"As long as I am doing what is right, nobody has the right to judge me. What is accountable to some Christians is of no consequence to others. I have had Christians lambast me for not attending church each and every week. Scripture "tells" them that I should be doing so. God tells me another. You have to listen to God as he speaks to you. One should never assume to discern how God speaks to each of us. This indeed, if we are being faithful and doing well in Gods eyes. In as much, judging others for how God spoke to them is blasphemy. Indeed, a human is but a human."
One point I want to make about this and one of the reasons I have for spending a little more time on these is that the writer of the above quote is my father-in-law and I want to be sure this is handled with care, not just because we are going camping early next month :-) , but because I think these are important ideas to deal with.
Also, I want to be careful not to villify, in any way, him or anyone else who may hold these views. I strive to do this while thinking that any one who holds these particular views is mistaken. I don't think he's a bad guy, just mistaken on these points.
And I am certain that y'all will hear what I have to say and consider the arguments and reasons I offer, biblically and reasonably and respond accordingly; that is, offer alternative reasons as to why I am wrong (or mistaken) or be persuaded (or not) by strength of the reasons. And while these are secondary issues to the Gospel, I truly think they affect how we, particularly as folks who claim to be Christians, view correction, criticism, exegesis (how we read and interpret the Bible), and "hearing the voice of God" (and what that looks like for the Christian).
Here are the problems as I see them.
1) "Nobody has a right to judge me."
2) "Scripture "tells" them that I should be doing so. God tells me another. You have to listen to God as He speaks to you."
3) "Judging others for how God spoke to them is blasphemy."
Since this is, in my view, an extensive bit to comment on, I will be posting them as three separate posts so as to help with the readability and limited time many have to spend reading this blog.
Now, with all that said, I did not want to spend a lot of time on the first point of "If I am doing what is right, nobody has the right to judge me.", because this issue has been discussed previously. But I want to be fair and thorough, so it may be longer than I hoped. Here goes:
Greg Koukl, of Stand to Reason alludes to the Matt. 7:1 verse "judge not, lest you be judged..." in his article Scoop on Judging, in relation to a similar quote by Deepak Chopra ("Attractive people judge neither themselves nor others") As seen recently on a Starbuck's cup.
[This guy represents the "bad" type of judging]Koukl states, "Here's the problem. Judgment always entails
assessment. Is Chopra's analysis an assessment? It seems to be. So is Jesus'. This raises a difficulty. Taken without qualification, the statement "You shouldn't judge" is self-refuting, being itself an example of judgment."
Also, "Jesus did not condemn all judgments, only hypocritical ones - arrogant condemnations characterized by disdain and condescension. Not all judgments are of this sort. In fact, even in this passage Jesus actually enjoins a different kind of judgment once the hypocrisy has been dealt with ("first take the log out of your own eye, then").
There are two other kinds of judging in Scripture that are not condemned, but commanded. Some judgments are judicial, proper when done by proper authorities. Judges judge. They pass sentence. That's their job. Church discipline is of this sort (Matthew 18:15-20, 1 Corinthians 5:12-13, Galatians 6:1).
Other judgments are assessments - appraisals of right or wrong, wise or foolish, accurate or inaccurate, rational or irrational. This kind of judgment is not forbidden; it is commanded. Jesus' instructions "Do not give what is holy to dogs" (Matthew 7:6) require this kind of judgment (What is "holy" Who are the "dogs"). Peter reminds us to "be of sound judgment" since "the end of all things is at hand," (1 Peter 4:7).
Some assessments are moral. Paul commands this kind of judgment: "Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them" (Ephesians 5:11). This is to be done not "according to appearance," but by "righteous" standards (John 7:24) according to Jesus, who chastised the Jews for their failures here: "And why do you not judge even on your own initiative what is right?" (Luke 12:57) End Koukl...I would consider the issues I raise to be these types of disagreements to be part of this assessment variety. In order to determine if someone is doing the right or wrong thing, with regard to their life, behavior, or ideas, it is necessary to judge. Also, if someone says it is wrong for you to judge me; their comment is self-refuting because it is, in fact, a judgement.
To end this, I leave you all with another article, Who Are You To Say? as a correlating piece that deals with this common objection some offer when you offer an argument for your view.
Update: The two other posts may be a long time coming as I have other business to attend to for a week or two. Thanks for your patience.
15 comments:
As Porky Pig says," Th Th That's All Folks".
What do you mean by that?
Derrick
I believe that the sharing of ideas and points of interest is very good. Somebody posts their thoughts, and another may share their own views for others that read the blog to ponder. I enjoy making posts as well. To read a new posting that is based upon my personal take on an issue may be neutral in itself. It was in fact, just my personal opinion. To take a personal opinion and create a posting that says I am mistaken on several points is one thing. To make it a long process of actually taking apart individual pieces of my opinion to correct my opinion into individual new postings is another. For me to open up a new posting to again see that it is based upon correcting my opinion seems rather rough. In this posting in question, I did not quote scripture in any way,shape, or form. Had I done so, indeed I am accountable for that in correction of mistakes. It was but my personal opinion. My opinion does not need to be corrected. To reply with a comment is fine. I just do not care to be the basis for new blog topics that use my opinion as a base for what was interpreted as my being a mistaken person on several points. An entire paragraph of a blog response of mine was used as the major point as somebody who needs to be corrected. I do not believe that my ideas have consequences with how I deal with people in our culture at all. That seems somewhat insulting. I've been around a long time, have worked, lived, and associated with many cultures, and am proud of how I interact with most of them still today. In as much, I just do not care to be under the blog microscope due to my opinion. It is nothing personal whatsoever, not at all. You are an excellent writer with wonderful writing talent.keep up your talent and you will excel even further as a writer.Your students will appreciate your encouraging them to think.
To actually answer your question, "Th Th That's all folks" means that I probably should not offer my opinion in the blog.I will simply be a reader. If my opinion requires so many corrections, I must sit back and evalute why this is so. No biggie! It is important for me to not make errors in writing. Now, I am better the blog student than the blog writer. I enjoy reading a bunch anyway!
Russ,
Thank you for being a consistent poster. I often appreciate your posts. I apologize if your feelings were hurt in this exchange and I am sorry if you felt attacked.
To all,
I think that sharing our various thoughts and ideas is a good thing. I also think that ideas have consequences. If you spend any amount of time on this blog, you will hear me say that. It is because I think it is true. What we think and believe affects how we deal with people, it affects how we live, it even affects us if we don’t always realize.
One of the reasons for this blog is to encourage a discussion of ideas and views. With that can come a critique and an evaluation of different views and opinions we may hold. The difficulty with that is that sometimes we may be emotionally invested in a view, and really hold it personally. When that view is challenged, it is easy for us to get defensive. It’s like if you say that 24 is the stupidest show around, I may get upset. After others tear me off of you, I may be offended that you don’t love a really great show.
However, religion is not like that. Religion is not about whatever I feel like; it is not about which flavor of ice cream you like best, or what TV show is the best. It is about what heals the disease we have. If you are diabetic, you take insulin-not insulin plus a little of this and a little of that-if you want the best treatment. The Bible says we have a sin problem-we deserve death and punishment. We cannot take whatever we want to make us feel better-Jesus plus this or that. Christianity means something in particular. Through my life, Christianity has not changed, but my life and ideas in relation to it has changed, and I think as I continue to learn, I get closer to what God wants me to be.
With that rabbit trail out of the way, it is important to note that this is a public blog, and since one purpose is the exchange of ideas, sometimes your thoughts, opinions, and ideas are going to be challenged and evaluated. With that, emotions may run a little high, but always know, folks, that I intend to evaluate the views I consider mistaken. Because the blog is a public thing, I (or others) will sometimes respond publicly. Please do not take offense at this. This is the nature of many apologetics-type blogs.
This goes especially with times where we claim to speak for or hear from God. I have said it before, but if you are claiming to be Christian your faith is a public faith. We are not Lone Ranger Christians, nor are we supposed to be.
Did I mention that ideas have consequences? I think this is true of our opinions as well as our reasoned arguments. If my view is that all religions are the same, I am going to treat religious interaction and discussion differently than if I thought that Christianity is true, that it means something in particular, that Jesus is the only way to salvation…I will try to defend my views with reasons, and I hope the same for all of you out there.
My hope is to respond with gentleness and respect while giving reasons for what I believe to be true, not just for me, but for everyone. I could be wrong, and if you think I am, please offer reasons why. If I consider your reasons to be better, I am open to changing my mind. It is my mission to be open to truth in all its offense, and splendor.
However, if you choose to continue to post, I cannot promise you complete safety for your feelings. I cannot promise you that your views will not be challenged. That is the nature of many apologetics blogs; that is the nature of this blog. And this goes for whether you are my father-in-law, my wife, or a complete stranger; I would attempt to persuade someone on what I consider a mistaken view. I could be mistaken myself, but it is up to others to demonstrate how I am mistaken.
My feelings are not hurt by the exchange of ideas. My hope, for this blog is that if you wish to continue to post, that you post with what you think about something rather than how you feel about it, that way your feelings aren't as hurt.
Derrick
Very well put Derrick. I know that your intentions are pure. Only those of seeing a comment which does not seem accurate to you, and debating it with valid reasons and scripture. What I hear you saying is that at any time, my comments and opinions can be challenged. I am ok with that. I would hope that I would have enough basis for my opinions that I would be able to defend them. So, if I said that 24 is not the best show...you may disagree publicly with me and give reasons why it is, in your opinion, the best show. And I could then debate back supporting my opinion. The big difference here is that a debate on the best show is far less important than other biblical and societal issues.
I do agree with both of your opinions. It is important though, that #2 and #3 be evaluated using the complete thought. The previous sentences to both #2 and #3 are critical to the meaning. To utilize only #2 and #3 without the preceding sentence may be interpreted in a completely different way. In #2 this is particularly important. I do not at all have a problem with my opinions being challenged as long as the challenge applies to my direct and complete thought on the matter. This may not be true for all writers, but my thoughts are sometimes drawn out into two or three sentences. This, because I am long winded.
Russ, I agree with you that evaluating the points in context of the complete thought is important.
Also, I have invited you, and anyone to correct me where I misrepresent your view. With regard to the two future posts, I do not think I have. I may run little rabbit trails that are off topic, but the bulk of my response is based on what I understand you to be saying. Not what you imply, but what is said.
I may be wrong in characterizing your view, and that is where you must come in with specific and concrete examples where I misrepresent or mischaracterize your view.
Unfortunately, I do not think the extra sentences change your view in a significant way.
You said:
I do not at all have a problem with my opinions being challenged as long as the challenge applies to my direct and complete thought on the matter. This may not be true for all writers, but my thoughts are sometimes drawn out into two or three sentences. This, because I am long winded.
And you have never corrected me by saying, "hey Derrick, you're full of crap [even though I know you would never say it that way]. That is not what I said...This is what I meant to say...(and lay out your case)"
Since you don't correct me, it seems it would be ok to assume that I have not taken your words out of context because you give no examples of where I have.
This has nothing to do with you being long-winded. It is the way this forum has been set up for as long as I can remember. The practice of chopping up someone's thoughts into smaller bites and responding to each has also been a common practice in regular email and group lists.
See you in a week or so. We'll get to test if your motor can pull "fat kids' ;-)
Derrick
If we are to test the motor for it's ability to pull fat kids, we must dunk my larger than life gut into the water and have Lori run the Scherfenticenbright at full throttle. This, while the two skis struggle in attempt to have my gut clear the waterline. I'll treat it like the flight of the Spruce goose. Just let me clear the water on two skis for one moniute and i'll be happy.
Just as a point of interest; The preceding sentences did indeed have impact on my point. I would know as I was the author. Due to it being contrived as not changing my view in a significant way,again I as the author deem it to be a necessary part of the thought. My views as stated rely upon the complete thought being reviewed. To only make point of the small picture opens up a potential for misunderstanding.
There is always potential for misunderstanding, but as you seem to state, it did not take place in this case, so my cutting down the post into easy to eat thoughts did not affect the overall idea.
Derrick
I suppose I equate my thoughts in terms of taking a bite of steak. One cannot separate the fat, cholesterol, or protein. It is a total package.
My thought is as if taking a bite of steak. One can't separate the fat, cholesterol, and protein. It is required to swallow the entire piece, as, my thought.
oops, my first entry did not show, initialy. Thus, the double whammy. Sorry.
That is ok for the double post.
But, I think this analogy needs to be modified or simply not used in this discussion.
It seems to confuse the issue. You have made clear your assertion that I can't separate certain sentences because it affects the whole meaning. However, it does not seem that I have because no clear example of how I did this has been given.
Nor has any counter-argument been given.
Please note: most of the time I use the word argument, I mean it in the classical sense of giving reasons for why someone should hold a different view, and not in the sense of attacking the other person, physically or in written form (in this medium).
D.
Post a Comment