This week's 'thought' comes in response to many comments I've seen this past week (though they are nothing new). Comments directed in response to posts where the writer of some blog, or some Christian person, shared an opinion contrary to what the majority believes -- and was chastised as being "judgmental" because they said they felt that something was wrong.
All one has to say is that they disagree with something, or believe something to be wrong, and they are instantly hit with a reference to Matthew 7:1 -- which almost every non-Christian seems to know about even if they've never picked up a Bible in their life!
Yet, is it wrong to have an
opinion contrary to what the majority holds? Is simply believing that
something is wrong being "judgmental"? Society
would have us think so. Hopefully today's excerpt from Tim Wildmon from the afaJournal, and the
commentary I share which follows it, will clarify the
issue just a little bit. Enjoy.
"You Have No Right to
Judge Me!" Really?
"Do you know the
favorite Bible verse of those who don't believe in the Bible's authority? Think
about it. It's not hard. The favorite Bible verse of those who do not
believe the Bible is: "Judge not that you be not judged."
These folks cannot tell you
where this verse is in the Bible, because they don't read it. But they
have heard it is in the Scriptures somewhere, so if they don't like something
you say when you pronounce something right or wrong, they whip out Matthew 7:1,
and that is supposed to be the end of the discussion.
One of the problems is, if
you tell others they have no right to judge someone else, you have thereby
judged them for judging. You have done precisely what you claim to be
against -- judging. That makes you a hypocrite. But that then begs the question
-- why is it wrong to be a hypocrite? Who made that judgment? We
just assume that to be a true statement, which is a pre-supposition. But
presuppositions need a foundation to be authoritative. For example, the
teachings of Jesus Christ are authoritative for those who believe He is the Son
of God. Each one has a worldview on which we base our lives,
presuppositions we operate under and make decisions on. Because of our
country's heritage, most Americans, either consciously or subconsciously,
derive their presuppositions about life and morality from the Bible.
Ask the average person
on the street if lying is right or wrong behavior, and they are going
to tell you it's wrong. Ask them who decided lying is wrong,
and they will either say, "It just is," or "My parents
taught me it is wrong," or "The Bible says so."
However, "It just is," is not an answer to the question; it is an
opinion. Neither is, "My parents taught me." Parents are an
authority figure, but they do not define morality in any absolute way, because
they are humans whose opinions are subject to change. "The Bible
says so," is a legitimate answer because if you believe the Bible is God's
Word, then you want to obey God so you don't fall into disfavor with a supreme
being who controls your eternal destiny.
Many Americans will say
they subscribe to the idea that a person should be free to do whatever he wishes,
"as long as it does not hurt anyone else." This view is based on the
presupposition that freedom is good and it is morally wrong to hurt someone
else. But who made these rules? Who says freedom is morally
superior to bondage? And why is it wrong to hurt someone else? Who
says? To injure or hurt someone goes against biblical teaching. That is
where the idea of it being wrong to hurt someone comes from in the first place.
The Golden Rule was given to us by Jesus. (See also Rom. 13:10).
Some societies use an
atheistic state government as the agent for defining what is right or wrong
behavior. It's called totalitarianism for a reason. In Muslim countries,
Islamic law and teaching dominate people's behavior. Islam defines good
and evil, wrong and right. Most European countries have what's left of their
Christian heritage to guide them, although the continent today is mostly secular
with Islam rising as a possible replacement to secularism in the coming
decades.
It is a healthy exercise to
ask ourselves where we get the moral values that govern our lives. Is each
person for himself, or do we acknowledge a higher power with authority to
declare such?"
To his comments I do need
to add that as I've been preaching through the book of James, it has
become abundantly clear that we are called to exercise wisdom, and that wisdom
has a moral character to it (James 3:17-18). That's one of the reasons
our culture values knowledge, but not wisdom -- it can't be divorced from
making ethical value judgments when confronted by trends, ideas,
beliefs, or behaviors.This is made clear throughout Scripture, but nowhere more clearly than in I Kings 3:4-15 where Solomon is told he can ask God for anything and chooses to ask for a wise and discerning heart. "Give your servant a discerning heart to govern your people and distinguish between right and wrong." That's one of the primary traits of wisdom -- the ability to discern what's right and what's wrong and choose the best ethical course of action.
That's what people today seem to forget. Jesus (who was the wisest person who ever lived) made ethical value judgments (Matthew 5:21-26, 27-30, 31-32, 33-37, 38-42, 43-48, etc., etc., etc.). He held that certain things were right and certain things were wrong, and often expressed those value judgments to the very people who held to them or disagreed with Him (Matthew 7:15-23, 11:20-24, Luke 12:13-21).
Likewise, He was regularly calling people to "repent" -- to change their wrong opinions, attitudes and behaviors if they held to certain beliefs, engaged in certain habits, or indulged in God-forbidden and God-dishonoring activities.
That's where
people who quote Matthew 7:1 often get it wrong. They forget there are TWO types
of judging -- one that is encouraged by Scripture, and one that is forbidden.
1.)
The judging that is forbidden
is judging that condemns another person. It is judging that seeks to belittle, hurt, humiliate, or
demean others. And it is especially
condemnation-worthy when the person doing the condemning is actively
engaging (publicly or secretly) in the very things he condemns in the
other person, or engages in another equally reprehensible thing
(Matthew 7:3-5 / Romans 2:1-4). This forbidden type of judging is often
harsh, and done in anger, with the proverbial "pointing finger"
aimed at another, giving evidence of a graceless, un-gospel-like,
holier-than-thou type of smug self-righteousness (Luke 18:9-14, John 8:1-11,
James 2:13).
Likewise, the
Christ-follower is forbidden from judging anyone on issues
Scripture does not definitively address -- the "disputable issues" (Rom.
14:1). The morally grey areas of life that are merely matters of personal
preference, or one's own conscience, and not defined as right or
wrong by Scripture (Romans 14:1-15:13).
2.)
But there is also a "judging" that is actually encouraged in the Bible. In fact, refusing to engage in this type
of judging would be disastrous on both the individual and social
scale. Solomon encourages "sound judgment" (that is,
evaluating situations and circumstances and making good, wise, ethical choices)
throughout the book of Proverbs. We also see this in Luke 7:43, John
5:30, John 7:24, Acts 15:19, I Corinthians 2:15, 6:1-8 and 11:31.
Guided by Scripture, and
not mere human preference, this type of judging helps us avoid making unwise,
impulsive, and disastrous choices (Prov. 7:7) that could bring harm to us,
our loved ones, the church, the community or country we live in. In fact,
without exercising this type of judgment, we would all ruin our
own lives, and likely the lives of those around us. For
the person who makes no "judgment calls" will inevitably
try anything or experiment in anything -- even that which hurts them and
does damage to others physically, emotionally, or in regard to their
character. It is not "judging" (in the
forbidden sense) to simply say you believe something is wrong.
I do appreciate those who
tell me "not to judge"
whenever I express an opinion contrary to theirs. It's a chance to see if
I am truly engaging in the scripturally forbidden type of judging -- and
for that I am thankful. Yet if that person suggests I should stop
making all value-judgments, or exercising discernment, or should somehow adopt
a view that says there are no rights and wrongs, I must lovingly agree to
disagree. Such an unwise and lopsided rebuke should always
be rejected by the Christ-loving person. A half-truth, even
when spoken in earnest, is still an untruth, and an untruth -- when seen as the whole truth -- can be
terribly harmful and misleading.
With Prayers That We
Might Be Ever-Conscious of the Need for the One, Without Delving into the
Other, Pastor Jeff
