Faith, Action, and the Uneasy Place of James

Faith, Action, and the Uneasy Place of James

I question the doctrine of faith alone as it is commonly taught.

If the Bible is, as my Lutheran pastors have consistently taught, the Word of God, then all of Scripture must be taken seriously, not selectively. Yet in both modern practice and historical theology, the Book of James occupies an uneasy place—affirmed in words, but rarely engaged in action.

Pastors insist James is not ignored. Yet in over thirty years of attendance within the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, I cannot recall a single sermon or sustained teaching centered on it. At some point, lived experience matters. When a text is consistently absent from formation, its influence fades regardless of official statements.

This matters because James directly challenges a shallow understanding of faith. It does not deny faith; it tests whether faith exists at all.

James asks a simple question: If belief produces no action, what kind of belief is it?
His conclusion is equally simple: Faith without works is dead.

Historically, Martin Luther struggled with this text, famously calling James an “epistle of straw.” While Luther did not remove James from the canon, his discomfort reveals a genuine theological tension—particularly in light of his emphasis on justification by faith articulated in Romans. That tension was never fully resolved; instead, it was often managed by prioritization.

That prioritization has consequences.

James does not argue that works earn salvation. He argues that works reveal faith. Belief that produces no outward action is indistinguishable from belief that exists only in words. Even demons, James notes, believe—and tremble.

This is not a contradiction of faith. It is a clarification of it.

The Christian Church has wrestled with such tensions since its earliest centuries. Efforts at unity—such as the Council of Nicaea—were not born of harmony, but of deep disagreement. Political authority sought theological coherence for the sake of stability, yet division persisted. Over time, those divisions hardened into institutions, dogmas, and eventually wars—Catholic and Protestant killing one another over differing interpretations of the same Christ.

What is striking is not disagreement itself, but how often disagreement gives way to dismissal.

I recall asking a question of my pastor—openly, during a congregational setting. The question was straightforward: If the Bible is, as we are consistently taught, the Word of God, why is the Book of James never taught?

The response was not theological. It was not pastoral. It was not even dismissive in tone—only in substance.

“Reed, you think too much,” he said, and then moved on.

The moment passed quickly, but the lesson was clear. The issue was not the question itself, but the act of questioning. Inquiry was treated not as a pursuit of understanding, but as a disruption of order.

That response illustrates a broader problem. When institutions prioritize harmony over truth, questions become liabilities. Yet Christianity was never built on the absence of tension. It was built on wrestling—Scripture with Scripture, conscience with doctrine, faith with lived reality.

James unsettles because it refuses abstraction. It insists that belief must become visible. And visibility is inconvenient.

If you see someone hungry and wish them well without feeding them, James asks, what good is that?
Faith expressed only in speech is not faith completed—it is faith unfinished.

This is why action matters.

Not activism.
Not performance.
Simply presence.

Leave the woman alone.
Go kneel beside her.
Offer companionship without judgment or spectacle.

That, James would say, is faith made visible.

Virginia's All In: School funding questions asked and go unanswered.

 

The Daily Press wrote an opinion today. Pandemic funds were used in 2024 to promote Glen Youngkins's All-In approach to helping students catch up. The Daily Press fails to peel back the onion if it were as to the real causes of student achievement decline, and I address that in the last few sentences of my opinion. The hard questions were not discussed in the opinion, and I suspect it is because Virginia legislation may have or may not have earmarked funds for the same program in 2025. Federal funds may have needed to be earmarked for 2025 to implement the same programs as in 2024. The Daily Press now seems to be asking for volunteers without calling out the legislatures who failed to fund the program in 2025. The question is why? Is the Daily Press unwilling to dig deeper knowing it was the Democrats in legislation that did not fund 2025? I would like to know the answer please. 

Al con, 

It's a lovely article and opinion. However, there are many concerns, and of course, the Editors should have mentioned an essential piece of information. The Editors wrote, "School Districts should take advantage of the All-In programs when the next academic year starts." The (All-In) funds from 2024 are all but spent as detailed, in your opinion. Did the Democrats, who control the legislation in Richmond, include money in the 2025 educational funding for All-In practices such as tutoring, absenteeism, and literacy? Are the Daily Press editors now asking for volunteers to keep this program alive? Are you asking teachers who are overworked and need more pay to volunteer now? Are you asking teachers to produce the miracle of teaching two grades in one year to help kids when, in some cases, they don't even show up for school? Please review and tell us if the State Legislature has earmarked money for the All-In in 2025. You could ask the convicted felon in Richmond for his take. When will the Daily Press staff step up and be literacy volunteers? Where is the Daily Presses program to help others, or are you here to point fingers? Then, of course, one should be mindful of the parent's responsibility to ensure their children get the extra help. Someone has to provide a place to live. Someone has to give a good breakfast. Someone has to make sure the child goes to school. Someone has to make sure homework is done. Someone must ensure the child takes their education seriously and listens to the teachers. With quality parental involvement and funds provided, All In will succeed. With quality parental involvement, the whole system can succeed.

The war on poverty and how to climb out of this hole created.

 

Ms. Tingley, a retired school superintendent and college professor, wrote a rebuttal to the war on poverty in the Williamsburg Gazette on 6-1-2024. She attacked with a typical liberal attack of "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps is hard." She is right. It is hard without some skills you can offer for employment besides flipping a hamburger. The truth is some could not flip a hamburger if they wanted to or cook one to the proper degree as needed for a healthy meal. Urbanization is one of the direct causes of this phenomenon and, of course. Some high schoolers don't know the difference between a straight-blade screwdriver and a Phillips. How can they survive with little education? I offer my ideas on the war on poverty through the leanse of Been There Done That. We have forgotten how we got here through high school shops, future Farmers of America, and community skill centers in every town.

Ms. Tingley is correct when she writes concerning the war on poverty. The war on poverty has failed due to today's partisan politics. We seem to keep doing the same things to prevent poverty and expecting different results, and that is a form of madness. Ms. Tinsley writes, "We don't all get to start at the same starting line."  All are 100% true. We should acknowledge the luck of the draw and the family we are born into; not one of them is the same nor provides the same outcome and opportunities. Ms Tingley writes about how "life is hard." Well, who said life was supposed to be easy? Life is hard. for all of us. Yes, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps is hard. Who said it was easy? For a child in poverty, the best chance of breaking the cycle is the parent's love of education and realizing that education is the most important and best way out of poverty. Someone has to be there to tell the child to go to bed. Someone has to say to the child to do their homework. Someone has to teach the child to respect and mind the teachers. Someone has to remind the child that through hard work, rewards are plenty. Someone has to put food on the table. Someone has to give their life and be willing to go without and give the child a chance. A sacrifice must be made. Without the sacrifice of the child born of your own flesh and blood, the child will follow the parent into poverty as, indeed, the sheep follow each other over the cliff when the wolf attacks. 

Through our love of our fellow man, we have created unintentional consequences concerning human life where the survival of the fittest, a natural law of living on this rock, has been compromised. To end poverty is relatively simple. Urbanization of our communities has left many without the skills to survive when we give without asking for anything in return. The idea of everyone getting a college education (Obama) was an unrealistic vision and a political lie for votes.  

I grew up poor, leaving a broken family unit in a pickup truck, bag of clothes, and tent at age 20. I relied on my rural skills of hunting and gathering food right there in front of me. I had the skills to survive. My trade work at that age came from my time working rural farm jobs as a young adult, and of course, I was an accomplished welder at the age of 14; my time in Future Farmers of America and Shop in my high school years afforded me the skills needed to survive and have never asked the government for one darn dime. Today, I am a millionaire who is still living off those same skill sets. I was determined to put myself through night school college. To end the war on poverty, we must return to our rural roots; shop class reintroduced at the middle school level of k-12 will go a long way to defeating this unnecessary enemy created by our love of our fellow humans. 

Mom is trying to get us food

Mohammed Ugbede Adaji posted a picture. He asked, what does the picture mean? Many responded. 

Mohammed is a Facebook friend, and I enjoy our conversations. We don't get mad, we don't threaten, we don't spew unwise words over differences of opinions. Mohammed is from Nigeria, and I have found the people I interacted with educated, wise, and wonderful. I am thankful to be allowed to be a part of his world. I have realized that social media ills and hate are an American problem. America has a real problem with division, and one has to wonder if this divide is intentional, created by the media and politicians to harness power for themselves. 

It's a very touching photo with some vital lessons, wrote Benny Peters Adaji.

1. "Both are families, and irrespective of what happens to any of them, the children will be motherless. So, the first thing is that personal survival is vital. You need to be alive to do what you need to do. 

2. Your being alive comes at what cost? Who suffers at the other end of your survival? So, in life, it's vital that you think of others too. 

3. In life, value comes first. If one must survive, it must be the one with higher value, and you will agree with me that fish are made to be food for humans, not the other way around."

I was asked to opine.

It's a challenging picture to reflect upon. I had read others' points of view and thought for a long time before responding. Everyone who has responded shows a warm heart and deep thinking. I will share another view that I may not like. To think, one must have two people in one's head to weigh the pros and cons.

Life is hard. We toil at our work, some of us in miserable conditions, some as slaves. We humans suffer greatly while riding this rock. In the end, we have but a chance to meet death with a smile and move on into eternity. Life isn't fair or unfair; it's a bit more complex. A blend of circumstances, choices, and luck. Some things may seem unfair, while others may feel just. It's all about it's personal perspective.

To the picture: If a shark comes along and eats the fish, Mom, and her babies to survive, do we accept that as nature's survival? Nature operates on principles of survival of the fittest, adaptation, and natural selection. It's about organisms evolving traits that help them thrive in their environment and pass those traits on to future generations. It's not about fairness but rather efficiency and effectiveness in adapting to the challenges of existence.

In this case, Fish Mom gives her life to feed a family of humans through natural selection. However, will the fish children learn what a hook is and be aware of it? No, the answer is no; they will bite the same hook in a matter of minutes. Humans are like that.

Humans see obvious danger; we watch people die in wars, and we see the history of evil, yet we continue to create wars and live in sin even though we have watched others perish needlessly. As humans, we never really progress in our human nature. We see the fish bite the hook, and like the fish, we still bite the same hook, not really learning from history. We are but sheep, following the sheep leader over the cliff. It is then the reason why we need better sight. Only God can provide that sight through his teachings, allowing free will. Evil is the absence of God in our lives. With God, we live in the green meadow, not at the bottom of a cliff.

The Essence of Work Dignity: A Cornerstone for business Health.

I wrote this piece for a former employer. God save our souls. 

Title: The Essence of Work Dignity: A Cornerstone for Business Health 

Introduction: In today's dynamic business landscape, where competition is fierce and innovation is the key to success, the concept of work dignity stands out as a crucial determinant of organizational health. Work dignity encompasses the intrinsic value and respect accorded to individuals in their professional endeavors, reflecting not only on personal satisfaction but also on the overall vitality of the business. This short list of comments delves into the profound significance of work dignity, elucidating its pivotal role in fostering employee morale, productivity, and organizational well-being. Motivated leadership at the highest levels sets the tone for the entire organization, fostering a culture of respect, fairness, and engagement, leading to higher productivity and overall job satisfaction. Additionally, it creates a ripple effect, influencing how employees treat each other and the company's reputation in the industry.

The Foundation of Work Dignity: At the heart of work dignity lies the recognition of individuals as valuable contributors to the organization's mission and goals. It transcends mere compensation or job titles, encompassing the acknowledgment of each employee's unique skills, expertise, and potential. When employees feel valued and respected for their contributions, they are more likely to develop a sense of purpose and commitment to their work, leading to heightened job satisfaction and engagement. 

Enhancing Employee Morale and Productivity: Work dignity serves as a catalyst for nurturing a positive work environment characterized by mutual respect, trust, and collaboration. Employees who perceive their work as dignified are inherently motivated to perform at their best, striving for excellence in their endeavors. Moreover, when individuals feel empowered to voice their opinions and ideas without fear of retribution, it fosters a culture of innovation and creativity, driving organizational growth and success. 

Fostering Loyalty and Retention: Businesses prioritizing work dignity are better positioned to attract and retain top talent in today's competitive labor market. Employees are more likely to remain loyal to organizations that recognize and appreciate their contributions, leading to reduced turnover rates and associated costs. Furthermore, a workforce characterized by high morale and job satisfaction becomes a magnet for prospective employees, enhancing the company's reputation as an employer of choice. 

Safeguarding Organizational Reputation: A business's reputation is intricately linked to its treatment of employees and adherence to principles of work dignity. Instances of workplace discrimination, harassment, or exploitation can tarnish the company's image and lead to public scrutiny, legal repercussions, and financial losses. Conversely, organizations that prioritize work dignity attract top talent and earn the trust and loyalty of customers, investors, and other stakeholders, bolstering their long-term viability and sustainability. 

Micro-management can erode work dignity in several ways, and there are telltale signs that indicate its detrimental effects on employees’ sense of value, autonomy, and respect in the workplace: 

1. Lack of autonomy: When employees are constantly scrutinized, and their every action is subject to approval or intervention by a manager, it signals a lack of trust in their abilities. This undermines their sense of autonomy and self-efficacy, leading to feelings of disempowerment and frustration. 

2. Decreased morale and motivation: Micro-management breeds a culture of fear and anxiety, where employees are afraid to take initiative or make decisions without explicit instructions from their superiors. As a result, morale and motivation suffer, as individuals feel undervalued and demotivated in their roles. 

3. Limited opportunities for growth and development: Micro-management stifles creativity, innovation, and learning opportunities, as employees are not given the freedom to explore new ideas or approaches. This can hinder professional growth and development, as individuals feel constrained by rigid guidelines and directives. 

4. Increased stress and burnout: Constant oversight and micromanagement can lead to heightened levels of stress and burnout among employees, as they feel pressured to meet unrealistic expectations and deadlines. This can have serious implications for their mental and physical well-being, as well as their overall job satisfaction and engagement. 

5. High turnover rates: Micro-management is often associated with high turnover rates, as employees become disillusioned and disengaged with their work environment. When individuals feel micromanaged, they may seek opportunities elsewhere where they can have more autonomy and freedom to excel in their roles. 

6. Micromanaging business partners: Micromanaging business partners can strain relationships and hinder collaboration. It creates an atmosphere of distrust and can lead to resentment. Moreover, it may discourage partners from bringing their creativity and innovation to the table, ultimately affecting the quality of the partnership and the outcomes. Trust and open communication are vital for successful collaborations between manufacturing and third-party contractors who design, build, maintain, and provide the all-important quality assurance aspect for a profitable project

*By being mindful of these signs, businesses can recognize when work dignity is being compromised by micro-management, take proactive steps to address underlying issues and foster a more empowering and respectful work environment. 

How do we identify micro-managers? Identifying micro-managers and managers who take credit for subordinates’ success or other department contributions can involve observing their behavior and communication patterns. 

1. Excessive Control: Micro-managers often control tasks and processes excessively, frequently checking in on minute details and making changes without consulting their team. 

2. Lack of Trust: They may demonstrate a lack of trust in their team members’ abilities, constantly monitoring and questioning their work rather than empowering them to take ownership. 

3. Credit Hogging: Watch out for instances where the manager consistently takes credit for the successes of their team members or other departments without acknowledging their contributions. 

4. Communication Style: Micro-managers tend to dictate rather than collaborate. They may give orders rather than engaging in open dialogue or seeking input from their team. 

5. Failure to Delegate: Managers who struggle to delegate tasks effectively may be prone to micro-management tendencies, wanting to maintain control over every aspect of a project. 

6. Blame Culture: Pay attention to how they handle mistakes or setbacks. Micro-managers may blame others for failures while taking credit for successes, creating a toxic work environment. 

7. Feedback Loop: Consider how they provide feedback. Micro-managers often focus on criticism rather than constructive feedback, undermining confidence and morale. 

8. Micromanaging Tools: Some micro-managers rely heavily on tools like excessive reporting, tracking software, or constant status updates to monitor their team’s progress rather than trusting their judgment. 

Identifying these signs can help employees and organizations address and mitigate the negative impacts of micro-management. 

Conclusion: The notion of work dignity transcends mere economic transactions, embodying the fundamental respect and value accorded to individuals in the workplace. By fostering an environment where employees feel valued, respected, and empowered, businesses can unlock the full potential of their workforce and drive sustainable growth and success. Embracing work dignity as a core tenet of organizational culture is morally imperative and indispensable for the health and prosperity of businesses in the 21st century. Work dignity is worth fighting for because it acknowledges every individual's intrinsic value and worth. It ensures fair treatment, respect, and recognition of one's contributions regardless of socioeconomic status. Fighting for work dignity promotes equality, fosters a sense of belonging, and creates a more just and humane society. We are only on this earth for a very short time. Treat each other as brothers and sisters, as family, if you will. 

Reference: 

Attract talents | STORYBOROS. https://www.storyboros.com/attract-talents-to-your-company

Roh, T., Min-Jik, K., Min-Jik, K., Hong, Y., & Hong, Y. (2023). Does Servant Leadership Decrease Bad Behaviors? The Mediating Role of Psychological Safety and the Moderating Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility. Sustainability, 15(22), 15901.

“Democracy Explained, the Constitution Evaluated — and the Second Amendment Omitted”

Joseph Filco has taught economics and American government and writes commentary for the Williamsburg Gazette. He is relatively well-versed, and while I sometimes disagree with his conclusions, I often write my response here because both the Williamsburg Gazette and the Daily Press routinely refuse to print opposing discourse.

In his recent article dated February 10, 2024, Filco raises an important constitutional question: Did our Founding Fathers intend to elevate material needs into rights, or did they envision a system of ordered liberty and limited government whose proper function was to protect the rights of self-reliant people to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Democrats, he notes, often point to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to justify federal taxation in the name of the “general welfare.” But what, precisely, is the general welfare?

In my view, the general welfare is limited to the powers enumerated in the Constitution as written — such as providing for national defense or maintaining a standing army — not the provision of welfare benefits, food assistance, or federalized school funding for individuals. Those responsibilities were intended to rest primarily with the states, not the federal government.

Democracy is explained, the Constitution evaluated — yet one critical omission stands out: the Second Amendment.

Filco’s article is thoughtful, though simplified for a general audience — which may be necessary, given that many Americans no longer understand that we are a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy. The Founding Fathers were deeply skeptical of direct democracy, which they understood as rule by majority passion rather than reasoned law. This is why they established safeguards such as the Electoral College — a system now routinely criticized by modern Democrats, some of whom still claim an election was “stolen” because the popular vote did not prevail. One must ask whether rejecting a lawful constitutional outcome is truly respect for democracy at all.

The Second Amendment remains one of the most debated provisions of our Constitution. Passed in 1789 as part of the Bill of Rights, it is often described as a single sentence open to interpretation. But is it?

When examining historical grammar, we find that the Founders frequently employed long, comma-separated sentences — a common structure in 18th-century English. Modern readers often misinterpret this structure by applying contemporary grammatical assumptions. When parsed correctly, the Second Amendment does not condition the right to bear arms solely on militia service. Rather, it recognizes multiple related principles: the existence of a militia, the individual right to keep and bear arms, and the command that such rights shall not be infringed.

I raised this grammatical and historical interpretation with a constitutional officer in the James City County Police Department during my participation in the Citizens Police Academy. This officer, trained to advise other officers on constitutional matters, agreed with the interpretation.

Yet modern liberals continue to argue for disarming the individual citizen, a trend we see clearly today in the Virginia General Assembly. At the same time, these same legislators often reject meaningful sentencing reforms that would deter violent crime — such as enhanced penalties for using firearms in the commission of crimes. The focus is placed on restricting lawful ownership rather than punishing unlawful use.

This inconsistency reflects a broader pattern. Modern Democratic leadership increasingly favors centralized federal authority when it advances their policy goals, yet invokes states’ rights when federal law becomes inconvenient. Immigration policy provides a clear example: states are told they may not enforce federal border laws, while the federal government selectively declines to enforce those same laws itself. Marijuana policy reveals the same contradiction. Although cannabis remains illegal under federal statute, Democrats routinely defend state legalization in the name of autonomy. This is not principled federalism — it is convenience-driven governance.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court clarified the Second Amendment in 2008, affirming that it protects an individual right to keep and bear arms — a right some on the political left continue to resist.

January 6 is frequently cited as evidence of a threat to democracy. Yet, like the “mostly peaceful” protests of 2020, it was a mass political demonstration in which the overwhelming majority of participants were nonviolent. In both cases, isolated criminal acts occurred — and those individuals should be prosecuted as individuals. What is troubling is the selective application of collective guilt. Entire movements are condemned or excused depending not on conduct, but on political alignment.

The people’s power has undeniably diminished over time, as the federal government has expanded into nearly every aspect of daily life — often choosing which laws to enforce and which to ignore. The Civil War settled the question of federal supremacy over state law, which is why the federal government sued Texas for attempting to enforce federal border statutes. Yet selective enforcement undermines the very legitimacy such supremacy requires.

Peaceful protest should not become a crime simply because it reaches the steps of power. Nor should riots that burn cities be excused because they align with approved narratives. A constitutional republic survives only when laws are applied equally, rights are protected individually, and liberty is not conditioned on political favor.

“Why Nitrogen and Carbon Offset Taxes Should Be Reconsidered”

Response to Skip Stiles on Carbon Taxes and Environmental Offsets

February 2024

Skip Stiles wrote in the Daily Press advocating for a carbon tax, modeled in part on environmental offset programs, as a means to reduce carbon emissions. I appreciate the intent behind your argument. However, based on direct professional experience, I must disagree with the approach and caution against repeating mistakes Virginia has already made with nitrogen offset credits.

During the Obama era, Virginia implemented a nitrogen offset credit program for wastewater treatment plants—both centralized and decentralized—with the stated goal of protecting our waterways. In theory, the program sounded reasonable. In practice, it has often produced the opposite result.

Nitrogen offset credits are expensive and scarce, largely controlled by a small number of large urban wastewater treatment plants. When new or upgraded treatment is needed—particularly in rural or legacy communities—the cost of purchasing credits becomes prohibitive. As a result, rural communities are disproportionately burdened, while urban centers, which generate the largest nitrogen and phosphorus loads through stormwater runoff, face comparatively less pressure.

Local leaders are often reluctant to raise taxes in dense urban areas to address stormwater and nutrient loading. Instead, responsibility is deferred, and regulators’ hands become tied. The result is regulatory gridlock and continued pollution—not because solutions don’t exist, but because the financial mechanism prevents them from being implemented.

This problem is especially acute for aging communities built before 1960 that rely on decentralized wastewater treatment. Today, we can reliably achieve end-of-pipe limits near 10 mg/L BOD, 10 mg/L TSS, and total nitrogen in the 15–20 mg/L range. Yet these communities are still required to purchase credits to offset the remaining load—often on a recurring basis. Large urban treatment facilities understandably hoard credits for future needs, and when credits are offered, they are frequently unaffordable. The result is stagnation, not environmental improvement.

I speak from experience. In October 2024, I presented a paper on this very issue at the NOWRA Conference in Hampton, Virginia.

It is for these reasons that I caution against a carbon tax structured around offset credits. Such systems tend to regulate through financial pressure rather than measurable outcomes, imposing costs on average consumers while producing little global benefit. Even if the United States achieved carbon neutrality tomorrow, global emissions would continue to rise as China and India expand coal-fired power generation at record pace.

Environmental tradeoffs are also routinely ignored. Offshore wind development raises unresolved concerns about right-whale mortality and vessel traffic. Large-scale solar installations remove vegetation and disrupt ecosystems. Every proposed solution carries environmental costs. The question is not whether tradeoffs exist, but who bears them—and whether they meaningfully improve outcomes.

I will add one observation grounded in published research. NASA has documented that large-scale groundwater withdrawal has contributed to measurable shifts in Earth’s rotational axis, known as polar motion. According to NASA researchers, the redistribution of mass caused by groundwater extraction has altered Earth’s axis in recent decades. While this finding does not, by itself, explain climate change, it demonstrates that human land- and water-use practices can influence planetary systems in ways not fully captured by carbon-only climate models. It is reasonable to ask whether such physical changes—alongside atmospheric factors—may contribute to regional climate variation over time.¹

I care deeply about environmental stewardship. But experience tells me that credit-exchange systems often become revenue mechanisms rather than solutions. If you are open to it, I would welcome a conversation. I believe my experience could help inform approaches that actually improve environmental outcomes—without repeating the unintended consequences we are already living with.

Respectfully,
Reed Johnson

---

Reference

¹ NASA Earth Science research on groundwater depletion and polar motion:
https://www.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/groundwater-pumping-and-earths-tilt/