"If anyone considers himself religious, and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless." James 1:26

Other versions translate this to read "control" or "bridle" the tongue. In Apocalypse Explained 923 we read: "The term 'bridle' is used in a number of passages of the Word, and it signifies in the spiritual sense restraint and government, and it is predicated of the understanding and its thought, because a bridle belongs to horses and “horses” signify the understanding."

One of the more revealing facts about ourselves may be that the simplest, most basic, most obvious principles of the spiritual way of life are the ones we seem to need to be reminded of over and over again. Is there any one of us who does not really know—deep inside—that the Lord's way is the way of peace, of gentleness, of purity, of friendliness, of compassion, of fruitfulness, of forbearance, of self-control? Yet which of us has never been guilty of belligerence, contentiousness, overbearing attitude, impurity, lust, hostility, ill will, indifference, harshness, sloth, shiftlessness, vindictiveness, or gross indulgence? Over and over again!

It seems unfortunately true of "human nature", as we know it, that all of us—young and old, rich and poor, saint and sinner—stand in need repeatedly to be reminded of the basic ingredients of human decency. It is thus no surprise to us that the Scriptures are liberally sprinkled with admonitions about the obvious. The words of Micah 6:8 come readily to mind: "He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?"

If in fact, we were to set out to collect and review all such passages in the Scriptures, we would be here all of today and well into the night, I suspect. This I do not intend to do, you'll be glad to know. Instead, let us narrow our gaze to one relatively small facet of this life-wide problem, the focus of our text from James, the need to bridle the tongue.

In the Old Testament, in Psalm 15, we read of the danger inherent in slandering with the tongue. In Psalm 34 we read, "Keep thy tongue from evil and thy lips from speaking guile"—not only to avoid speaking anything evil, but also to refrain from even thinking it.

A little further on—in Psalm 39—the psalmist apparently decided to take things in his own hands and to set for himself course of action. He decided he would, in fact, repress or suppress his feelings and desires. "I will not let my tongue make me sin... I will not say anything while evil men are near... not say a word, not even about anything good."

Did it work? No. "My suffering only grew worse, and I was overcome with anxiety. The more I thought, the more troubled I became."

Complete silence does not seem to be the answer. (Those of us who essentially earn our living by talking should be relieved to learn this.) No, the symbol of the bridle or restraint seems to be the direction in which one must move. Swedenborg, in reporting a meeting with spirits from another planet, said these extraterrestrial beings observed that "the spirits of our earth...speak much and think little" (Arcana Coelestia 8031). Not too flattering, but probably accurate.

In his work on Ethics, Spinoza noted that "the world would be much happier if men were as fully able to keep silence as they are to speak. But experience abundantly shows that men can govern anything more easily than their tongues."

He (Spinoza) may have been prompted in part to write that by the picturesque analysis in the third chapter of the letter of the apostle James, which reads in part:

"We put a bit into the mouth of a horse to make it obey us, and we are able to make it go where we want. Or think of a ship: big as it is and driven by such strong winds, it can be steered by a very small rudder, and it goes wherever the pilot wants it to go. So it is with the tongue: small as it is, it can boast about great things.

“Just think how large a forest can be set on fire by a tiny flame! And the tongue is like a fire. It is a world of wrong, occupying its place in our bodies and spreading evil through our whole being. It sets on fire the entire course of our existence with the fire that comes to it from hell itself. Man is able to tame and has tamed all other creatures—wild animals and birds, reptiles and fish. But no one has ever been able to tame the tongue. It is evil and uncontrollable, full of deadly poison. We use it to give thanks to our Lord and Father and also to curse our fellow-man, who is created in the likeness of God. Words of thanksgiving and cursing pour out from the same mouth. My brothers, this should not happen! No spring of water pours out sweet water and bitter water from the same opening. A fig tree, my brothers, cannot bear olives: a grapevine cannot bear figs, nor can a salty spring produce sweet water.

“Is there anyone among you who is wise and understanding? He is to prove it by his good life, by his good deeds performed with humility and wisdom. But if in your heart you are jealous, bitter and selfish, don't sin against the truth by boasting of your wisdom. Such wisdom does not come down from heaven: it belongs the world; it is unspiritual and demonic. Where there is jealousy and selfishness, there is also disorder and every kind of evil. But the wisdom from above is pure first of all; it is also peaceful, gentle and friendly; it is full of compassion and produces a harvest of good deeds; it is free from prejudice and hypocrisy. And goodness is the harvest that is produced from the seeds the peacemakers plant in peace.” (James 3:3-18)

We are forced to face the reality that there is no easy or "pat" answer to the problem of bridling the tongue. The early American political motto—"eternal vigilance is the price of liberty"—could as well have been spoken of the "battle of the tongue." May we paraphrase and say, "Eternal vigilance to restrain the tongue is the price of regeneration"?

In a provocative Diary entry, Swedenborg wrote: "When souls speak otherwise than they think, as if they speak good because it is to their advantage, there appears a sword, and the point of the sword appears, as it were, to be falling upon the head of the speaker. And this is the case even when no deceit is intended, but when it appears as though one ought to speak in this manner because the speaker observes it to be true, even though his mind does not feel the truth of what he says, but disagrees with it; in which case a sword appears behind the back, endangering the speaker" (Spiritual Diary 934). What a compelling word-picture to have in mind whenever we find ourselves "speaking guile!"

It is an axiom of the New Church that we are citizens of two worlds—that we are living simultaneously in both the natural world and the spiritual world. Further, that the two fold spiritual world profoundly influences us at all times—heavenly influences leading us to think and say heavenly things, hellish influences beguiling into thinking and saying hellish things. We dare never ignore the reality and presence of these influences. Nor can we take refuge in claiming, "The devil made me do it!" For the truth is that although "the devil" undoubtedly suggested it, we—you and I—decide whether or not to accept the suggestion.

“In the natural world man has a twofold speech, because he has a twofold thought, an exterior and an interior; for a man can speak from interior thought, and at the same time from exterior thought; and he can speak from exterior thought, and not from the interior, and even against the interior: hence come simulations, flatteries, and hypocrisies. But in the spiritual world man's speech is not twofold but single. He there speaks as he thinks: otherwise the sound is harsh, and offends the ear. But still he can be silent, and thus not divulge the thoughts of his mind: therefore when a hypocrite comes among the wise, he either goes away, or hurries himself into a corner of the room and makes himself inconspicuous, and sits mute.” (Apocalypse Revealed 294)

Can we set before ourselves an ideal? Yes. We find one in that short portion of the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:33-37. It involves the danger in resorting to oaths and vows. Literally it sounds strange, as if we are not to make binding promises. But spiritually, we learn, it refers to the ideal state of those in the celestial or highest heaven. The Rev. William Bruce explains, "The command not to swear is a command not to confirm or uphold, by our own wisdom, the authority of divine wisdom, not to obtrude ourselves or our own wisdom into the domain of the eternal government, where the wisdom of God is everything."

He further explains that “if we loved good with our whole heart, and always followed it, if we hated evil in every form and constantly shunned it," we would then be able to obey the scripture, "Simply let your Yes be Yes and your No be No" (Matthew 5:37). But pending our reaching that exalted state, we do well to heed the words of our text: "If anyone considers himself religious, and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless."

294. To this I will append the following narrative account:

In the natural world people possess two levels of speech, because they possess two levels of thought, one inward and one outward. For a person can speak from his inner thought and at the same time then from his outer one, or he can speak from his outer thought and not from his inner one, and even contrary to his inner one. This is what makes possible pretenses, flatteries, and hypocrisies.

In the spiritual world, however, people do not possess two levels of speech, but a single one. A person there speaks as he thinks. Otherwise his voice becomes grating and hurts the ears. Still, he can remain silent and so not divulge the thoughts of his mind. Consequently, when a hypocrite comes into the company of people who are wise, either he goes away, or he hurries to a corner of the room and makes himself inconspicuous, and sits silent.

[2] Many spirits once gathered in the world of spirits and discussed this circumstance with each other, saying that being unable to speak as one thinks in the company of good spirits was a hardship for those who had not thought correctly about God and the Lord.

At the center of the gathering were the Protestant Reformed, and many of their clergy, and next to them Roman Catholics with some monks. Both groups said at first that it was not a hardship. What need is there to speak otherwise than as one thinks? And if perchance one does not think correctly, can he not purse his lips and remain silent?

Moreover, one of the clergy said, "Who does not think correctly about God and the Lord?"

But some of the gathering said, "Still, let's put it to the test."

And regarding God, there were some who had confirmed themselves in a trinity of persons - particularly because of the statement in the Athanasian doctrine,

The person of the Father is one person, that of the Son another, and that of the Holy Spirit still another.

And,

As the Father is God, so is the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God.

These were told to say "one God." But they could not. They contorted their lips and twisted them into many convolutions, but they could not articulate the sound into any other words than those in keeping with the ideas of their thought, which were ideas of three persons and so of three Gods.

[3] Moreover, those who had affirmed a faith divorced from charity were told to say the name Jesus. But they could not, even though they could all say Christ, and also God the Father. They were surprised at this, and inquiring into the reason, they found that they prayed to God the Father for the sake of the Son, and did not pray to the Savior Himself. For Jesus means Savior.

[4] They were further told to speak from their thought about the Lord's humanity and say, "Divine humanity." But none of the clergy present there could do so, though some of the laity could, and therefore the subject was presented for a serious ventilation.

So then, 1. They had read to them these statements in the Gospels:

The Father... has given all things into (the Son's) hand. (John 3:35)

(The Father has) given (the Son) authority over all flesh... (John 17:2)

All things have been delivered to Me by My Father. (Matthew 11:27)

All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. (Matthew 28:18)

They were then told to retain in thought therefore the idea that Christ is God of heaven and earth, both in respect to His Divinity and in respect to His humanity, and so to utter the term, "Divine humanity." But still they could not. And they said that they even retained from the quotations some thought of the idea from an understanding of it, but nevertheless without any acknowledgment of it, and that for that reason they could not.

[5] 2. After that they had read to them statements from Luke 1:32, 34-35, ¹ saying that the Lord in respect to His humanity was the Son of Jehovah God, and statements showing that in respect to His humanity He is everywhere in the Word called the Son of God, and also the only-begotten. ² And the examiners asked them to retain this idea in their thought, along with the idea that the only begotten Son of God born into the world could not but be God, as the Father is God, and to utter the term, "Divine humanity."

But they said, "We cannot, because our spiritual thought, which is the inner one, does not allow into the thought nearest our speech any other than like ideas."

They said, too, that they perceived from this that it is now not possible to keep separate their levels of thought as in the natural world.

[6] 3. Next they had read to them the Lord's words to Philip:

Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father...." (And the Lord) said to him, ."..He who sees Me has seen the Father... Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?" (John 14:8-11)

And moreover other passages, saying that the Father and He are one (John 10:30, and elsewhere). And they were told to retain this idea in thought and then say "Divine humanity." But because their thought was not rooted in an acknowledgment that the Lord was God even in respect to His humanity, therefore they could not. They contorted their lips into convolutions to the point of becoming irate, and they tried to force their mouths into uttering it and to spit it out. But without success. The reason was that mental ideas flowing from an acknowledgment unite with spoken words in people who live in the spiritual world; and when those ideas do not exist, words are lacking, for ideas become words when uttered in speech.

[7] 4. Then they had read to them statement from the church's doctrine accepted throughout the world, saying that the Divine and human in the Lord are not two but one, indeed one person, united altogether like soul and body - statements from the Athanasian Creed. And they were told, "You may take from this an idea in keeping with your acknowledgment, that the Lord's humanity is Divine, because His soul is Divine, for it comes from your church's doctrine which you acknowledged in the world. Moreover the soul is the underlying essence and the body the form, and the essence and form are united, like being and expression, or like the efficient cause of an effect and the effect itself."

The spirits retained this idea and tried in accord with it to utter the term, "Divine humanity." But they could not, for their inner idea of the Lord's humanity dismissed and expunged this novel new idea, as they called it.

[8] 5. Again they had read to them the following from John:

...the Word was with God, and the Word was God... And the Word became flesh... (John 1:1, 14)

And the following from Paul:

...in (Christ Jesus) dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. (Colossians 2:9)

And they were told to think hard that God, who was the Word, became flesh, and that all the Divine dwells in Him bodily. "Perhaps," they were told, "you can then utter the term, 'Divine humanity.'"

But they could not, saying openly that they could not entertain the idea of a Divine humanity, as God is God and man is man, and God is a spirit, "and we can think of a spirit only as being like a puff of wind or bit of ether."

[9] 6. Finally they were told, "You know that the Lord said, "Abide in Me, and I in you... He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. (John 15:4-5)" And because some of the English clergy were present, they had read to them also something from one of their prayers before Holy Communion:

For, when we spiritually eat the flesh of Christ, and drink the blood, then we dwell in Christ, and Christ in us.

"If you now think that this would not be possible unless the Lord's humanity is Divine, utter then the term, "Divine humanity," from an acknowledgment in the thought."

But still they could not. For they had the idea so deeply impressed on them that the Lord's Divinity was one thing and His humanity another, so that His Divinity was like the Divinity of the Father, and His humanity like the humanity of any other man.

The examiners said to them, however, "How can you think so? Is it possible for a rational mind ever to think that God is three and the Lord two?"

[10] 7. After that the examiners turned to the Lutherans, saying that the Augsburg Confession and Luther taught that the Son of God and the Son of Man in Christ are one person, that He is also in respect to His human nature the true, almighty and eternal God, and that being in respect to that nature at the right hand of almighty God, He governs everything in heaven and on earth, fills everything, is present with us, and dwells and acts in us. Moreover, there is no difference in any worship of them, since through the nature that is seen, the Divinity that is not seen is worshiped. Thus in Christ, God is man, and man is God.

Hearing this, the Lutherans replied, "Is that right?" And having looked around, they presently said, "We have not known this before. Consequently we cannot."

But one or two of them said, "We have read this and written it, yet when we have thought about it to ourselves on our own, the words were still only words, of which we could not form an interior idea."

[11] 8. Finally, turning to the Roman Catholics, the examiners said, "Perhaps you can pronounce the term 'Divine humanity,' because you believe that Christ is wholly present in the bread and wine of your Eucharist and in every particle of it, and you also worship Him as God when you present the host and distribute it, and you call Mary the mother of God. Consequently you acknowledge that she gave birth to God, which is to say, to His Divine humanity."

They then tried to utter the term in accord with those mental ideas they had of the Lord. But they could not, because of the physical idea they had of His body and blood, and because of their assertion that it was human power and not Divine power that He conferred on the Pope.

A monk then rose and said that he could think of the term "Divine humanity" as applying to the Virgin Mary, mother of God, and also to the patron saint of his monastery.

And another monk came forward saying, "I can, in accord with my mental idea of it, say 'Divine humanity' as a term applying to our most holy Pope rather than to the Christ."

But at that other monks pulled him back and said, "Shame on you."

[12] After that I saw heaven opened, and I saw little flame-like tongues descending and flowing into some of those present, and they then began to celebrate the Lord's Divine humanity, saying, "Put aside the idea of three Gods and believe that in the Lord dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, that the Father and He are one as a soul and body are one, and that God is not a puff of wind or bit of ether, but human, and you will then be conjoined with heaven, and the Lord will enable you thereby to say the name Jesus and utter the term, "Divine humanity."

Poznámky pod čarou: