Posts
Over the past few weeks, three things have brought to my mind the issue of judging.
1. First, there was my daily Ellen White reading. (My Adventist friends would probably be shocked to read much of what I have to say on this blog, but they'd be happy that I still read Ellen White!) In Matthew 7:3-5, Jesus says (NRSV): Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor's eye.
This verse has often puzzled me. Is it saying we have to be morally perfect before we can notice people's flaws or help them deal with them? Some argue that, if we overcome a particular sin ourselves, then that will qualify us to help others overcome it. In many cases, that can work, but it doesn't always, because people's situations and personalities are different. There aren't too many "one size fits all" approaches that work for everybody, so, while I try to be open to advice, I'm a little wary of those who act like they're experts on my problems just because they've conquered something similar in their own lives. Sometimes, I'm not looking for "experts" eager to blow off my problems with their advice; I'm looking for someone to listen.
That said, Ellen White offers a different interpretation of Matthew 7:3-5 in her book, Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing (see here, pp. 125-126):
His words describe one who is swift to discern a defect in others. When he thinks he has detected a flaw in the character or the life he is exceedingly zealous in trying to point it out; but Jesus declares that the very trait of character developed in doing this un-Christlike work, is, in comparison with the fault criticized, as a beam in proportion to a mote. It is one's own lack of the spirit of forbearance and love that leads him to make a world of an atom. Those who have never experienced the contrition of an entire surrender to Christ do not in their life make manifest the softening influence of the Saviour's love. They misrepresent the gentle, courteous spirit of the gospel and wound precious souls, for whom Christ died. According to the figure that our Saviour uses, he who indulges a censorious spirit is guilty of greater sin than is the one he accuses, for he not only commits the same sin, but adds to it conceit and censoriousness.
Christ is the only true standard of character, and he who sets himself up as a standard for others is putting himself in the place of Christ. And since the Father "hath committed all judgment unto the Son" (John 5:22), whoever presumes to judge the motives of others is again usurping the prerogative of the Son of God. These would-be judges and critics are placing themselves on the side of antichrist, "who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." 2 Thessalonians 2:4.
For Ellen White, the "beam in our eye" is not so much us having the same defect as the person we're criticizing, or us being sinners, since we're all that; rather, it's the judgmental, critical attitude that accompanies our tendency to continually note "specks" in other people's eyes. While Ellen White may be going too far when she likens such an attitude to that of the Antichrist, it's not a good attitude to have, for it's a far cry from the love and compassion that Jesus Christ desires for us.
I can easily point out people whom I think deserve this message! Some Christians try hard to be righteous, and the result is often that they look down on those not as successful in their Christian walks, or their lifestyles period. "Oh, he appeared rather introverted. He didn't make a good impression on me! He's obviously not an others-oriented person!" "He's not a mature Christian, like I am." "Something's wrong! There are things that I don't think are true in your life." I don't detect much compassion in those sorts of statements, which I've actually heard from the mouths of evangelicals.
But, then, am I allowed to criticize them for that? When do I cease to offer constructive criticism, and instead become the censorious, judgmental, carping, hateful person that the Bible and Ellen White bemoan? To be honest with you, it's hard for me to love the self-righteous! And, while it would be nice to believe that all evangelicals are completely open to self-examination in light of those who rebuke them, that's not necessarily the case. Things are so polarizing these days, that criticism often leads people of many persuasions to become defensive, to attack their critics, or simply to ignore them.
2. That brings me to my next point: Can I stereotype people? I'll probably continue to do so on this blog, but should I? Much of my life has been spent resenting certain groups. For a long time, it was, "Oh, those evil, hateful, self-righteous liberals! They're such hypocrites! And smug at that!" Now, take out the word "liberal" and insert in its place "evangelical," and you've got my current mindset.
It's not that stereotypes are totally without basis. People who resent liberals do so on the basis of the liberals they know. The same goes with those who dislike conservative Christianity. Many of us have met people who are self-righteous and not particularly loving, and their religion or political ideology seems to make them worse, not better!
But two things I read tended to challenge some of my stereotypes. One was by a conservative Christian, the other by an ex-Christian freethinker.
Lawson Stone is a professor at Asbury Seminary, which is fairly conservative. In his post, Day 217: A Day of Stories, he discusses stories he heard from seminarians about their experiences:
One student spends his summers in Southeast Asia working with women rescued from the sex trade. Another serves in a depressed town in Pennsylvania helping his parishioners cope with under-employment and sinking hopes as their life-long trades fall victim to changing economic times. Another is launching a work in a midwestern medium sized city to reach people with no former church involvement, who are alienated from church in general.
I tend to stereotype conservative evangelicals as people who are preoccupied with climbing the conservative social ladder and think little about social justice (even though I know plenty who are deeply concerned about it), as people who could care less about me and my concerns. But there are plenty of conservative evangelicals who are deeply concerned about the problems around them, beyond the usual hot-button issues of abortion and homosexuality. They take seriously the Bible's regard for the poor and the struggling.
The other thing I read was from ex-fundamentalist Ken Pulliam's blog. It was a guest post from a former evangelical apologist who worked with the late Walter Martin, Howard Pepper (Another Former Evangelical Tells His Story). For a long time, Howard was in the fundamentalist subculture, until he went to the liberal Claremont School of Theology to broaden his horizons. There were plenty of conservatives there, but, for the first time, he had exposure to theological liberals. Here was his reaction:
...I realized that I had created caricatures (with a lot of help from things Evangelicals wrote and my profs and friends said) of liberals and "liberalism." They hardly resembled, at least at Claremont, what I'd come to expect. Rather, they tended to be consistent in applying "tolerance" (better put as inclusiveness, though with limits), being respectful of me and my views, as well as other conservatives. They were seemingly as devout and spiritually minded as Evangelicals. They liked to pray, worship, etc. But their theology was clearly very different and they were comfortable in it, and excited. (None of which makes it right, of course--for the still-Evangelicals looking in.)
Like Pepper, I went to a liberal seminary: Harvard Divinity School. And I had my stereotypes of liberals. "Oh, liberals claim to be tolerant, but they are some of the most closed-minded, intolerant people on the face of the earth!" "Mainline Protestants are spiritually dead. Do they even have a relationship with God? They probably focus more on their political activism, while leaving God out of the picture!" Then, when I encountered liberal Protestants who prayed regularly and had deep, profound thoughts about God and Christianity, what went through my mind was, "Well, these people only think they know God! Only evangelicals have the real thing, though! They're the ones to whom God speaks!"
Even when I left Harvard, I still had those stereotypes. And, yes, I met plenty of liberals who were closed-minded and cared little about having a relationship with God, focusing instead on politics (e.g., feminism, justice issues, etc.). But, as I think back, especially with the help of Pepper's post, I realize that my stereotypes were a little off-base. There were plenty of liberals I met who were actually open to hearing other points of view, even ones to the right. Some found that refreshing. Some were just nice people!
But here's another thought: perhaps I learned that I shouldn't stereotype all people in a particular group, be it evangelical, liberal, conservative, etc. But I'd also be off-base to stereotype individuals, especially those I dislike. Their characteristics that turn me off are only one aspect of their personality. They may also have good things about them! I don't know. Who am I to judge? Shouldn't I just love them?
3. Finally, there was the Desperate Housewives episode a few days ago, which was specifically about judging. Gabrielle was judging people in her neighborhood, then she was judged when one of the neighbor's kids got hurt in her backyard, and the neighbor was telling everyone that Gabby was an unfit parent, who didn't supervise her children and their guests! Orson Bean thought that Tom was letting Lynette emasculate him because Tom was always giving in to her, until Tom explained to him that he does that intentionally because she needs to feel she has control in a world that's not always controllable.
But the most thought-provoking story-line involved Bree. Because her husband Orson embarrassed her last season and is blackmailing her to stay in the marriage (though I forget what he's using against her), Bree has been having an affair with her divorce attorney, Susan's sleazy ex-husband. This is disappointing, since Bree is a devout Christian and a conservative Republican. I was wondering if she was even listening to God, or at the very least her conscience!
But then, Bree hears what I call the voice of God: a Carribbean maid in the motel where Bree and the lawyer are having their fling. When the maid hears Bree talking on the cell-phone with her husband, she concludes that Orson must be a good man, since he's going to the store for Bree. When did her man ever do that for her? She needles Bree about her affair and advises her to read her Bible in the motel nightstand. When Bree asks her about her own story, the maid replies that she once had a loving husband and decided one day to have some fun in an affair. But the affair didn't last, and she was left with nothing in the end. And so she pities those having a good time in their adultery, for she fears that they too will be left with nothing.
Bree acknowledges that she feels guilt, especially because Orson is a decent husband, who greets her every day with hope in his eyes about their marriage getting better. At the end, Bree is evaluating her own behavior, and she's reading the Bible. But, alas, she gives into temptation, and the affair continues.
Was the maid judging Bree? There are times when we may need to tell others about the speck in their eye, to wake them up, to inform them of the potential consequences of their wrongdoing. Being hyper-critical? No. Trying to shove things down their throat? Probably not a good idea. But informative criticism out of a concern for their well-being? That's probably a good thing.
