Posted by Mike O on: 09.04.2008 /
Is it ever OK to judge someone? I listened to a sermon on judging this week, and the speaker made what I thought was a really good distinction between what he called “judging” and “testing.”
The Bible typically has two definitions for the word “judge.” The first is the one we think of when we think of judgemental people. Judge not lest ye be judged. But the second had more to do with “testing,” or being careful what you accept.
We all agree, I’m sure, that judging in the judgemental sense is wrong. But “testing,” or using good judgement, is quite alright. Take, for example, John Belushi’s Animal House character. You don’t know him, so you can’t judge him as a person. On the other hand, if you found out your daughter was dating him, you would be well within your rights to “test” whether or not he is someone you want your daughter spending time with. Or at least I am sure you would want her to test whether or not he was going to be worth her while!
So where do you draw the line between “judging” and “testing?” According to the speaker, it has to do with what he calls your “realm of responsibility.” You shouldn’t judge him because he’s not within your realm of responsibility. But if he wants to date your daughter, she’s within your realm of responsibility so testing his character is almost required of you as a parent.
Christians can be a judgemental lot. But many times, I think, we’re accused of being judgemental when really we’re just using our own best judgement. There is nothing wrong with testing, and rejecting, ideas. Christians and atheists alike do it all the time. But when it devolves into judging the people with those ideas, that’s when we’ve gone too far.
Leave a Reply
Comment by: Jason
1 09/4/08 6:26 AM | Comment Link |Does this relate to the idea of hating the sin but loving the sinner? You can judge a person’s actions but shouldn’t judge a person?
I ask because I don’t like the idea on practical grounds. What a person does and says is a product of who they are. If we judge a person’s actions or words we judge the person. Invoking Godwin’s Law I have to say that I judge Hitler to have been a truly terrible person based on his actions and words, both in what he did and what he allowed in his name. I feel completely justified in my opinion even though he might have been kind to small animals and made a good husband to Eva.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with judging a person. I do think it is wrong to judge a group based on the actions of one member of that group. Sometimes I forget that but I don’t mind when I get reminded. ;) Hitler was a monster and leader of Germany but that doesn’t mean that all leaders of Germany or all Austrians are monsters.
Generalisations are a useful tool for human beings to weigh how to act in social situations. They let us down when we take the wrong bit of information about a group and apply it to all members. Hitler was Austrian, spoke German, was nominally a Roman Catholic, ate little meat and no red meat, enjoyed painting but wasn’t of a high enough standard to receive formal education as an artist, he was a war veteran with an interest in the occult and a thousand other things. It’s Germans who always get compared with Hitler though or people with German names or accents. Never Catholics, painters or war vets.
Similarly we get Stalin or Pol Pot as shining examples of the evils of atheism. Not because they were atheists but because they did terrible things and were also atheists.
At best we should try not to judge people without reason and try to keep in mind that our judgments might be in error so we should be prepared to change them.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
2 09/4/08 10:15 AM | Comment Link |So does the speaker think Christians should refrain from commenting on whether other people have abortions since it’s outside their realm of responsibility?
Comment by: Mike O
3 09/5/08 3:21 AM | Comment Link |It’s related.
On that point I think it’s OK for us to disagree. I’m not talking about the extremes you brought up - but where is the room for reconciliation? Where is the room for good intent when people do the wrong thing? Where is the room for forgiveness?
You made valid points with your extremes, but I’m really just talking about the normal day-to-day way we look at those around us. I know it’s possible to “hate the sin and love the sinner” because I do it all the time.
That’s a good way to put it.
Comment by: Mike O
4 09/5/08 3:27 AM | Comment Link |I don’t know - we were at my brother’s cabin and I had never heard that speaker before. But I doubt it. Most Christians, including myself, have strong opinions on abortion. But at the same time, people who have had abortions are welcomed as any other person who’s made mistakes. As I said to Jason, where is the room for forgiveness and reconciliation? If a person had an abortion and they think it was wrong, that person is not “judged as an abortion haver” but accepted as a fellow human being and if they’re a Christian, spiritual sister. If they don’t think it’s wrong, I would hope they would still be accepted the same way, but with the understanding that there is a difference on this subject. I know that sounds kind of hopeful, but I think that should be the goal.
Comment by: Jason
5 09/5/08 6:00 AM | Comment Link |Forgiveness isn’t a simple issue, Mike. Christians tend to present it as something that we should all do and all encourage. I can think of many actions that I wouldn’t forgive and wouldn’t want to. They’re extremes of behaviour that I’m sure you can imagine.
I might forgive someone who stole something from me but I’d never trust them with money or property again. If I was told of a thief I wouldn’t give them the opportunity to steal from me or the opportunity not to steal from me. I wouldn’t test them because I’d have judged them as undeserving of trust. I don’t think that is a fault. I should allow them the opportunity to earn my trust that might change my opinion but there is no reason to be naive or to place temptation before them to test them.
Comment by: Mike O
6 09/5/08 7:02 AM | Comment Link |Absolutely the right way to approach forgiveness! I think for a long time people mixed forgiveness and trust - you can’t forgive unless you pretend what happened never happened. But that’s dumb and dangerous.
Forgiveness is a release from past offenses, not a trust that there will be no future offenses. That trust needs to be rebuilt - if it even can be!
I have a friend who turned out to be a sexual predator. He now has a federal record as a sex offender. He was my friend, and is my friend. But even though he has been out of jail for about three years now and is trying to leave the past behind him, he will never be in my house alone with my wife and son because he shouldn’t be trusted. It’s just not my style to desert him along with everyone else - at least not this time.
Comment by: danielg
7 09/30/08 1:26 AM | Comment Link |We are also told to be discerning and wise. We stay away from the house of the harlot, the glutton, and the drunkard because we know that their ways lead to death.
And we proclaim such truths. And while such truths can be delivered in a self righteous judgmental fashion, they can also be delivered in an honest way that admits that I am sinful too, but attempting to save myself and please God by avoiding such errors.
Better is open rebuke than love caerfully concealed - it is more loving to correct the erring than to let them pass to destruction without warning.