Stephen Crosby comments

Stephen Crosby
Stephen Crosby

Don't pick on people, jump on their failures, criticize their faults-unless, of course, you want the same treatment. That critical spirit has a way of boomeranging. It's easy to see a smudge on your neighbor's face and be oblivious to the ugly sneer on your own. Do you have the nerve to say, 'Let me wash your face for you,' when your own face is distorted by contempt? It's this whole traveling road-show mentality all over again, playing a holierthan-thou part instead of just living your part. Wipe that ugly sneer off your own face, and you might be fit to offer a washcloth to your neighbor. Matthew 7:1-5
The Message

In our modern culture, even a rabid God-hater will have mastered one Bible verse. It's hanging on the lips of unbelievers and the secular media, ready to be dispensed at the first sign of behavioral scrutiny: "judge not lest you be judged." It's quite a convenient and selective choice. Regrettably, the same ethic has (by a large majority) saturated the visible expression of Western Christendom. Today the worst sin anyone can commit, in or
out of the Church, is judgmentalism. Any attempt, however mild and gracious, to apply objective truth to behavior or practice is greeted with howls of: "judgmentalism."

Emotionalism and utilitarian pragmatism are the rudder and keel of much contemporary Christendom. They're the anvil and hammer that will beat into silence, any attempt to exercise evaluative judgments. If it "feels good," and "gets results," the doctrine, issue, or behavior is automatically deemed above scrutiny, or it's covered with a flimsy, out of context, poorly exegeted, and self-justifying proof text. Someone once said that politics is the last refuge of scoundrels. In my universe, it's proof texting, not politics.

Anyone who dares to mildly ask a question (forget about attempts to warn, rebuke, reprove, or correct) will be labeled as fault finding, having a critical spirit, having a religious spirit, being a legalist, not open to the Spirit, accuser of the brethren, uncaring, insensitive, divisive, disloyal, negative, demonic, unloving, heresy hunter, Pharisee, Jezebel, and worse.

The same Lord who tells us not to judge, tells us to judge, albeit with specific criteria. What are we to do? Judge or not judge? How? Space constraints prohibit me from explaining how significant the context of the Jewish legal system and culture at the time of Christ is to correct understanding and application of the verses above. Yet without this critical element, herein are some thoughts for consideration.

Definitions

We're not particularly helped by English translations. Judgment, condemnation, and discernment all derive from the same Greek root word. In our culture, judgment and condemnation (especially) are negative. Discernment isn't used much in every day speech. The word translated accuser in Rev. 12:10 is strongly negative in English. However, it comes from a Greek word that's worked its way into our language as the mild English word for categorize. So, we're dealing with some language barriers. Without turning this newsletter into Greek 101 class, we have to start with definitions:

  • Accuser: someone with a complaint, especially a legal complaint/lawsuit.

  • Discern/discernment: to separate thoroughly, to discriminate.

  • Judge/judgment: to distinguish, decide for or against, especially in legal matters; to call something mentally into question.

  • Condemn/condemnation: same Greek root as judgment, but in our language, more negative. It has the sense of passing final sentence. In our language it has come to connote ideas of "deeming utterly worthless," a failure, and the superiority of the one
    doing the evaluation. These latter connotations are not the primary biblical usage.

Jesus Our Example

Jesus (and Paul) used the terms judgment or condemnation in a strongly legal sense. A criminal may be judged innocent (a favorable judgment) or judged guilty (condemned-a negative judgment). The act of judging is not inherently negative. The judgment we're forbidden is the judgment that issues final sentence in a legal/criminal sense. We cannot accuse one another before the bar of God's justice, as none of us has a legal case to stand on. This is especially true of judgments made in a spirit of contempt and superiority. First century Judaism/Pharisaism (which is the context of Matthew 7) was particularly prone to these weaknesses.

It's human nature to excuse our selves and condemn others. We want to be evaluated by our intentions (we mean well) but we judge others by their behavior (they did such and such . . . to me!). To issue final sentence on someone limits the scope of God's redemptive reach. When we do so we set ourselves up as the arbiter of final standing.

There's only One who's so qualified as the final arbiter, only One who knows all contingencies, only One who has entered into humanity's suffering, only One who knows motive of the heart. We're forbidden from entering into the forensic judgment that belongs only to the Judge of the whole earth.

Mercy rejoicing over judgment (James 2:13) is speaking of final sentencing, not an alleged ban on the exercise of all evaluative faculties. God's mercy and grace triumph over our deserved judgment daily and at the end of our lives. Space prohibits a digression into the delegated authority of the Church and her representatives in administrative judgment prior to the Lord's execution of final judgment. (Matt. 16:19, John 20:23, etc.) It's a legitimate concept, but sobering and easily abused.

The exercise of evaluative faculties, based on God's Word and our union with His Spirit, as new creation beings, is commanded in John 7:24 and Hebrews 5:14. Hebrews 5:14 says that the strong meat of spiritual things are promised, not to those who have mystical out of body experiences, but to those whose "organs of perception" (KJV-senses) are exercised concerning good and evil as if in a gymnasium. That's a strong image and a strong command.