Blackinformant.com – African-American culture, news commentary, politics

Written by Paul Copan of RZIM ministries

(excerpted)

====

“It’s been said that the most frequently quoted Bible verse is no longer John 3:16 but Matthew 7:1: “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.” We cannot glibly quote this, though, without understanding what Jesus meant. When Jesus condemned judging, he wasn’t at all implying we should never make judgments about anyone. After all, a few verses later, Jesus himself calls certain people “pigs” and “dogs” (Matt. 7:6) and “wolves in sheep’s clothing” (7:15)! Any act of church discipline (1 Cor. 5:5) and rebuking false prophets (1 John 4:1) requires judgment. What Jesus condemns is a critical and judgmental spirit, an unholy sense of moral superiority. Jesus commanded us to examine ourselves first for the problems we so easily see in others. Only then can we help remove the speck in another’s eye—which, incidentally, assumes that a problem exists and must be confronted.1 But let’s take a closer look at this charge that Christians are judgmental when we speak out on moral issues.

Are We Judgmental?

What is interesting in these charges of arrogance and judgmentalism is this: Besides failing to define what is meant by “judgmentalism,” the accusers often act just as “arrogantly” and “judgmentally” as the “judgmental” ones. If the Christian (or any exclusivist) is denounced for judgmentalism, he can respond that his accuser is judging him for being judgmental!

To be consistent, judgmentalism cannot mean “being in disagreement with someone” or “considering someone to be wrong.” It is undeniable that the relativist disagrees with the absolutist, which makes the relativist just as “judgmental” as the absolutist. If judgmentalism is to be understood correctly (in keeping with the context of Matthew 7:1), it should be defined as an inappropriate sense of moral superiority over another because of that person’s moral failures.2 Judgmentalism, then, is that ugly refusal to acknowledge that “there but for the grace of God go I.”

Furthermore, it is an act of theological blindness to cite the “judge not” passage while utterly ignoring Jesus’ charge to make proper judgments: “Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment” (John 7:24).

The accusation is unwarranted that those who hold to absolute truth are absolutely arrogant. Think of Mother Teresa’s speech at a Washington prayer breakfast in the winter of 1994, when she boldly spoke against abortion before the pro-abortion president and vice-president of the United States and their spouses. Although she spoke respectfully, she made powerful statements in defense of unborn human lives: “And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?” and “Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want.”3 One could hardly accuse this nun of arrogance.

There simply is no automatic contradiction between holding firmly to one’s convictions and treating with dignity and respect those who disagree. Living harmoniously with people who hold radically different views is a hallmark of maturity.4 Our society would benefit from the courageous words of qualified people who display both firmness of conviction and civility or respect,5 which is what Ephesians 4:15 refers to—”speaking the truth in love.” Martin Marty, the noted observer of religion in America, states that the problem of modernity is that the people “who are good at being civil often lack the strong convictions and the people who have strong convictions often lack civility.”6

Christians often seem to believe that firmness of conviction entitles them to belligerence, hostility, and closed-mindedness—not to mention a lack of intellectual responsibility. To the contrary, Paul exhorts Christians, “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone” (Rom. 12:18). They should live “peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness” (1 Tim. 2:2). On the other hand, behind the mask of an apparently sensitive and compassionate “open-mindedness,” there often exists a moral gutlessness. Civility, then, is the remedy for arrogance, and conviction the corrective for spinelessness. But to achieve this uncommon balance, someone has suggested our interactions with others should concentrate on our own sinfulness and on the other’s humanness—rather than the other way around.7 Moreover, the relativist, for all his bluster about his own “tolerance” and the exclusivist’s arrogance, will still believe things that others don’t believe or agree with—namely, he will not accept the views of the exclusivist. If the relativist is to remain consistent, he can’t legitimately criticize another’s point of view. Furthermore, the relativist is guilty of the morally superior attitude that signals judgmentalism. He really thinks that he possesses a virtue that others don’t.8

The Hindu philosopher Swami Vivekananda came to Chicago in 1893 to address the World’s Parliament of Religions. He told the delegates, “We [Hindus] accept all religions to be true,” and “[it] is sin to call a man [a sinner].”9

The problem here is that the swami himself calls someone a sinner—because that person has called another a sinner. If the exclusivist is a sinner for calling all people sinners, then the Hindu is just as much a sinner for calling the exclusivist a sinner. Isn’t the relativist being “arrogant” for disagreeing with the exclusivist?” (more…)

====