Henry Krabbendam - James - World Evangelical Alliance

The ultimate upshot is that the past Church did not follow James as its
model in painstakingly applying the law of God as the final touchstone of all
conduct. If it had done so, it would have raised its prophetic voice against the
structural ills of the past. But what about the track record of the present day
Church? If it follows in the footsteps of James in determining the will of God
according to the law of God, it will raise its voice against the societal ills of
today. In the past it failed to speak up and lost its relevance. If it does not
speak up today, it will lose its right to exist! To repeat, in the past it failed to
apply the case law approach of James in hot-button areas of the day, such as
slavery, the holocaust, apartheid, etc. Now it is in deadly danger once again to
ignore this approach and to drift away from, if not speak out against, the truth
by following in the ways of the world in the present day hot-button issues of
political correctness, such as feminism, abortion and homosexuality. In the
past it often took the lead, but was wrong-headed with its “false” prophecy. In
the present it turns into the tail, and is just as wrong-headed, foregoing any
prophetic voice altogether. The contrast with Scripture could hardly be more
pronounced (See Deut. 28:13; and also Is. 9:15).
In summary, it has been pointed out in the present context that a vast
range of conduct threatens to turn into a veritable minefield, inclusive of
snobbery that “truckles to the rich,” the inverted snobbery that “glorifies the
poor,” the cowardice that “panders to a tyrant,” and the reverse cowardice
that “buckles under mob pressure.” They are all equally indicative of an ingrained
attitude that contrary to Scripture “respects persons,” and stand all
equally condemned (Barclay, 74).
Incidentally, the typically “Jewish” term “synagogue” in the present
context fits in nicely with an early date for the Epistle. Most Christians are
still of Jewish descent, and would be quite familiar and comfortable with
James’ terminology (Johnson, 227). This also suggests that it is a reference to
a worship service or congregational assembly.
It is interesting to note that James refers to the perpetrators of this discriminatory
treatment as folks, who either “are divided within themselves,” or
“make distinctions among themselves,” as they run into outsiders in the congregation.
The first translation predicates something about the character of
the covenant community. They are double-faced, people with the mythological
Janus' head consisting of two faces. They have a “wavering” attitude of
heart and mind (Moo, 1985, 90, with reference to James 1:6 where the same
verb is used). Now they turn the one face of faulty favoritism (vis-à-vis the
rich), now the other of dreadful discrimination (vis-à-vis the poor)! The second
translation exposes the actions of this community. It makes “unjust” distinctions
in relationship to the visitors (Manton, 188, with reference to Acts
477