The misunderstood 11th commandment: Thou shall not judge

Regardless of the level of theological sophistication, we can always be sure the critics "know" one thing: The Bible says that we should not judge one another. Anyone who would do so is clearly being un-Christian. Such obtuse reasoning is employed against Christians who offer a negative commentary on certain cultural trends, behaviors or lifestyles. Still, I wonder how many people have taken this concept to its logical conclusion?

We now hear that in our modern times, John 3:16 has been replaced by Matthew 7:1, as the most often quoted scriptural passage. This is clearly because we have taken the focus off of what the Creator has done for us, and placed it on the creatures do for themselves. We have taken the emphasis off of grace, and have instead made the approval of moral pluralism the quintessential virtue of the age.

The very idea that all judging is wrong, is an illegitimate synthesis between Christianity, moral relativism, and the contemporary perspective on "tolerance." These ideas have been wedded together to conjure up witch's brew of self-contradictory sophistry.

Christianity has traditionally viewed "tolerance" through a prism of scriptural precept that parallels the garden variety dictionary definition. The scriptures say things like, "Love endures all things," and "As much as it depends on you, live peacefully with all men." The traditional definition is that "tolerance" is graciously enduring those who you disagree with.

Today, "tolerance" has been reconstructed to mean something entirely different. Essentially it means that all ideas, lifestyles and truth claims, are deemed equally valid. Christian author and speaker Josh McDowell refers to this phenomenon as "negative tolerance"(permission) versus "positive tolerance" (approval). One can readily see how this new definition of tolerance circles back to the claim made about judging. If nobody has a superior moral position, then nobody has the standing to "judge" anything in terms of ethical hierarchy.

But does the use of Matthew 7:1, as a stand-alone quotation, bring contextual justice to the point Jesus is making? Of course not. Later in the passage, Christ refers to certain people unable or unwilling to assimilate spiritual things. He refers to them figuratively as "pigs" and "dogs." That sounds a bit like judging to me! In the book of John, Jesus talks of rendering a "righteous judgement," rather than none at all. The point was never that we should not make moral judgments, or employ an ethical hierarchy in being discreet about evaluating "right" and "wrong." The idea was that there should be no "double-standards." We should not judge others by a standard we would not want to be judged with ourselves. This is how we avoid "judgmentalism" and cronin fault-finding. We are exhorted to correct our own hypocrisies before reforming the world.

Now that is very different from telling someone that they shouldn't dare to call anything wrong. In fact, such reasoning will ultimately lead to calling evil good and good evil. This is because evil cannot be called evil, since such labeling is judgmental. Good is considered evil, because those who are endeavoring to do good by calling something else wrong, are guilty of judging. How could any court of justice operate if all judgment without exception were considered wrong? All criticisms of anything would have to be withheld on the basis that such critiques are judgmental in nature.

Christian apologist Greg Koukl offers us the perfect antidote to this apparent logical dilemma. He says that we must be egalitarian in terms persons, but elitist in reference to ideas. That principle is embodied in the old ecclesiastical adage that we are to hate the sin, yet love the sinner. This is a perfect expression of "righteous judgment," but it is a posture that would be condemned today as grossly judgmental. And yet in effect, is it any different from saying, "We support the troops, but oppose the war(We have concern for the person, but disapprove of the cause)?" The latter position is assumed to be accepted as valid without question, despite the fact that the former is seen as intolerant. Interesting paradox.

Last year an editorial writer to my local newspaper made a preposterous claim. He declared that the only hope for the peaceful co-existence of mankind, was that each of us must accept and respect the other guy's truth. We can't be dogmatic and say the other guy is wrong. But in articulating such a standard, the writer himself is engaged in judging, not to mention being dogmatic. Applying Koukl's axiom to this situation, we might say that all people deserve respect because of their unique position as reflecting the image of God. But in the process of evaluating the cogency of ideas, the writer clearly is confused, as he seeks to reconstruct the term "truth," by making it tantamount to opinion.

The idea that we can never judge about anything is patently absurd. To say that we can never judge is to wander aimlessly. The scriptures tell us that we should reprove each other, speaking the truth in love. What our society lacks is righteous judgment. What we have an abundance of is knit-picking and indifference. Neither of those two alternatives promotes justice and righteousness.

Interesting. Do you see your beliefs as being very different from the Islamists?

Yes. Aside from monotheistism, Abrahamic descent and a similar sexual ethos, we are quite different.

I think this world - with all the pain, misery, war, judgment, hatred, blame, rage, despair, starvation, envy, cruelty etc etc is hell enough.

This sweet old world also contains happiness, peace, tolerance, love, responsibility, benevolence, hope, feasting, admiration, kindness, etc., etc., etc.,. That should be Heaven enough for anyone but for those who lack the Grace to see it...

Yes. Aside from monotheistism, Abrahamic descent and a similar sexual ethos, we are quite different.

I was referring to the cruelty you ascribe to God - you and the Islamists - the desire for vengence and death and everlasting hell. You seem more similiar in that respect than different to me. You are not as barbaric, I'm sure, as the Islamists - but the error is the same. You believe, don't you, in vengence and killing for God?

That should be Heaven enough for anyone but for those who lack the Grace to see it...

How so, by denying the pain and suffering of billions? I would say that those who find heaven by denying or enjoying the incredible suffering of billions - have not found heaven - they have found sadism.

You believe, don't you, in vengence and killing for God?

No. "Vengeance is mine," sayeth the Lord.

I do not deny pain and suffering. They are part of reality too. Part, not all. We are meant to bear suffering gracefully. Much suffering would disappear if we simply followed the Ten Commandments. If people practiced self-restraint, we wouldn't have to worry about STD's or abortion etc. More suffering has been caused by those who want Heaven on Earth than by those who believe in the God who will Juge All.

This sweet old world also contains happiness, peace, tolerance, love, responsibility, benevolence, hope, feasting, admiration, kindness, etc., etc., etc.,.

Your list contains things that I think would be universally accepted as desirable states. I find it interesting – that you did not include, judgement, condemnation, punishment etc – those qualities that you assign to your God. It seems to me that you do intrinsically know the difference between what are beautiful states of mind – such as happiness, love, peace and being kind and those that are undesirable – such as hatred, condemnation, punishment wrath etc.

I believe in a loving God – not a wrathful, vengeful, eager to punish one. That doesn’t even make sense to me. I have known humans on this earth who were so loving, forgiving and kind and helpful to others that it was/is a joy and an honor to know them. God’s Love is so far beyond what any of us humans can yet imagine or perceive. God loves us, all of us, more than we will ever know….more than we can begin to try to dream of.

I find it sad that so many prefer to believe in a punitive, wrathful God. The Islamists justify their savagery, hate and murder by creating God in their own image. It is their claim that God wants them to kill and to torture because of the sinful ways of the infidels. I see far too much correlation to the Islamists in those Christians who seem to froth at the mouth over the possibility of someone they don’t approve of being punished by their big, bad God. I find that sad and, yes, tragic.

Jesus said, “Love one another as I have loved you”. That is, to me, sacred scripture. Not those who quote the Bible to justify being unloving.

I find it sad that so many prefer to believe in a punitive, wrathful God.

Islamists have a God without mercy, unlike the Christians. Bishop Sheen said years back that the fundamental difference between the Soviet Union and the United States is that the Soviets want the Cross without Christ, while Americans prefer Christ without the Cross. I believe that The God who is love is also Truth and Justice, to divide Him into His parts and just select the parts we like is to re-create Him in our own image. It rather reminds me of P.J. O'Rourke's preface to Parliament of Whores:

"God is a Republican and Santa Claus is a Democrat.

God is an elderly or, at any rate, middle-aged male, a stern fellow, patriarchal rather than paternal and a great believer in rules and regulations. He holds men strictly accountable for their actions. He has little apparent concern for the material well-being of the disadvantaged. He is politically connected, socially powerful and holds the mortgage on literally everything in the world. God is difficult. God is unsentimental. It is very hard to get into God's heavenly country club.

Santa Claus is another matter. He's cute. He's nonthreatening. He's always cheerful. And he loves animals. He may know who's been naughty and who's been nice, but he never does anything about it. He gives everyone everything they want without thought of a quid pro quo. He works hard for charities, and he's famously generous to the poor. Santa Claus is preferable to God in every way but one: There is no such thing as Santa Claus."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.