Jul 17 2008
Where is the fine line of being judgmental and truth?
I started this blog to help me with my judgmental attitudes and legalistic ways. I fully admit I have a long way to go. One of the things that has been helpful for me is the self-correction or should I say peer correction that occurs here. Many times I blow off my ignorance only to be corrected by some of you. I am not offended by that at all. In fact I will admit it when I see I’m wrong.
Here is where I’m struggling. Where is the fine line between standing for the truth I understand in the Bible and being Judgmental? I’m just curious to find that balance. Can you help me? So often I will quote from the Bible and be accused of being closed minded or judgmental. I’m sure there are times that is true. But if I’m a follower of Jesus Christ shouldn’t God’s Word be my guide?
So where is the balance? How do you know when you have crossed over the line of judging a person verses a doctrine or belief?
What do you think?
20 responses so far
I don’t know that there’s a “pat answer” to this but here’s mine: The original word for judge, as I read it, means “to declare guilty”. And I think that’s where the rub lies. Apparently the problem, or potential problem, referred to in the passage was the declaring of people guilty rather than the Christlike approach of restoration, and it’s certainly a problem now (at least in my experience).
Someone once said that the prophets of Baal and the prophets of God both sacrificed bulls and goats. Same action, different purpose (and effect). Perhaps this is like that.
I also had the odd thought that, if I “declare someone guilty”, I’ve tacitly claimed I have the right to declare innocence OR guilt. And I SURE don’t have THAT right.
Bob Cleveland’s last blog post..Sow the Seeds, See the Harvest
You raise a good question K and I am inclined to agree with Bob that there is no pat answer. However, the rub comes because we are called to judge them by their fruits. For example, in my blog today I make reference (with a click to it) of a magazine article about Joel O. I am very “judgmental” when it comes to that lifestyle and teaching but are we not supposed to be as “wise as serpents and as innocent as doves”? Do we just discard the Scripture that tells us to teach the people so they won’t be tossed around by every wind of doctrine? In reference to the recent entry about BHO I did not see that as judgmental. You reported the facts and allowed people to come to their own conclusions. I certainly do. You did the same with the church gun giveaway. I thought it was nonsense but others thought it was okay. But those issues are not going to send someone to hell. No, let me rephrase that: they are not issues that determine one’s final destination. I personally believe that John 14:6 is not up for grabs. Call me judgmental or close-minded that is ok. I think legalism takes hold when we make non-essentials binding and judge another man’s commitment by those standards. Enough for now. Will comment more later. (Bet you await with bated breath).
Bill(cycleguy)’s last blog post..Simplicity-Part 2
One thing I’ve noticed with people is that they pull the “judgmental” card when they are convicted by what someone else is saying. If you hold a brother or sister accountable for their sin in private (as we are told to do in the NT), are you being judgmental? You’re passing a judgment on their actions…
As for the Barak Obama piece, I thought you handled it well. While I don’t always agree with your views on topics, this one didn’t raise any red flags with me. You put his statement out there and let people make up their own minds. What I find so interesting is that people are so quick to tell you what you were thinking when you made the post. Who knew there were so many mind readers in the world today?
http://www.carm.org/sermons/Rom_14_1-12.htm
I remember, back in the college days of the 1980s, when a certain professor at then Lee College was confronting an ethical issue in a class. One of the students stood up, and said, “Well, Dr [So-and-So], that is just very narrow-minded, isn’t it?” He said, “Yes, it is narrow-minded, but it is also the truth. The truth can always afford to be narrow.”
Jesus said that the road to eternal life is “narrow”…and while HE is our only hope of salvation, the truth as revealed in the Scriptures can be very narrow in this pluralistic society, gone mad.
Kevin, I HEARTILY and HAPPILY applaud your quest for truth and righteousness. I only wish my desire for both were as strong as yours seems to be.
Keep it up.
Phil Hoover’s last blog post..Why the struggle?
Hi Kevin,
My personal thoughts generally revolve around the reason Jesus came into the world in the first place. He said that He didn’t come to condemn the world, but to save it (John 3:17).
Paul pointed out in Romans 1 that there’s no one left out of the crowd of those whose behavior shows that they don’t know God.” And then he said in Romans 2, “Therefore, you are in excusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself, for you who judge practice the same things.” (Those who go around judging others need to realize that they’re on the list too). This focus on the sinfulness of all of mankind is a set up for Paul’s main point - the good news of righteousness by faith (of Jesus who came to save all of those sinners, not condemn) - beginning with the ‘therefore’ and ‘but’ in Rom 3:20-21.
The job of condemning sin had already been done by the Law. It’s job was to impute sin (Rom 5:13) and to stop every mouth and make the world guilty before God (Rom 3:19). But then came the good news… All of our sin and guilt was put on Jesus. Our “job,” I believe, is to go out and tell the world the truth about this wonderful message of reconciliation and salvation. I say this, as opposed to our job being to go out and try to get sinners to stop sinning. Even if we could get sinners to change their behavior, we would simply be left with “good” sinners. Changed behavior does not equal a New Creation. Can you imagine how much the world might actually change for the better if we began to simply proclaim the good news to the world instead of always pointing out how sinful they are?!
I do believe that in our personal relationships with each other, there is room for shining light on a brother or sister who is caught up in some sort of sin, and I think we need to be careful and use great wisdom and to be prayerfully guided by the Spirit in us. Otherwise we could end up simply going around pointing out sin all day, every day!
Kevin, I so appreciate you putting yourself out there like you do. Your humility and honesty inspires me, it really does, to be more open and to be more receptive of what others have to say.
Joel B.’s last blog post..What record?
K,
There is also a fine line between preaching and meddling. Maybe it’s the same line?
Grace AND Truth, brother, Grace AND Truth.
Rick Boyne’s last blog post..If it’s on the internet, it must be true
Speaking of grace and truth… just a thought here. During most of my evangelical life I’ve heard about some ‘balance’ between grace and truth. It’s as if there’s some imaginary line between grace and truth, with grace being on one side and truth being on the other, and then we need to find the middle ground between the two. Usually what is meant by “truth” is the sinfulness of man and what is meant by “grace” is the forgiveness of sins. In other words, we must confront people with the “truth” of their sinfulness and then give them “grace” for forgiveness.
But here’s my thought. John says, “For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (John 1:17).
Law is contrasted here with both grace and truth. Since the law is what convicted the world of the guilt of sin, wouldn’t the “grace and truth” that came through Jesus, both be something different than confronting people with sins? In other words, isn’t “law” (conviction of sin) on one side, contrasted with both grace and truth on the other side?
Joel B.’s last blog post..What record?
Joel,
Very good points and question.
My point in saying “Grace AND Truth” was that they are usually separated by well-intentioned folks to be an either/or situation. We are good at giving Truth but not so good at giving grace. When they are combined as Christ brought to us, then we can treat people as Jesus did. For example, with the woman at the well, Jesus didn’t confront her with her sin, but told her to “go and sin no more”. The episode, as a whole, demonstrated that He cared for her and was concerned about how people treated her.
When we deal with folks who are ‘in sin’ (who isn’t? ) we must demonstrate that we actually care for them instead of simply trying to be holier than them. When we are guided by the Holy Spirit, we can then BECOME grace and truth to the person who needs it, hopefully being an instrument of God to draw that person towards God, instead of pushing them away.
Reconciliation for God’s glory is our goal.
Rick Boyne’s last blog post..If it’s on the internet, it must be true
Kevin,
I think my response is similar to Bob’s. To me, standing for the truth (i.e. knowing what you believe and why and being willing to communicate it even if it is unpopular) and being judgmental (assuming you know why someone disagrees with you, assigning bad motives to them, condemning them, looking down on them with an air of superiority, implying that the issue is so simple that no other viewpoint could possible be reasonable) are not really two extremes with a fine line between them. You can have firm convictions about what is true and communicate it in a way that is judgmental or in a way that isn’t. The latter is the one that is most likely to promote dialogue and encourage the other side to actually listen to what you have to say. As Bob indicated, the way that isn’t judgmental has a large element of humility. It focuses on the truth and communicates it with humility and love. It doesn’t imply that I’m superior because I have the truth nor that the other is inferior because he disagrees.
Hi Rick,
I see what you’re saying, and I agree with your whole point that we need to show people that we care for them and are not just lording our self-righteousness over them. What I’m getting at, however, is a little different. Why do we think that “truth” necessarily means dealing with people’s sins? As I pointed out with the John 1:17 verse, both grace and truth are contrasted with the very thing that pointed out sin (law).
In Acts 17 Paul was in Athens and “his spirit was provoked within him when he saw that the city was given over to idols.” What was his response to all this idol worship? Did he get out his quill and write a letter back home telling them how utterly sinful this city was? Did he get all ‘righteous’ on the people and hit them with the “truth” that they had a moral problem they needed to correct? Did he go about trying to get a petition started to make idol worship illegal in Athens?
Instead, “he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and with the Gentile worshipers, and in the marketplace daily with those who happened to be there.” As I read the full story, to me it seems as if he wasn’t preaching against what they were doing so much as he was simply telling them the truth about the true God. It seems to me that he didn’t go around preaching the so-called ‘truth of right living’ to try to change society that way. Instead, he simply preached the truth of good news of Jesus.
Again, within the body I do think there’s room for dealing with sinful behavior. I personally think of it as something that is done within the context of close friendships, where trust has been established, and not so much a general outcry against the sins of the church or of society. If I’ve built a friendship with a man who’s committing adultery or with a woman who’s planning on having an abortion, I don’t need a state or federal law to get them to stop.
The church today has seemingly made little effort at putting our arms around the sinners who are close to us, and instead has made a much greater effort in making a fuss about the decay of society. Just imagine if it were the other way around! I can’t make anyone see things my way, but really, which way is the way of Christ?
Joel B.’s last blog post..What record?
IMHO, the line is pretty simple: judgmentalism is based on my standards; truth is based on God’s standards.
Les
Thanks for all of your insight. I may be more confused than I was when I wrote this.
Kevin Bussey’s last blog post..Where is the fine line of being judgmental and truth?
I could not have stated any better than what Les Puryear said. Well said Les!
Judging is an action or an attitude. Truth is the foundation for a judgment.
I would disagree with Les (lovingly, because he and I have disagreed before). Judgmentalism is the application of truth without grace. I can use the standards of God and still be very judgmental. In other words, I can presume that I have the right to enforce God’s law.
That’s very wrong. Very wrong.
It is never wrong to tell the truth. It is very wrong to condemn. We cross “the line” when we allow our personal convictions about an issue to cloud our grace and love for the person to whom we are telling “the truth”.
Les,
In addition to Bernard’s comment, I have some difficulty in the practical application of your definition because I and my thought processes are necessarily involved in me coming to an understanding of what God’s standards are…doesn’t everyone think he is just applying God’s standards, not his own?
I just have a couple of thoughts to add.
1. Being legalistic means (to me) that everyone must conform to your understandings on all issues.
2. Do not confuse confidence and legalism. I am confident in what I know but I also recognize that I may be wrong (on issues outside of salvation). Legalism would say that I am right and you are wrong, period.
Just some of my thoughts. Who knows I may be totally off base.
Not that anyone has to agree with me, but if I can try to clear up something that I’ve said… What I’m saying is that I don’t think “truth” is a matter of approaching people with God’s standards, but rather it’s a matter of approaching them with grace (with the truth of the good news).
Truth, as I’m looking at it, is a matter of telling sinners (in word and in action) how much God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. Approaching people with “God’s standards” won’t help them one bit. The entire Old Covenant is proof of that (Hebrews 8).
I think that too many people have a very anemic view of grace, thinking of it only as the forgiveness of sins, and so they naturally think we need to preach standards right along with it. Hence the common view of “grace and truth.” But grace is so much more than that! Grace is the divine enablement for Christian living. Paul says we’re all gifted “according to the grace given to us.” He says, “By the grace of God, I am what I am.” And he says, “I became a servant of this gospel by the gift of God’s grace given me through the working of his power,” and that all his labor in the Lord is “not I, but the grace of God with me.”
It’s grace (not law or standards) that teaches a person to say no to ungodliness and worldly lusts, living soberly, righteously and godly (Titus 2:11-14). The reason, as I’ve recently heard someone put it, and as I agree with, it because grace gives us full access to a loving Father, allowing us to draw near to Him with confidence and boldness. Grace teaches us and allows us to be near to God, not because of our standards that we’ve kept, or because of our holy performance, but because of His grace. Would being near to God ever cause us to sin? It causes us to be more like Him! Law and standards (which I believe some people wrongfully call “the truth”) just can’t do that!
If we (Christians) teach people the fullness of the truth about grace, how can the world not change for the better?
Again, just my thoughts, take ‘em or leave ‘em.
Joel B.’s last blog post..Christian The Lion - into the wild
Jonathan and Bernard,
How dare you disagree with me?
Just kidding.
Scripture tells us to be discerning but not judgmental. What is the difference? Discerning is evaluation according to God’s standard, His holy word. Judgmental is evaluation according to what I think is right or wrong, not necessarily according to the Bible.
Of course, the application is often going to be flawed as we are flawed creatures. However, assuming that we rightly divide the word of truth (I know that’s a BIG assumption), then the principle stands.
Allow me a few examples:
1. When I counsel with a couple who wants to live together outside of marriage, I take them to the scriptures to show them what God says about such a decision. It is sin because God says so, not because I say so. Am I being judgmental or discerning? Discerning because I am faithfully adhering to what God says in His word.
2. One person says I’m not a Christian because I don’t speak in tongues? Judgment or discernment? Judgment. God’s word doesn’t say that speaking in tongues is a hallmark of all Christians.
3. One person says the King James Bible is the only correct translation of the Bible. If I choose to preach out of another translation, then I am a false prophet. Judgment or discernment? Judgment based on personal opinion, not scripture.
4. Someone says that everyone is a child of God. However, I say that is not true. I say that everyone is a creation of God and to be His child you must be adopted into His family through Jesus Christ (John 1:12). Am I being judgmental or discerning? Discerning because of John 1:12, 14:6, and many other scriptures.
5. Someone says that homosexuality is an acceptable practice. I say it is sin because of the clear witness of scripture. Am I being judgemental or discerning? Discerning because of the clear witness of God’s word.
I could cite many other examples. When Christians do not affirm the values and practices of the world because of God’s word, then we are described as mean-spirited, intolerant, and judgmental. In the examples I have cited, I say that we are discerning, not judgmental. There is a huge difference.
Can this principle be abused to suit one’s own purposes? Absolutely. Scripture must be viewed through the lens of a solid hermenutic, laying aside human presupposition and examining God’s principle according to context through the leading of the Holy Spirit. Where this principle is ignored, we are in danger of crossing the line from discernment to judgmentalism.
Also, I would say where we seek to speak to someone out of a sense of carrying ought God’s judgment or a sense of “I’m right and you’re wrong,” then I think we come close to crossing the line as well. We must be careful to handle God’s Word as faithful, loving stewards, seeking to lovingly correct misunderstanding and poor application out of a sincere love for the well being of the other person.
Les
This is a great question and one many in our culture is struggling with. Recently as a pastor I had to make a decision not to let someone take a leadership role in the church because of an open sin that the person was not willing to repent of.
I was told that I was being judgemental and unfair. The person left the church because the person said that they could no longer come to a church that was going to judge people.
I think the line is crossed when you are holding someone accountable out of pride, out of anger, and are out to take a personal shot at them. I believe that the line is not crossed when you are backing the Word of God, when you are handling the matter with love and with grace.
When one has to call another person on their sin, it is done to bring this person to repentance and back into a right fellowship with God.
However the culture will always tell us that when we say something is wrong that we are being judgemental, but they are to for calling us judgemental.
The gospel is narrow, the truth is narrow and as believers in Christ we must stick to the truth and show grace and love at the same time.
Lee Peoples
http://www.stewbaptist.org
http://www.leepeoples.wordpress.com
Lee Peoples’s last blog post..A Need for Humility