A Church Without Undercurrents (James 4:11-12) Series

Today, we are going to work through just two verses from James 4, verses 11-12. These verses have their own little introduction and conclusion, and sort of stand alone. Let's start by reading just the first sentence in verse 11:

(11) Don't speak evil of one another, brothers.

In my translation, James starts by commanding us to not "speak evil of" one another. What exactly does this mean?

The NIV translates the same verb as "slander," which means you shouldn't tell lies about each other. But the verb doesn't necessarily mean telling a lie.

The idea is more like, your brother or sister in Christ did something stupid, or sinful, and you find yourself wanting to talk about it to other people. You want to publicly criticize them, and say bad things about people.

Let me give you three examples of how it's used in classical Greek. The first is from Polybius, who was a Greek historian. He's talking about politicians passing a law, or bill, that's considered stupid. Which seems like a pretty modern example, right?:

"Upon this decree being published in Greece, it created a feeling of confidence and gratification in all the communities except the Aetolians. These last were annoyed at not getting all they expected, and attempted to RUN DOWN the decree by saying that it was mere words, without anything practical in it; and they based upon the clauses of the decree itself some such arguments as follow, by way of disquieting those who would listen to them. They said “That there were two distinct clauses in the decree relating to the cities garrisoned by Philip: one ordering him to remove those garrisons and to hand over the cities to the Romans; the other bidding him withdraw his garrisons and set the cities free. Those that were to be set free were definitely named, and they were towns in Asia; and it was plain, therefore, that those which were to be handed over to the Romans were those in Europe, namely, Oreus, Eretria, Chalcis, Demetrias, and Corinth. Hence it was plain that the Romans were receiving the ‘fetters of Greece’ from the hands of Philip, and that the Greeks were getting, not freedom, but a change of masters.”

Polybius, Histories (Medford, MA: Macmillan, 1889), 240.

When a politician passes a stupid law, if you're doing this Greek verb, you will publicly criticize it. It's stupid, and you let people know it's stupid.

A second example, also from Polybius, describes the war efforts of a general named Fabius:

"He, then, during the following months, kept his army continually hovering in the neighbourhood of the enemy, his superior knowledge of the country enabling him to occupy beforehand all the posts of vantage; and having supplies in abundance on his rear, he never allowed his soldiers to go on foraging expeditions, or get separated, on any pretence, from the camp; but keeping them continually massed together and in close union, he watched for favourable opportunities of time and place; and by this method of proceeding captured and killed a large number of the enemy, who in their contempt of him straggled from their camp in search of plunder. His object in these manœuvres was twofold,—to gradually diminish the limited numbers of the enemy: and to strengthen and renew by such successes in detail the spirits of his own men, which had been depressed, to begin with, by the general defeat of their armies. But nothing would induce him to agree to give his enemy a set battle. This policy however was by no means approved of by his master of the horse, Marcus. He joined in the general verdict, and DECRIED Fabius in every one’s hearing, as conducting his command in a cowardly and unenterprising spirit; and was himself eager to venture upon a decisive engagement.

Polybius, Histories (Medford, MA: Macmillan, 1889), 248.

So this general played it safe, sort of. He built his soldiers' confidence by putting them in positions to succeed. He got them used to the idea that they would be victorious in battle. But he did this by not taking chances. He played it safe. He refused to engage in large battles that could go either way. And Marcus, "his master of the horse" (whatever that means), responded to this by deciding that he was cowardly and unenterprising. You're given this big army, and all these resources, and you don't have as much to show for it as you should. So Marcus "decried" him in everyone's hearing. Everyone was told that Fabius was a coward, and a poor steward of army resources.

Was all of this true? It's not a lie, exactly. It's not slander. It's more like "public criticism."

So sometimes, this is the situation we find ourselves in. Our brothers or sisters in Christ do something that we think is cowardly, or dumb, or a waste of resources, or sinful, and we publicly criticize them. We tell their story to our friends and coworkers. We spread the news about them. Maybe what we say is true. Maybe it's not. I'm not sure it matters. Either way, we are criticizing them. We are "speaking evil of" them. And that's what we aren't supposed to do. God expects you keep your opinions to yourself. If you can't say something nice about someone, don't say anything at all.