[Cal]

What's interesting to me is that the LC was continually talking about being "the expression of Christ" and being "the testimony of God." Well, James tells us what that looks like. So you would think that it would be a favorite book of the LC. Because, as ZNP said, it tells us exactly what pure religion means--it means you care practically for the needs of the those who truly need help.

Love, in essence, means seeking the good of others at your own expense.

I've found that there are a lot mental barriers to the gospel, but caring for people in genuine love, especially when it involves sacrifice and becoming humble, is the most irresistible testimony that Christ's love is real in us. There is very little defense against it. It just melts people's hearts.

But Lee didn't like the language of James. I don't think he was against kind works. I just think he expected "clear" teachers to constantly be referring to "God's economy" like he did. James got in the way of his doctrine of the supremacy of "God's economy" above all other concepts, so he had to level a salvo against it. But in doing so he minimized a major factor of the testimony of God.

Imagine if LCers, with all their devotion and absoluteness, focused on good works in the community. I guarantee they would have grown and spread the gospel more than they have. Also, by having an attitude of care for the weak, they would have been far less likely to mistreat their own.

Also, care for others would mean reaching out more to other Christians, which would have resulted in less barriers, and more of the oneness they claimed to seek.

Ironically, the book they minimized was just the one they needed, and we all need.