurants and eating the white stuff surreptitiously in a corner hidden by piles of yellow National Geographic magazines, dreams of the desserts and edible delights that were the bricks and motar of the witch's house in Hansel und Gretel.

Two nights ago, we stayed up, cherry tart in hand, to watch the inauguration of the 44th President of the United States of America. Chief Justice John Roberts flubbed Barack Hussein Obama's swearing-in, but the cool-headed dude went on to give a speech pitched at the oratory (and history) books. He painted a sweeping vision for Americans, united as one; a vision that encompassed not just that part of the continental mass separating the Pacific from the Atlantic but also one that would radiate throughout the world.

The seemingly grander fantasies of grown men.

"Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions...," said Obama because if nothing he is skilled enough to anticipate and address audience response,"their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done..." The basis of his confidence in the vision of Americans working together for a common purpose is their glorious history and their forefathers who "struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. [Who] saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction" and of whose legacy they were keepers.

(Arguably however, the past does not necessarily inform the future, especially for neo-nazis and regulars at KKK meetings who would see no reason to perpetuate the "mistakes" of America's history. Though citizens of the land, they will have no part in any "common purpose".)

"My brothers!" James calls out (James 2:1) in a tone of familiarity not unlike that invoked by the 44th POTUS. But James is claiming more than a common humanity or a common citizenship. For on those bases, we give to charity and help little old ladies cross roads. But not all of us all of the time. Because sin has entered into the world, sometimes monies are spent on frivolous luxuries and little old ladies are honked at and knocked down.

And the scale of James' stated ambition, the vision of a church not split by partiality or discrimination, is not based on the great and glorious history of Israel, heavily varnished by sweeping rhetoric. Scripture is more realistic than that. It recognises the innate sinfulness of men and women everywhere of all races and positions and creeds. There can be no multi-racial un-class-conscious society in any deep meaningful way except in the real brotherhood that is united by faith in the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ (James 2:1).

Jesus: as American as cherry pie? After all, a distinctive characteristic of Jesus was that he showed no partiality, supping and dining with sinners and tax collectors and consorting with prostitutes while the rabbis tsked and tutted outside. This presented an excellent opportunity for enemies to try to trip him up. Oh, an equal opportunist are you? Friend of the poor and the rich same-same? Then you must not think anything of that chap Caesar and surely you're telling us to ignore him and his Roman colonialist pan-handling as well? (Mark 12:14-17)

But in a manner not too popular with modern Americans, Jesus and later Paul failed to encourage us to consider ourselves equal in all respects with everyone else. They emphasised the need to give due honour where such honour was due: to the governing authorities instituted by God, even though they might not have been Christian, slaves were to obey their masters, respect was to be given to those senior in years. Age and authority merit from us a reasonable and courteous respect. We are not told to respect nothing.

Furthermore, even the most outwardly egalitarian of humans will make judgements on peoples and situations as part of daily life. And without the guiding hand of the Bible, we inevitably respect the wrong things. Judging people by the magnitude of their wealth in particular is a common folly in democratic capitalist societies. To treat wealth as meaningless is intellectual imbecility - the markets have evolved so that it is money that pays for food, shelter, nealthcare, transportation, and arguably, civilisation. The patently non-materialists too cannot avoid the inadvertent snobbery of giving uncalled-for preferential treatment to the allegedly disadvantaged, like the black politican who was interviewed as saying that the antidote to a corrupt senator who happened to be white was to put a black man in that office. The favouritism of the coloured skin.

And again, netizens often enjoy seeing the rich get punished both for their crimes as well as for their wealth in courts of law. But the Bible has always been refreshingly clear in stating that there be no discrimination in judgement - no partiality to the poor, nor deference to the great (Leviticus 19:15, Deuteronomy 1:17).

It is inevitable that if we do not take the Bible as truth, then we take on the standards of the world as truth. But if we profess to accept God's word and claim we have faith in him, then why how can we hear but not do (James 1:22-25)? How can we still play favourites within the church family (James 2:2-7)?

So we may not suck up to the politican during service with sycophantic motives towards his riches and influence and usefulness, but if we think that preaching in a savage reservation is greater than preaching to the owners of luxury yachts, or that the Chief of Defence Force volunteering as door-greeter is more humbled and thus more godly than the roadsweeper performing the same task, then perhaps we have subscribed to the half-truth that communism thrived on - the favouritism of farmers and dismissive and harsh treatment of the educated and well-off.

Obama's political vehicle of government through mutual love and respect has been well-received. God is love? Even those opposed to Christianity have no problem with this statement. But they do not understand that because God is the Creator, God alone defines what love is, not us. And it's not about warm waffles and fuzzy hugs. God's specs of this thing called love can be found in his laws and commandments. Only if we obey his laws and commandments can we be making some headway in loving others properly. Hence, the outcry from certain communities over what they perceive to be outdated "conservative" Christian distaste over their way of life, and the accusations of the unlovingness of these Christians are unfounded. The protestors do not truly understand what love is.


If we turn the spotlight on just one facet of God's love, what glimmers forth here is love as lack of favouritism (Romans 2:11). If we claim to show love to some people and not to others, then our actions cannot have come from true love, divine love. The all-encompassing law of loving neighbour is not a relaxation of the law of obedience of the 10 commandments because they were so darned hard to keep but an explanation of their depth and the consequent scope of human obligations. So the 10 commandments were in fact, only examples of what it meant to love one's neighbour. We cannot claim to have kept to the spirit of the law (by our own interpretation) if we did not even obey the explicit details of what it means to keep the law.

And if the royal law, the law of liberty, is a direct reflection of the character of God, then we cannot call some details important and others not (James 2:10-13). We cannot divide them into venial sins and mortal sins. This guards us against the deceitfulness and self-righteousness of taking refuge in our disobedience by stressing our obedience to other bits.

James does not merely administer a friendly slap on the wrist here. He puts out a dire warning: discriminate and die. For if you show partiality, you break the law of loving neighbour and sin and shall be convicted as transgressors (James 2:9). And the sentence for such law-breaking is death (James 1:15), because it demonstrates that despite your profession of allegiance to Christ, you worship the king of this world, not God; you are an enemy of state, of the kingdom that will triumph in the end.

We who are the firstfruits of God's creatures (James 1:18) have no excuse: we know God, we are not ignorant of his laws (because not only has God revealed to us his statutes time and again in the Bible, we also have the implanted word (James 1:21)) nor of the need to obey them, nor do we lack the ability to do what is required of us through the Spirit (Galatians 5:16-26).

• The Obama Inauguration Speech Generator
• Deb at smitten kitchen - Braised Beef Short-Ribs
• Dick Lucas on James 2:1-7, James 2:8-13
  

James

• Muaythai Aftermath and Two Cents on Sickness and Sin, and Prayer in James 5
• Baking Bread and James 4:13-17
• Beef Tournedos, Thaipusam and James 3:13 - 4:12
• Stories, the Tongues That Tell Them and James 3:1-12
• Lunar New Year Lunacy with the Ox-y Morons, and Faith, Works and Justification in James 2:14-26
• Braised Short-Ribs of Dead Cow, Creamless Strawberry Pav, 44th POTUS' Inauguration and James 2:1-13
• Mirror Masks and True Religion and Worship in James 1:19-27
  
• A Feather Duster, Discipline and Happiness, Righteousness and Trials in James 1:2-4

Mirror Masks and True Religion and Worship in James 1:19-27

The non-objectivity of the world as disclosed by the photographic lens?

...the object is never anything more than an imaginary line. The world is an object that is both imminent and ungraspable. How far is the world? How does one obtain a clearer focus point? Is photography a mirror which briefly captures this imaginary line of the world? Or is it man who, blinded by the enlarged reflection of his own consciousness, falsifies visual perspectives and blurs the accuracy of the world?" (Jean Baudrillard, Photography, Or The Writing Of Light)

While crit theorists were debating the reality of the knots that entangled them, social gospelisers were cracking the whip at coke-bottle-eyed evangelicals: true Christians must be more practical. Less of your talks and studies and more of our going out into the world and doing things, please.

But James assumes that our starting point is the open Bible on our lap. For God brought us forth through the word of truth (James 1:18) and it is the word, implanted, that is able to save our souls (James 1:21). Elsewhere, we are injuncted to give an intent ear to the word of God as first priority. Martha might be the patron saint of the century but it was Mary who received the commendation.

The great reluctance to crack the spine of a black leather-bound might be attributed to lack of belief in the Bible as the word of God or the greater doubt that God does speak at all. But regardless of reason, the fact is that we fail to edify in our speech and actions because we haven't listened and our minds and hearts remain uninformed about God's laws and intention for his children (2 Timothy 3:15-17).

It is from this foundation of God's word that James warns that we mustn't be hearers only of the word but doers as well (James 1:22). James isn't talking about hypocrites here, the white-washed tombs the plebs were only too happy to hear included in Jesus' exposé. The subject of the letter were real Christians - they had the implanted word, yet they were encouraged to receive it with meekness (James 1:21).

If we hear but do not do, we are only deceiving ourselves. Long-in-the-teeth Christians who have learnt to read the Bible properly and get the main point from a chapter in a book of the Bible, who work hard at the talks they are to give, don't need someone to ask them "Where did you get what you have just said from this passage?". But they must not mistake competent comprehension for suitable obedience. Similarly, those who thoroughly enjoy a faithful talk or get great truths from our daily QT but not to go and do anything about it must not think that we are in any way blessed if we do not act on what we have learnt (cf James 1:25). We would be like the supermarket shopper who pays for his groceries and then walks off without them because his silly mind thinks payment = acquisition of goods. (Or perhaps this is not a common experience.)

James, who never had to face a supermarket checkout, likens this to the absurdity of staring intently at the landscape and features of our face in the mirror, turning away, and at once forgetting what we have seen. It is a silly situation that FAILs more than many of the entries on FAIL blog: "Hey," a shopkeeper might say to the man entering his shop after having spent a good hour using the reflective solar film of his shop window as a mirror,"nice nose. We don't get alot of beaks around here." "I've got a beak? Oh, how unusual! I never knew!" Yet, it is the common Christian experience that we do forget, and in vast quantities. So we remember so-and-so as a good speaker, or that there was a good talk last month, a good study last week, a good camp last holiday, and hey, we have a neat file of notes to prove it. But does that mean we really remember what we learnt and completely internalised it that our minds and hearts have been changed by it?

And again in James 1:26-27, James does not warn the hypocrites, the proverbial Sunday Christians, the men (goes the old sermon chestnut) who go to church regularly every week and bible studies and think they are thus saved; James is warning those whom he acknowledges as his beloved brothers (James 1: 16, 19) - the people who have known the new birth.

To these he throws down a challenge: does your religion mean that you master your tongue (James 1:26); is it displayed in your self-control? Do you use your immense "people skills" and way with words to judge and gossip, plot and plan? What do you say in council meetings, deacon sessions? How do you use your opportunities on the pulpit and when teaching small groups? What do you talk about during fellowship meals and gatherings? If we have really heard the word of God, letting slander, gossip and unedifying talk emerge from our lips is absurd. It would be difficult for the objective observer to conclude that we'd listened to God in the first place!

The doing isn't really about social work - the outwardly tangible things people can put together for a biography that will sell at mission conventions and be serialised in Readers' Digest. On one hand, it is about self-control. In addition to internal control, it is about how our religion is demonstrated in our relationships with other people, particularly those who are in need of help (James 1:27a). The Greek word translated as "visit", says Dick Lucas, also appears in Matthew 25 and Luke 7:16. It is used of God visiting his people and making things happen for the benefit of these people. It would be incomprehensible to claim to be well-taught but uninterested in burdensome, energy-sapping, needy IMH-regulars (though of course we'd be amenable to pooling together to get little arms-length "encouragement gifts" for them).

And what of our relationship with God? The reference to "the world" is by default shorthand for our relationship with God, for loving the world means turning our backs to God (cf 1 John 2:15). The world is society organised without reference to God or his son. Previously we loved the world, then God worked on our hearts and so we turned our backs to the world and lived for him but the world is always enticing us to creep back. So Christians have tried to institute by-laws to prevent contamination by the world: no theatre, no dancing, no drinking or smoking. But such legalism and pharsaism was too naive. The current swing towards the other extreme of total liberty, however, tends to lack control. Perhaps the better test is to ask whether this or that draws our hearts from heaven and fastens them to earth; whether it hinders us from setting our hearts on things above and in investing in things above. Like protecting state secrets from covert intelligence gathering, usually of the attractive young female genre, we are to keep ourselves and our relationship with God unspotted from what may seem to be unbelievably fetching temptations. For what fellowship has darkness with light asks Paul in 2 Corinthians 6:14-18.

The proof's in the pudding; the blessing's in the hearing and then the doing.





Dick Lucas, James
Neil Gaiman and Dave McKean, MirrorMask
Dorie Greenspan, French Pear Tart with some chocolate in the tart dough and great inertia vis-a-vis working with pears.

James

• Muaythai Aftermath and Two Cents on Sickness and Sin, and Prayer in James 5
• Baking Bread and James 4:13-17
• Beef Tournedos, Thaipusam and James 3:13 - 4:12
• Stories, the Tongues That Tell Them and James 3:1-12
• Lunar New Year Lunacy with the Ox-y Morons, and Faith, Works and Justification in James 2:14-26
• Braised Short-Ribs of Dead Cow, Creamless Strawberry Pav, 44th POTUS' Inauguration and James 2:1-13
• Mirror Masks and True Religion and Worship in James 1:19-27
  
• A Feather Duster, Discipline and Happiness, Righteousness and Trials in James 1:2-4

A Feather Duster, Discipline and Happiness, Righteousness and Trials in James 1:2-4

My colleagues at work think me quite mad, but then, it's probably because they haven't met James, brother of Jesus, whom I have only just encountered for the first time (James, not Jesus).

So the birthday girl's dad had requested presence not presents but if presents were to be brought to the party, then something that would help make her more sensible and godly. (As expected, a discussion ensued as to whether anything could effectively cause godliness if God was the grower of plants but ignoring picky legalists, it was thought that gifts could possibly be classified as helpful and unhelpful to the quickly (physically) growing sprout.)

Enter: pint-sized feather duster - traditionally, an instrument of service on the feathered end and an instrument of discipline on the handle end, a fitting symbol to the birthday girl* of what properly-guided growth must entail, I thought. But the colleagues were mortified. How can you give such a present?, moaned the marrieds-with-kids. Cute what, I said, look at the sweet little red plastic handle! Ah, the child will hate you forever and the parents will be insulted, they said and there was much head-shaking and sighing and hand-wringing, and people stopped by throughout the workday to dissuade "you, misguided youngster" from embarking on an action that would cause irreversible damage to existing relationships.

But that is the view of the world.

Crazy man James starts off his letter exhorting us to count it all joy, supreme joy, unmixed happiness, when we meet various trials (James 1:2). Happiness is what we all aim for in life but surely we achieve that by managing to avoid, or at least positive-thinking our way through, all sorts of struggles and difficulties. Yet, instead of problems being anathema to our happiness, James says that, in fact, no joy can be achieved without us making it through a rocky thorn-ridden path. Trudging through an unpaved, unmaintained U-road is the image of the Christian keeping a good hold on his faith, his trust in God and his word and on righteousness despite opposition and obstacle.

How does joy emerge from crisis? Why, says James, because testing of our faith produces steadfastness and when steadfastness has its full effect, we will be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing (James 1:3-4). QED.

He's a crazy one, that James. No one wants to buy furniture that has been stress-tested by 2,000 elephants piled on top of it. Look, a retailer might gush, 2,000 elephants stacked on top of each other balanced on this humble wooden chair and not a crack! That's great, the slightly impressed customer will say, got new one anot har?

(Dick Lucas, quoting a commentator, says that the Greek meaning of the word "steadfastness" is not just standing ground under great stress; it is not a ship at anchor in a storm but that ship still making progress through the storm. It is not putting the head down and gritting the teeth and waiting for the wind blow out but continuing to make steady if slow headway in that storm!)

We tend to pray that young Christians be kept from trials and temptation so that their faith might be allowed to solidify before the winds come. On the contrary, if this young Christian is to persist and continue in Christ, his path must not be smooth and easy.

Ok, so we've persevered as a Christian for 3 years or 7 years. Maybe the first year of conversion was a bit of a honeymoon, maybe we were energetic young Christians bursting like Ribena berries, with joy and truth and trying to get everything (ourselves included) changed tomorrow. We've listened to the right speakers, we've got right leaders as our role-models, we read the Bible properly, TULIP to us is an acronym not a type of flower, we practice servant-heartedness and other-people-centredness, but then we find that growth and maturity slow to knock on the door. And then we realise that, hang on, we are stunting our growth with our inscrutable tendency to sin and donkey-headedness.

James holds up a mouthwatering description of the pin-up person a Christian wants to be: perfect and complete, lacking in nothing (James 1:4). "Perfect", biblically, meaning not morally sinless but fully mature and grown up. "Complete" referring, in the Old Testament, to a sacrifice without blemish that could be used as an offering. And "lacking nothing" meaning fully equipped. Whose hunger and thirst to be fully formed wouldn't be aroused by this? How nice to be without blemishes that marr our witness to those around us and our service to God, and how lovely to be fully-equipped to do his work to our dying breath!

Not only can we not achieve this model Christian-hood without manifold trial, says James, but holiness is not an experience we can download through right teaching and effort and standing fast alone. It is a proved character that God makes through time. So steadfastness must "have its full effect", it must be allowed to run its course, like the competent youngster at his first job must be given time to find his footing or the fictional sensible politician must be given years in office so his equally fictional sensible policies can reach fruition. The word of God and the Spirit of God will work in his time to permeate and change us within; visible results are not promised with 4 weeks of daily use.

The world says we cannot be happy if we cling to our faith in God and his laws. God is a wet blanket and rains in on everything that is fun. But in reality, joy cannot be divorced from walking in God's ways and doing what is right by God. And yummy righteousness cannot be achieved without obstacle.

The world tell us that to deal with the "stresses" of life, we need to "get away", to go on vacation, have our problems melt away at a good concert or a spa, leave them at the entrance of the movie theatre, disappear into the world of the protagonist of a good novel or the iffy Little Nyonya (and hope that the ending is a subjectively satisfactory one). But we now know better and must consider it pure joy when trials come knowing how they will prove and refine us.

And let us not be resentful of God as we might be if we have a healthy concept of his sovereignty, because we know that God disciplines those he loves as even earthly fathers discipline their children whom they love, that we may share in his holiness, yielding a fruit of righteousness (Hebrews 12:4-11)*.

*if you ever read this, kiddo

James

• Muaythai Aftermath and Two Cents on Sickness and Sin, and Prayer in James 5
• Baking Bread and James 4:13-17
• Beef Tournedos, Thaipusam and James 3:13 - 4:12
• Stories, the Tongues That Tell Them and James 3:1-12
• Lunar New Year Lunacy with the Ox-y Morons, and Faith, Works and Justification in James 2:14-26
• Braised Short-Ribs of Dead Cow, Creamless Strawberry Pav, 44th POTUS' Inauguration and James 2:1-13
• Mirror Masks and True Religion and Worship in James 1:19-27
  
• A Feather Duster, Discipline and Happiness, Righteousness and Trials in James 1:2-4

Caramel-Peanut-Topped Brownie Cakes, Fudge, Brownies and Interpreting Ourstory

So the year-end guinea pig season is at an end, but not before a fresh batch of unsuspecting innocents was terrorised by another Dorie Greenspan recipe: the Caramel-peanut-topped Brownie Cake.

In spite of horror stories, the caramel was easily made and excellent stuff. Dorie's instructions were enough but for a bit of handholding, David Lebovitz and Joe Pastry would have been great too. Note to self: sticking finger into boiling caramel to test doneness => sticking burnt finger under running tap for 1 hour => being 1 hour late for dinner => caramel topping more set than it should be.

The brownie cake was a FAIL, 1 tsp of salt being just too premix and the little portable oven not agreeing with Dorie's set timing and temperature for real ovens (but my ignoring these trivialities to play Scrabble). The assembly of GPs was kind enough to not only eat half the cardboardy stuff (and burrow through the dense fudgey chocolatey bits of the other half) but also say that the stuff tasted good. Horrors.

Another note to self: top with caramel just before cake-feeding. Otherwise, even people who just happen to have blowtorches in their pockets can do nothing to melt the set caramel.

(A phenomenon just ripe for peanut toffee fudge things? Yes indeed. And such was the fate of the excess caramel-peanut concoction.)

The brownie for the family, unhindered by the need to identify with the cake genus, fared much better. After all, David Lebovitz's opinion is that any monkey with an opposable thumb and the right recipe can make one. This recipe was another amalgamation, this time of Nick Malgieri's Supernatural Brownie, Dorie's French Chocolate Brownie and Alice Medrich's New Classic Brownie. Since the brownie foodgroup is one of the best platforms for quality chocolate, prefer my brownies fudgey rather than cakey, with a crunchy crust on top and some lightly toasted walnuts or pecans within for texture.

If Shirley O Corriher and C&H's megaphoned brownie secrets are to be believed, the way to achieve ultimate fudginess with a crunch involves:

• melting the butter instead of creaming it with the sugar to achieve fudginess
• using semi-sweet chocolate for a creamier texture
  
• not overmixing
• maturing the mixture for a few hours or overnight
• baking brownie for a short time at a tempterature
• removing the brownie from heat once the edges have shrunk slightly away from edge of pan
• placing the hot pan in an ice bath immediately

Ironically, the current sample ended up more cakey because to the parentals, fudgey = how come this hasn't been baked properly?

The joy of baking is not so much in the finished product (although that must be somewhat tasty so that someone will come along and masticate said product) as in the process. It is the same joy of observing chemical changes and playing a part in action-reaction experiments that accompany the burning or blowing up of stuff, except that this can be achieved legally, without a crater in the backyard and the neighbours on 999.

In one of my favourite food chemistry books, Bakewise, Shirley O Corriher inserts a little box within each recipe titled "What This Recipe Shows", explaining the reactions between ingredients required by the recipe. This weekend, we had a lovely time with friends reviewing the past year. If there'd been a little summary box titled "What Last Year Showed", what pithy statements would it have contained? It hadn't been an easy year, so it would have been easy to pass Go, claim $200 in victimhood, self-pity and bitterness and conclude something like:

• People who claim to be Christian are far worse than people who don't.
• The more entrenched a person is in a church, the more cunning and manipulative you can expect him/her to be.
• Do as they teach, not as they do.
• Sanctification is the bollocks.

And possibly the cherry on the devil's cake:

• They're all hypocrites, it's all fake, why bother persevering? Why not enjoy the here and now while it lasts?*

Regardless of the ability to repeat kitchen experiments, Shirley Corriher's explanations are ultimately mere hypotheses. How much more prone to error and misjudgement are interpretations of unrepeatable past events. Right interpretation can only come from One not only infalliable in observation but One who alone can explain our life events.** For He alone directs them.

There is little more humbling than to realise that we ourselves suck at these most basic of things. And surely this should drive us to an open Bible and, instead of stewing away in self-righteousness, to our knees to pray for our leaders, our brothers and sisters and ourselves. For surely our sinful natures are too primed to fall happily into Satan's snares.

Those maraschino cherries always tasted fake.


*There is something to be said about the limitation of language (language, that is, meaning verbal language, qua Iris Murdoch's Thinking and Language) in capturing mental events and internal cognition.

**If the limited human mind is already thus hindered by language, how much less of God's unlimited mind we must perceive through the Bible.